4 ms·
The article says the exact opposite of that. Those marks weren't used for satellites.
by wyrm 5y ago
The article says the exact opposite of that. Those marks weren't used for satellites.
- L0in 5y agoYou read the article! We don't do that here.
- mig39 5y agoThe title of the link is: "Cold War spy satellites were calibrated with marks in the Arizona desert." And it's technically true. They were calibrated with marks in the Arizona desert. Just not those big crosses. > While a few sites are listed inside Arizona—near Fort Huachuca and Luke Air Force Base—they are comprised of the tri-bar optical test pattern used by the US government since the early 1950s, not 60-foot-wide concrete crosses.
- hcs 5y agoThe title of the article is "Candy CORN: analyzing the CORONA concrete crosses myth"
- dylan604 5y agoThe author says that, but he admits he's also not an expert and more of an arm-chair historian. So his analysis might not be correct either. It could all be false flag stuff: •They actually were used for this stuff, but don't want to admit it. •They weren't acctually used for this stuff, but want to make people think they were. •They were designed for one purpose, built and paid for by that purpose, but then ultimately piggybacked being used by other services with plausible deniability. Calibration has to be done somehow...
- jaywalk 5y agoI don't think anyone is particularly concerned with putting out false info for 1960s-era spy photography anymore. But I could be wrong. Or simply part of the coverup operation.