Then make the website mate
1 Like
It is literally an offical website about weaponry for the USA and stuff
1 Like
it isnt it was made by this guy:
that dosent even have to do anything with the military and even less the US military
its a fansite at best
I seriously can’t tell what that quote has to do with AGMs. and i’m not being rude.
iam telling you why that website isnt a source
That’s (Andreas Parsch )the guy who literally runs designation-systems.net, one of the MOST well known and respected reference sites for U.S. military missile designations. HE IS a recognized researcher in this field, NOT some random blogger.
You’re dismissing a legitimate source just because it doesn’t fit your argument. Meanwhile, you still haven’t provided a single source to back up anything you’ve said.
I’ve given you clear evidence. If you choose to ignore it, that’s your problem.
Provide the source if you dont trust them.
“clear evidence”
a website made by a german that has nothing to do with the military
if you cant comprehend that it is a 3rd party website and thus not a source then i cant help you
and you just claiming that it is a respected website dosent make it a proper source
wikipedia is also respected but not a proper source
You’re attacking the source instead of the facts. I gave you a credible reference documenting the Hughes Longhorn proposal from December 1991. You’ve given me nothing no source, no document, no counter evidence.
Third party or not, it’s still more evidence than you’ve provided. If you have an official document proving the Longhorn never existed as a proposal, show it. Otherwise, you’re just arguing to argue.
The burden of proof is on you now. Got anything real to counter it, or are we done?
then tell me what am i claiming and show me where i did so
Can the two of you check the website mate
You’re claiming: 1) the Longhorn never existed in any practical way, 2) a proposal doesn’t count as “having MITL” unless it was fielded, 3) the AGM-65L designation doesn’t apply to it, and 4) my sources aren’t valid.
But EVEN you admit it was a real concept from Hughes in 1991.
So the only actual disagreement here is whether a documented proposal counts as “existing” which is just semantics.
You’ve given me zero sources to back your claims. Show me something official that says Hughes never proposed it, or we’re done.
the website is irrelevant
is that so hard to understand
no?
At this point what even is this thing about
The website documents a real Hughes proposal from December 1991 that’s the relevant part. Whether you accept the source or not doesn’t change the fact that the Longhorn was a real study.
You keep attacking the source instead of the content. I’ve shown you evidence. You’ve shown me nothing.
At this point, you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. Have a good one.
and you agree with me on that, it never existed but on paper as you said yourself
the Aim-7 familly isnt known as IR missiles even tho there was a proposed IR variant
it dosent becasue the AGM-65L designation was given to a laser guided variant
they arent a guy from germany with no ties to the military isnt a valid source
ron, not to be rude but the Longhorn concept was documented, but arguing over website credentials isn’t getting us anywhere
your comments arent getting anyone anywhere
as always you have no idea what the conversation is even about and even less what you are talking about
because it started with my dream missile thing and it derailed to “the longhorn dosen’t exist” and sources. if the site itself isn’t considered a primary source here, what sources does Parsch list at the bottom of that Longhorn page? Pulling the original paper/article citation from the footer would settle whether Hughes actually pitched it.