From: eaglesondouglas@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 4:39:12 AM UTC+8, Douglas Eagleson wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 2:02:30 AM UTC+8, Keith Willshaw wrote:   
   > > On 24/10/2022 06:11, Douglas Eagleson wrote:   
   > > > I remember the term, sounding, rocket. In the cold war days they may   
   have been used by both sides to test the early warning radar. They   
   > > > were physically small.   
   > > >   
   > > > And they were mostly undetectable. Think of a two foot long re-entry   
   cone.   
   > > > This is extremely useful to test NORAD. The local police would say "what   
   the hell is that" when found by accident. They targeted the plains areas near   
   US operations, like out in the the plains region.   
   > > >   
   > > > I would just say "stay cool" if found in Ukraine.   
   > > More Eagleson bollocks   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > 1) In 1982 the standard test target for the Royal Navy was a 4.5" shell,   
   > > the Class 22 Frigates tested their Sea Wolf Missiles by firing at then   
   > > on the range, now if they can detect and hit on object that size the   
   > > idea that they couldnt see a sounding rocket is absurd.   
   > >   
   > > 2) In WW2 British Radar systems could detect V2's being launched from   
   France   
   > >   
   > > 3) Sounding rockets are typically used for atmospheric and meteorlogical   
   > > research and are routinely tracked by Radar. The British SkylardkRockets   
   > > are still in use launched from a site in the Shetland Islands   
   > >   
   > > You may have stumbled unknowingly on to a truth however, some more   
   > > modern sounding rockets carry a GPS receiver and a transmitter to give   
   > > dynamic positions without the need for a radar system. That way you can   
   > > drive to an interesting location in the middle of nowhere and fire it   
   > > from a mobile launcher.   
   > Both sides I guess are preparing for a dirty bomb event.   
   > Doing radiation measurements to find the epicenter   
   > will be required.   
   >   
   > Two methods are available. Maybe do both.   
   >   
   > Method one: run around with a gps and radiation meter and radio relay the   
   results   
   > the command. This method doesn't use onsite data to project the next survey   
   > data point. So survey path is an after thought.   
   >   
   > Method two: Get a topographic map and survey on well defined paths two   
   > and from land markers such as road intersections, hill tops, dams, and   
   > compass heading to and from these markers. A gps route can serve   
   > to mark distance along path.   
   >   
   > Either method can be used for a first survey recordation. In general   
   > the goal is to use onsite data to define contours. Then plan routes   
   > to point to the epicenter.   
      
      
   I forgot:  Put a 1000 Curie Cobalt or Cesium source on a robot.  A little   
   four wheeler currently used by one or both sides. Wheel it to a trench.   
   And let it do it's business.  Have a failsafe mode to prevent it from   
   being sent back at you.  So the other side causes an accident.   
      
   Proper handling is required of course.  Have a  simple source loading   
   procedure.  Have a lead box for local loading.   
      
   It is classified as a subcategory of a dirty bomb?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)