Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "WatchMojo.com"
channel.
-
@Bob-my1sx
_"Frustrating.. I studied Engineering and am an avid Astronomer."
Judging by your posts, only a self-proclaimed one. Your personal appeal to authority is irrelevant here. The Apollo programme was designed and developed by those far cleverer and more capable than you or I.
"Space is 65 miles up"
Actually the FAI, the international record-keeping body for aeronautics, defines the Kármán line as the space boundary, at an altitude of 62 miles. The U.S. military, and NASA all set the boundary of space at 50 miles.
"Space Station is only 250 miles up... Why's that? Why Were they afraid to go 10k miles away from Earth?"
What are you talking about? The moon is an average of 238,855 from earth. Afraid to go? We landed on the moon six times, and in addition to this, placed crews into orbit on two occasions - also circling it during the aborted Apollo 13. Going to the moon is extremely dangerous, but also, hugely expensive. The Apollo programme was cancelled due to cost and a lack of political public will. Since then, development has focussed on near earth orbit. The advent of Project Artemis and Space X Starship is about the change all that.
"Something they're not telling us? Is it Radiation? Is that why?"
The risks and hazards of prolonged/deep space exploration beyond the protection of the earth's magnetic field are huge, but not insurmountable. Apollo was a sprint - a calculated risk.
Yet they allege they went to the Moon, In largely1950's technology"
Actually no. The Apollo programme was a sea change demanding huge levels of innovation, research and development. It ushered in many new and nascent technologies.
"60s top range cars and aeroplanes ALL LEAKED, unreliable and inefficient."
So what? The technology developed for the Apollo programme did not.And actually, that's not necessarily true is it? Concorde was developed during the 1960s. There were some marvels of automotive and aeronautical engineering born of this age.
"Even in until 1980s tech was still infant really."
Technology is constantly evolving. of course much of 80s tech was in its infancy compared to today. But look at the pace of change since the industrial revolution.
"Something's not right, be honest."
The Apollo programme is entirely consistent with the developments and technical possibilities of the age. Necessity breeds innovation. As I said, new technologies and processes had to be researched and developed, but that was to be expected given the magnitude of the undertaking. As a claimed engineer, instead of personal incredulity, you should not only be familiar with all this as an inspiration but also fully cognisant of its application, function and principles and workings.
"Also "Conspiracy theory" is a std Gov agency terminology."
No it isn't. The term can be traced back to the 19th century in common vernacular. You can argue that today it is applied in a pejorative and disparaging sense, but that's hardly surprising given the complete horseshit that conspiracy theorists churn out and believers in their nonsense routinely parrot online.
22
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@lorichet
"I'm sure the conditions on the moon -- the extreme temps, the vacuum, radiation, micrometeorites, solar flares -- were no big deal. "
If you think that they were, then do by all means explain why. There were no solar flares during any of the Apollo missions, but it indeed was significant risk and potentially a very "big deal".
"In fact, Apollo proved that all the equipment can work just as well on the moon as it can in, say, the Arizona desert, for example"
Why shouldn't it? You have yet to explain.
4
-
@lorichet ,
"Considering that one of the biggest solar storms occurred during one of the Apollo launches, there was still no chance of any flares hitting the Arizona desert."
One of the biggest solar storms? Really, which launch? Mission, date, time?
The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum and the programme took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE in August 1972.
"If you think I have yet to explain why, then you have yet to comprehend my last reply."
I fully comprehended your last reply - unfortunately in common with the rest of your ilk due to your illusory superiority, you are not in reality as clever as you think you are.
You have yet to detail why the cameras developed for the Apollo missions cannot operate on the moon. Regarding the 'Arizona desert', are you talking about testing or supposed staging. Really you people need to make your minds up. I thought it was filmed in a studio in Hollywood? no wait, Shepperton, hold on, isn't it supposed to be Area 51, or New Mexico? - that can't be right, someone yesterday claimed it was Death Valley.
Hilarious.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MichaelForrestChnl
As is the case with all the subscribers to this hoax, you clearly have no scientific knowledge or background whatsoever Michael...and its frankly embarrassing.
Your cut and paste appeal to authority has all been systematically addressed by Scottie Duclos and instead of being able to offer a similarly constructive response, you simply cut and paste...again. Genuinely, what's wrong with you people?
Wigington's sources are derived from the same self-referencing community of chemtrail/career conspiracy theorists - none of which are published, none of which state the methodology.
As an example, why on earth do you regard a character such as Jeff Rense or Arizona Skywatch as a legitimate credible source?
Your Arizona Skywatch hoax, measured concentrations in the particulates as opposed to concentration in the air. The air that most people breath would be approximately 0.0015 ppb barium. Look at their data - (556,000 ppb) that'll be how they arrived at 370,000,000 times the normal amount then!
Regarding gallium...
https://rense.com/general87/gallium.htm
Once more, have you actually at any stage looked at the claimed data? Again, this is derived from the Arizona Skywatch fraud, in which they claim that they are tests of the air, when in actual fact they relate to the composition of particles in the air. There is no methodology, no duration of sampling or weights taken. If you had even the most rudimentary scientific inclination then you'd have identified this and understand the significance. Gallium does not occur naturally on its own, but as Scottie explained, can be found as a salt in zinc and bauxite ores - consequently airborne dust, particularly in desert regions. The method of analysis does not identify its presence in elemental form. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
I'd also like to highlight the beyond farcical KSLA barium debacle. Firstly it wasn't Arkanas. If you'd actually bothered to watch your own source instead of simply posting mindless confirmation bias, then you'd know that. In 2007 a reporter for KSLA News (Shreveport, Louisiana) by the name of Jeff Ferrall was investigating a report of “an unusually persistent jet contrail,” and found that a local in the area had “collected dew in bowls” after he saw the contrail. The station had the water in the bowls analysed, and reported barium found at 68.8 µg/L. That’s 68.8 parts per billion.The problem is, the reporter got the concentration wrong claiming 6.8ppm more than three times the limit set by the EPA — when in actual fact it was 68 parts per billion - So it’s actually 0.0688 parts per million, which is right in the normal range for water from natural sources (especially water collected in a glazed ceramic bowl, because ceramic glazes often contain barium as a flux). Ferrall was mortified and highly embarrassed by this mistake.
"Yes, I did make corrections to my first report, which originally aired almost 2-years ago now… after quickly realising my very embarrassing mistake. I was not happy with myself. Unfortunately, the first version of my report got out to the internet before I could make the correction(s), and the wrong version is shown repeatedly.
…
My feeling is, and maybe you’d agree, that if such aerosol mixes were created and loaded into jets with either a separate/independent dispersal method other than the exhaust, or actually in the fuel itself… somewhere, somehow, you’d expect someone to talk. I have not heard that yet.
…
I also interviewed the scientist who originally patented what some believe was a precursor to so-called chemtrail technology. He’s a very kind, helpful man who could not have been more helpful. He says he knows nothing about any such conspiracy."
Jeff Ferrall (2009)
I can't believe that this not only remains on Wigington's site but over a decade later you people are still mindlessly batting this nonsense around your vacuous echochamber as supposed evidence of your conspiracy theory.
Do you need the rest of your post systematically dissecting again or will you actually bother to read the reply that was originally provided by Scottie, gain some semblance of modesty, dignity, humility, integrity and intellectual honesty and actually challenge your preconceptions? If not only for yourself and your own mental well-being?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Hyper_drive214
Aircraft are subject to regulations in terms of both horizontal and vertical separation - typically on thousand feet. It is virtually impossible to discern the difference as a ground based observer. The atmosphere is a fluid and continually in motion and is non-isotropic in terms of temperature. pressure and humidity, the chief factors that govern the formation of contrails. These conditions can change within a matter of metres.
If you fly an aircraft at high speed through ambient air which is in flux, it is for the same reason that a contrail will indeed appear to sporadically and intermittently turn on and off. It only takes the slightest change in the interplay of the aforementioned variables to produce such an effect. You evidently need to look harder. Frequently once a persistent contrail has been deposited you will observe sections of it fade and vanish due to the same effect. This is a visual reminder that the atmosphere is in motion and is caused by either a rising or subsiding parcel of warmer/drier air. Like I say - are you similarly perplexed by patchy or differential cloud cover?
The meteorological conditions at ground level are completely different six to eight miles above your head. If you burn a hydrocarbon fuel, the main products are water and carbon dioxide. Do this in the regions in which commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - and if the conditions are conducive, then a contrail will form. If the RHi is high, then it will persist and if the ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, then it will expand and grow with most of the vapour being drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget whilst the water content from the exhaust has merely created the contrail. In such cases, often fanned by high altitude shear, persistent contrails may grow and agglomerate becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus. The following paper tracked contrail‐induced cirrus using a number of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, and at its peak, covering over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Read up on the differences between specific and relative humidity and in relation to this, dew point, and also dry and adiabatic lapse rates.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Really, guys? It's that impossible to spray shit out of tanks?"
And deposit a 200 mile long trail weighing thousands upon thousands of pounds which expands in the same way as available atmospheric moisture? - yeah, I'd say so.
"You people are all over the damn place. You want people to tell you what and how to think. You don't want the truth."
Oh look, you broke it...
https://izenmeme.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/i_meter5.gif
"Nobody is making this shit up, it's barium and aluminum oxide sprayed into the air"
And you have established this how?
"then, HAARP can manipulate the MAGNETIC chemicals in the earths (ION)OSPHERE (Magnetic) and the chemicals can be manipulated to cover certain areas with a blanket of cloud like substance."
What???? Firstly the atomic structure of Al means that it does not have magnetic attraction. The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme??? You mean that now dormant observatory and an adjacent field containing those HF antennas with a maximum transmission power of 3600 kilowatts? That HAARP?. Magnetic chemicals in the ionosphere???? What the fuck are you talking about? The purpose of HAARP was to reproduce the Luxembourg effect and it was subsequently used as a an ionospheric research facility. Although the research facilities need to have powerful transmitters, the power flux in the ionosphere is below 0.03 W/m2. This gives an energy density in the ionosphere that is less than 1/100 of the thermal energy density of the ionospheric plasma itself. The power flux may also be compared with the solar flux at the Earth's surface of about 1.5 kW/m2. This means that at about 75 times the power of a commercial radio station - HAARP delivers only a tiny fraction of the strength of the natural solar radiation striking the same part of the ionosphere at which it was aimed. During aurora generally no ionospheric effects can be observed with the HF pump facilities because the radio wave power is completely absorbed by the naturally heated ionosphere. Moreover, HAARP and the ionosphere have nothing whatsoever to do with clouds in the troposphere and lower stratosphere.
Why don't you find out for yourself? Although HAARP has barely been used since its sale to the University of Fairbanks, they nonetheless host tours of the facility during open days and even a summer barbecue. You could train the ELF waves on your hotdog.
"If you can't see it when you look up, you're paying too much attention to that little device you're holding 24/7."
Well actually, I have "looked up" all my life - and see the same persistent contrails that have been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of powered flight.
"This is the literal last comment i ever make about chemtrailing."
Is that a promise? The comments section of You Tube is on the cusp of existential meltdown.
"You don't trust your own judgement. "
Yeah, actually I do. Because unlike you I actually understand what I'm looking at, don't blindly accept or allow baseless internet conspiracy theory to tell me what to think and am able to differentiate between pseudoscientific online fantasy and the physical laws which govern reality.
"they are cloud seeding to prevent global warming..."
Cloud seeding has nothing to do with global warming mitigation, or the trails that you are seeing. Cloud seeding does not produce or create clouds and the science behind it is as questionable as the results. It is intended to introduce additional nucleation typically via silver iodide flares rack mounted to the wings of light aircraft to be released into extant cumulus clouds - those already conducive to precipitation - and thereby induce rainfall.
Because of this, it is typically conducted between 2 - 6 thousand feet. There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity under the technical banner of "Weather Modification". Cloud seeding is neither secretive and has been in the public domain for years. It does not spray, produce clouds nor does it make trails and the environmental impact of the negligible quantities of silver iodide used is zero. What does cloud seeding or geoengineering come to that have to do with the contrails under discussion in this video?
"Don't listen to me just because i told you, either."
Thanks for that, but I assure you, there's no danger of that happening.
"Go do your research."
That excruciating but inevitable moment when an online conspiracy believer tells you to "do your research".
And how did you "do" yours? - given that "research" does not constitute and evening in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias and junk pseudo-scientific conspiracy websites.
3
-
3