Youtube comments of MRA (@yassassin6425).
-
56
-
51
-
49
-
45
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
34
-
@MessiahComplx
"1932 - 1972 Us military conducted the Tuskegee syphilis project. Where they experimented on a proximately 600 US soldiers by giving them syphilis and watching the outcome."
Wrong. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was a research study, sponsored by the United States Public Health Service and conducted from 1932 to 1972, which followed 600 men, of which 399 had syphilis. Despite the availability of effective treatment using penicillin (after 1943) participants were not informed of their syphilis-positivity, provided with treatment, or even informed of the possibility of treatment. The Tuskegee Study became one of the main motivators for changes in ethical research practice.
"20s us government poisoned alcohol, blinding and killing many"
When the manufacture and sale of alcohol was illegal between 1920 and 1933, regulatory agencies encouraged measures making industrial alcohol undrinkable, including the addition of lethal chemicals. The "US government" did not poison supplies of alcohol meant for human consumption, nor did it intentionally aim to kill those who drank the tainted products - that would be unscrupulous traders that supplied the black market.
The practice was called “denaturing”. It consisted of adding noxious chemicals to alcohol sold for industrial purposes to make it unfit for human consumption. The process, long used in Europe, was introduced in the United States in 1906 as a means of exempting producers of alcohol used in paints, solvents, and the like from having to pay the taxes levied on potable spirits.
Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol (“wood alcohol”) to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous. Some formulas also contained substances that made the product taste too unpalatable to drink.
One of the ways crime syndicates tried to flout Prohibition was stealing industrial alcohol and finding ways to make it potable. The government, in turn, resorted to making it more poisonous:
"and of course there is MK ultra."
And Operation Northwoods...just because that existed does it then follow that every subsequent terrorist atrocity is a a false flag?
"And many more. But to answer your initial one, you're an idiot if you don't do your own research after asking why."
"Do your research" - said every online conspiracy believer and You Tube addict ever. Well, you obviously didn't "do" yours very well.
What does any of this have to do with the conspiracy theory under discussion in this video which is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails?
26
-
25
-
24
-
Well firstly why do you think that a trail is necessarily supposed to disappear? A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can expand, grow in mass, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. What chemical can do that?
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
To address your initial question, how are you establishing precise altitude of these aircraft? - which is impossible as a ground based observer. Even in view of Reduced Separation Minima regulations, these aircraft will be 1,000 feet apart vertically and five miles laterally and horizontally. That is not 'in the same area of sky'. Appreciate that the atmosphere is not homogeneous or isotropic. The interplay of factors that govern contrail formation - temperature, humidity and pressure - can change within a matter of mere feet. Think about the inside and the outside of a cloud. Do variations in cloud cover also perplex you?
23
-
23
-
23
-
@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
-
21
-
21
-
"Contrails are slender, elegant vapor trails that remain briefly way up in the stratosphere before fading away."
Sometimes. On other occasions, they may not even necessarily form at all, or, if the ambient conditions are conducive then they may expand and spread of be fanned out by high altitude wind shear.
"Chemtrails, on the other hand, are something I only began to notice in the last 10-20 years."
Since you heard about this conspiracy theory then?
"They look like the exhaust from a pollution-spewing jalopy and they hang way down here in the troposphere, often crisscrossed with many other such trails as they slowly spread out and merge with one another into hazy, unsightly "clouds" composed of Lord knows what"
You said it yourself - clouds. That's all they are. The contrails that you are misidentifying as 'chemtrails' are nothing more than persistent spreading cirrus and they are composed of condensed water vapour in the form of ice. This is measurable and demonstrable. Also, what mysterious 'chemical' is able to expand when released, increase in mass and vastly exceed the maximum take off weight of the aircraft producing it? And of course they appear to intersect?The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"When you notice one or two of them, scan the horizon. Chances are it'll be a heavy chemtrail day and you'll see a lot more of them all around."
Or more specifically at those altitudes, low temperature combined with high relative humidity and low vapour pressure. Who'd have thought?
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
@InDecibelOffical
"keep believing what you believe. Let me believe what I believe."
??? It isn't a question of 'belief'. Weather modification is the legal and technical terminology for cloud seeding which isn't sinister in the slightest and completely transparent and in the public domain. There are many private companies that freely advertise their services and contracts online - you just found one. You loud hire them for an event yourself. Cloud seeding isn't by any means widespread though and actually, the reliability and science behind it is questionable. Furthermore, since silver iodide and not elemental silver typically constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant - the material used for additional nucleation injected into the clouds does not exceed the level of inflow of these chemicals to the atmosphere from natural and anthropogenic sources.
Geoengineering meanwhile is divided into two branches - GGR and SRM. With the exception of ground based albedo modification, the latter is entirely in the province of hypothetical research proposal and computer modelling.
Both cloud seeding and Geoengineering have nothing to do with each other, and nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails that you are seeing. Neither would actually leave a trail - far less a 100 mile plume in the wake of a jet aircraft. Cloud seeding aims to introduce additional nucleating onto existing cumulus and stratiform masses and so is conducted by light aircraft, usually at altitudes between 2 - 6,000 feet. SRM, in the form of Stratsospheric Aerosol Injection would aim to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and so would need to be deployed in the mid stratosphere. 65,000-70,000 feet which is double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. Because it would be designed to release a fine mist of aerosols, even if it was happening, as a ground based observer, you wouldn't even know it was in progress.
"One day one of us will see the truth."
What? The science speaks for itself.
"What ever you say will not change my mind"
Of course it won't. Believers in online conspiracy are possibly the most closed minded individuals on the entire internet.
"as I have done more than enough research, and observing in my lifetime to understand the reality I live in."
You mean the internet told you what to think. Going back to belief, if you regard You Tube videos, clickbait confirmation bias and pseudoscientific conspiracy websites as 'research' and you choose to 'believe' some online charlatan over independently verifiable sources, then of course you will continue to conflate cloud seeding, geoengineering and contrails. Just don't expect to be afforded any credence in the real world outside of your online echo-chamber .
"Research' is not about what you think you know but about the continual revision of this. Try it.
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
@MNS5
My background is climate science and remote sensing, not that any of that matters given the illusory superiority of internet conspiracy theorists armed with the overnight expertise of a You Tube video. Also, as I always try to get across, although they personalise their replies and deploy ad-hominem abuse, (to which I am impervious), their argument and contention is not with me, rather, demonstrable and incontrovertible physical laws that govern the atmosphere and thereby, contrail formation
You'll find that all this nonsense is very repetitious - the usual regurgitated incredulity about intermittent on/off trails, grid patterns, contrails only lasting seconds to minutes, modern turbofan engines being incapable of producing them, misappropriated footage of ballast barrels and test or research aircraft and conflation with cloud seeding or geoengineering. In addition to this, repeated ad-nauseum reliance upon the same ludicrous supposed 'whistle blowers' and career conspiracy theorists that have been endlessly debunked. Like any online echo-chamber, however, it is utterly impenetrable and immune to logic or reason. All you can do is furnish them with the science. This is a good start...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1
Unfortunately, even though this is independently verifiable, reproducible, objective and axiomatic, because it runs counter to the narrative and emotional investment of the conspiracy theory you will inevitably be branded a "shill" spreading disinformation and propaganda.
Do appreciate though that this nonsense debunks itself. A persistent contrail is composed of millions of lbs of ice - far in excess of the MTOW of any aircraft in existence. This is an in situ study of a persistent contrail using multi-optical spectrometry.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The aircraft is a small Sabreliner jet at FL290 in air of -38.2 degrees C. The two engines produced 1.73 grams of water vapour per meter as a result of fuel combusted. They then turned around and found that the resultant contrail has expanded to 1km wide and 400 metres deep. The ice crystals that this was composed of had grown to weigh 30,000 grams per meter of contrail. The ice crystal growth is a product of ice superstaturation in the immediate environment.
A Sabreliner has a maximum payload of 2000lbs. The resultant persistent contrail was measured at 66,000lbs per square kilometre. It was therefore a physical impossibility for the aircraft to have sprayed this trail and so the persistent contrail was clearly a result of available moisture in the atmosphere.
14
-
@hairylittlewombat
Have you? So you, like the entire field of aerospace engineering worldwide, are fully familiar with the schematics and the technical specifications of the lunar module - and despite forensic scrutiny of every nut, bolt, switch, rivet, wire, circuit, and finding no anomalies or irregularities whatsoever, you however are "not convinced". Perhaps you should point out what they've been missing for over half a century? - and don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you. Alternatively, is it just possible, that there are people on the planet that have greater expertise, knowledge and insight than a random, non-achieving gullible, Dunning Kruger afflicted conspiracy believer on the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
Just a thought.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
"It’s impossible to have a vacuum (space), next to a pressurised system (the earths atmosphere) without a physical barrier separating the two. This is a law of physics and cannot be broken (and don’t give me any rubbish about the ‘theory’ of gravity being able to magically side-step the fundamental laws of physics)."
Conspiracy theorists and flat earthers that try to invoke the "laws of physics" whilst selectively ignoring "laws of physics".
Could you account for the decrease in pressure with altitude? Thanks
"If we somehow in someone’s dream did manage to break the above law of physics, how is it possible for a man in a pressurised space suit to remain and look perfectly normal as though standing on earth when he is in a vacuum? The suit would expand like a balloon and he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man. The astronauts look like they are just walking across a park in their Sunday best - no sign of any effects of a pressurised suit fighting against the 100% vacuum of ‘space’."
Because the internal pressure was only 4.3 psi whilst the near vacuum of of the moon's surface is simply the absence of matter. There is nothing to "fight against".
"The only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them."
Nope, that'll be entire branches of science such as astronomy and geology, related specialisms and cognate disciplines including aerospace engineering worldwide, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer Prize nominated independent investigative journalists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet to name a few. Also, known science is not a question of 'belief'.
Meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Ok then.
And at what point have you yourself "looked beyond" the conspiratorial nonsense that you consume and regurgitate?
"QI, in this instance is the perfect example of this. The renowned brain box, Mr Fry is here telling you why we went to the moon without having any means of backing up his comments other than hearsay from other sources. You are expected to believe everything he says without question because of his reputation. I suspect that Stephen knows the truth but part of his job is to make sure you don’t."
This is simply a light hearted and at times irreverent panel show. Everything that Fry says can be independently verified. The sole problem is that very simply, it isn't what you want to hear, just as you won't like my reply to you.
12
-
12
-
12
-
@wokengoatdeath9668
"The director of the cia at the time, John Brennan, talked openly about it and referred to it as stratospheric aerosol injection."
Talked openly about what? What do you mean referred to "it"? Sounds as though you are referring to those daft conspiracy videos that have dishonestly appropriated his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations (a thinktank) and stuck the word "chemtrails" in the title. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is talked about openly - has been for years. So what? It's never been secretive or classified and the research is fully in the public domain and always has been.
You are referring to Brennan's 2016 speech on 'Transnational Threats to Global Security'. It is within the remit of the CIA to monitor new and emergent technologies that may in the future pose a threat to global relations. SAI is a hypothetical branch of geoengineering which would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere in a last ditch attempt to arrest rising global temperatures. Aside from the fact that it has not even progressed to the early stages of small scale trial, the technology and logistics are not remotely in place, the costs uncertain, the environmental effects unknown and the geopolitical implications alone render it a virtual impossibility.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI nor is he saying that it is in progress, he is simply appraising the worldwide political and environmental ramifications of such a technology should it ever come to be - he also talked about other areas of ethical concern in the future abstract sense, such as genetics and anti-aging. Forget the dumb conspiracy videos. You can find a full transcription of his speech online.
"There is no debate to the fact that there are compounds being sprayed in our skies."
Agree completely - it isn't happening. I'd be more concerned about ground level urban and industrial pollution which is a genuine killer.
"The debate is only of what exactly those compounds are and why they are doing it."
You surely understand that our atmosphere is independently monitored around the globe. Any organised programme of spraying would be impossible to conceal and would involve the complicity and collusion of governments, states and nations, global aviation, in addition to the silencing and coercion of entire branches of science and technology worldwide.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video (misidentified aircraft contrails)... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
12
-
12
-
"There are videos that show the trails behind a jet stop and then start! I have actually seen a stop and then start incident."
So what - I see it all the time. Why shouldn't a contrail be intermittent? Surely you understand that the atmosphere is neither homogenous or isotropic? The interrelating factors that govern the formation of contrails - temperature, humidity and vapour pressure and all change within mere metres. Fly an aircraft at high speed through such conditions and of course a contrail an be interrupted. If you actually looked closer then you'd frequently see seemingly random sections of recently deposited contrails fading, vanishing and sometimes even reappearing. This is confirmation that the atmosphere is in continual motion and visual identification of rising and subsiding parcels of drier/warmer air. Are you equally perplexed about scattered/broken cloud?
"How is it possible for people to film a tick tack toe sky? At the end of the day of multiple jet trails from horizon to horizon my sky go’s from blue to white."
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"No, you can’t have a serious discussion about global warming without talking about the purpose of HAARP"
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme? (which actually isn't 'active' at all). I assure you that you can...it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Would you like me to explain to you what an HF pump is actually capable of, what they comprise and what they were designed to do instead of you lapping up and regurgitating more junk online conspiracy theory? Of course you wouldn't.
"and the odd jet trails that do not disappear, but expand over a 40 minute period to for a whit haze."
Again, are you equally perplexed by cloud cover?
"You guys have not done enough homework on this subject"
And with the understanding that "homework" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites - how precisely did you do yours?
"Contrails do not expand into a white haze."
I assure you that they do. Would you like me to explain that too - unless of course you can identify these mysterious chemicals that can not only linger but, grow increase in mass just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour.
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Feel free to falsify the contents.
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
"It just doesn’t make sense to me that we haven’t gone back ONCE?!?"
They did though - on five more occasions. It would have been nine or more, had it not been for the aborted Apollo 13 landing and the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme and with it Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
"It doesn’t make sense."
It makes perfect sense when you understand the reasons why the Apollo Programme was cancelled and the emphasis that was placed elsewhere. Project Artemis that will return crewed missions to the surface of the moon was only approved as recently as 2018.
"Also all the evidence could have been planted there via shuttles & robots etc"
Could it? And how have you established this when you clearly know nothing about the science and technology of Apollo? How do you account for the ALSEP packages and in particular, The SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and the LPME? Also, the lunar rovers were designed to be unfolded and deployed by hand. Additionally, there is the third of a ton of moon rock returned within the space of three years which is utterly impossible by robotic means in such a time span. To date, there has been a total of 301 grams of lunar soil returned by robotic missions - the USSR's Luna 16, 20 and 24. Moreover, the Apollo 12 astronauts landed only 600ft from Surveyor 3 and brought the camera back to Earth with them which is now exhibited in the National Air and Space Museum. The astronauts also collected a scoop from the probe's soil mechanics-surface sampler.
11
-
11
-
@gregz1235
"countless articles out there confirm this."
No they don't. They discuss the difference in processing power - and how does rocket technology comparable to an iPhone? iPhones do not send astronauts to the moon. I swear to God you people think that society consisted of troglodytes rubbing sticks together in caves and hunter gathering prior to the invention of the smart phone.
If it's computing that you are referring to, you should have specified. Technology is a very broad term. Understand that Apollo on board computers had a performance comparable to the first generation of personal computers like the Acorn, Apple 2 and Commodore 64. The guidance computer had RAM of 4KB, and a 32KB hard disk). Their sole purpose was to take large quantities of numerical data and organise it into a more useful format. That original data was calculated by the main frames at NASA, and then beamed up to the spacecraft by radio telescope at the rate of 1,200 bits per second. They did not require he power for touch screens or to hold graphics etc like today’s smartphones.
The AGC was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a brilliant piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea, as alluded to, that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby. Why are you making what you assume to be authoritative comments about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever?
"The astronauts even said so during a Q&A after"
That they did this with "less technology than an iPhone"? How remarkably sagacious of them back in 1969.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@LH23511
"Well said. I noticed the difference, when I would walk my dogs around 2010 . The contrails got much thicker and would spread out like thick tendrils. And another would come beside it, and they would merge and cloud the sky."
Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"This summer, we would have 9 hours of sun predicted every day. Instead we would have a couple hours in the morning, and then the sky would get hazy. We haven’t had a full day of sun in over a month - 2 months, here in Ontario."
Have you actually thought of looking into the meteorological conditions that have determined this?
"I also put a bowl of vinegar out, and it would make a big clear hole in the sky on a windless day. Acid of vinegar dissipates the alkalinity of barium and aluminum. It opens the sky above your house."
This is utterly staggering that there are actually still people online parroting this.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"Harvard universities Prof David Keith, has been recorded dozens of times reporting his progress with Geoengineering. check out Harvard's web site. Do an internet search on Prof David Keith, Geoengineer."
I don't need to - I'm fully aware of his research proposals which have been in the public domain for years together with the ethical ramifications surrounding his recommendations.
"Remember: In these days of information freedom and access, IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE."
Remember, in these days of information, freedom and access, objectivity is a must.
"Whilst we are at it, here's a few gems from David Keith, via Dane Wigington, Anti-geoengineering Warrior (that's what i call him)"
What's your point?
"and I saved the best for last. In this next clip, David Keith freely admits (at 2:40 minutes) that as a direct result of his geoengineering weather modification program they WILL "... end up KILLING MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE A YEAR..."
The best bit for last???? A Dane Wigington video? Are you serious? He says nothing of the sort. This is a brief clip taken wholly out of context which is precisely the MO of conspiracy theorists. Doesn't the tacky music and sensationalist narration tell you anything or arouse your suspicions?
Keith has never denied that SAI properly evaluated before it is employed. The entire quote is stressing that if such a strategy was ever pursued without due diligence, you "might" end up killing tens of thousands of people as a direct result of that decision so the research if you care to read it is also committed to assessing the dangers of SRM prior to deployment. Assessing efficacy and risks are detailed here..
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/
As a former meteorologist (my current field is the science of remote sensing) I can tell you that there is huge opposition to the notion of SAI. In terms of geoengineering, more funding and research is diverted into ocean fertilisation. The lack of political and public will, the logistical barriers and the ethical, soci-ecomnomic and geo-political implications combined means that SAI is very unlikely to become a reality and progress beyond the small scale trials scheduled for the next few years.
Elsewhere, independent studies are assessing the ethics of such proposals...
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=philosophy_pubs
"who like to troll and support this type of channel"
I think you'll find as the one posting your ill informed subjective content on this channel by definition, the troll is you - and for an example of such behaviour at its worst perhaps read the preceding post to mine which presumably you condone?
"David Keith's proposal to move geoengineering atmospheric spraying of nanoparticles of metals (aka Chemtrails) UP INTO THE STRATOSPHERE where he will have us SPRAYED WITH SULFURIC ACID instead!"
Firstly chemtrails are an online hoax originally perpetrated in the late 1990s by "shock jocks" such as Art Bell on Cost to Coat AM a commercial station that manufactures conspiracy theory to order to inflate ratings and thus sell more advertising airtime. Chemtrails are the erroneous belief that contrails in the wake of civil aircraft are evidence of chemical spraying. Meanwhile on the coattails of cheap conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Wigington are committed to conflating this with geoengineering hoodwinking the gullible, suggestible and scientifically ignorant - and it is precisely that which Rogan and West are debunking in this video.
Moving up into the stratosphere???? It's called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - it has always been designated for altitudes between 65-70,000ft. Now allow me to educate you...
The purpose of SAI has always been clearly defined. The aim is to simulate the cooling effects of a major volcanic eruption after which large quantities of sulphur dioxide and hydrochloric acid are ejected into the mid stratosphere. Once formed, these aerosols stay in the stratosphere for about two years. They reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface, cooling them. The relative coolness of 1993 is thought to have been a response to the stratospheric aerosol layer that was produced by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. The relative influence of volcanoes on the Junge layer varies considerably according to the number and size of eruptions in any given time period, and also of quantities of sulphur compounds released. The stratospheric aerosol layer is sustained by natural emissions of carbonyl sulphide (OCS) through biogenic processes. Carbonyl sulphide is relatively stable can mix into the stratosphere where it is photochemically broken down resulting in the formation of microscopic droplets of sulphuric acid.
Keith has identified a range of possible materials to simulate/catalyse this process. Small scale trials commence this summer involving one KG of material. The objective is beyond that o disperse water, followed by small quantities of calcium carbonate and possibly hydrogen sulphide. Such stratospheric particles exist as thin veils of dust or sulphuric acid droplets at altitudes of 12 to 18 miles.
"A short snibbit of his Report for your edification and information under the heading:
"Knowledge gap 2: potential human health impacts:
Epidemiological studies suggest a relationship between exposure to mists containing sulfuric acid and an increased incidence of laryngeal cancer, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that “occupational exposure to strong inorganic mists containing sulfuric acid is carcinogenic for humans”
- Occupational exposure...what's your point? Your extract is from one of the papers that I referred to in respect of the full evaluation of SAI should it ever be implemented.
And here is the paper in its entirety and full context.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717532/
I quote directly from the abstract...
"There is also little infrastructure in place to evaluate potential public health impacts in the event that stratospheric aerosols are deployed for solar radiation management. We offer several recommendations intended to help characterize the potential occupation and public health impacts of SRM, and suggest that a comprehensive risk assessment effort is needed before this approach to geoengineering receives further consideration."
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
Essentially, money and political will.
Since the cancellation of Apollo, the emphasis was placed upon low earth orbit (through the development of the space shuttle and the construction of the ISS) and duration of missions. NASA has yielded huge amounts of data from this as the focus turns again to manned space exploration. Also, with the ending of Apollo, the technology, tooling, production processes and plants were all closed and the hardware left to lie fallow. Boeing, who manufactured the Saturn SI-C have spent years reconfiguring and upgrading their old facility for the production of the SLS core stage. As the old technology of Apollo is now obsolete it has been superseded by modern composites, materials, manufacturing techniques and systems that all have to be validated. This has taken years and the grants from congress have been drip fed. In other words, 'rebuilding' - which has been a 'painful' and protracted process. Artemis 3 pledges to return man to the moon this decade
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@wasidanatsali6374
Where I am in the UK of course, most homes and many work places in the UK don't have AC - but while our summer temperatures continue to be driven up, the demand for it is bound to increase. In fact, it is anticipated that 75-80% of British homes will have it installed by the end of the century. This could increase the UK's current monthly electricity consumption by up to 15% in the summer. But this is already a global issue. There are already a billion single room air-conditioning units operating globally - accounting for about 20% of demand for electricity in buildings. By 2050 it is projected that there will be some four and a half billion AC units worldwide, ramping up energy demand. Since much of that currently comes from fossil fuels, it creates a vicious circle, but there is also another problem. As interiors are artificially cooled, the process pumps heat outside. Some years ago, I briefly spent some time at the Arizona State University and in Phoenix during the summer, you obviously can't function without it. I was intrigued to read a recent study that found the hot air pumped out of AC systems increased the city's nighttime temperature by 1°C. Worse still, the fluorinated gases used in these units can frequently leak out and these are something like 22,000 times more powerful at warming the climate that CO2.
Typical government myopia - when they outlined their strategy last year for net-zero carbon emissions, the huge oversight was the rising demand for cooling. Instead, the emphasis was upon insulation and keeping buildings warm focussing upon energy certificates as a sole measure of efficiency. Our buildings need to be designed for both - with good ventilation so they are not only well insulated during the winter, but cool for our increasingly hotter summers.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@hansvetter8653
And your source is unsubstantiated junk conspiracy theory. Were you on the floor of the Mariana Trench witnessing Picard and Walsh onboard the Trieste reaching the bottom of Challenger Deep in January 1960? Were you at the summit of Labuche Kang in October 1987 when the joint expedition from the Himalayan Association of Japan and the Tibet Mountaineering Association conquered the peak?
And no, my 'source' is scientific, independent and third party evidence which is both demonstrable and incontrovertible and that you are clearly oblivious to. And meanwhile, the online conspiracy theory that you defer to is entirely and unfailingly reliable, honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit anecdotal, intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
You are the one that made the following statement: "Simple! It didn't got to the moon!". As the one making the claim, challenging the status quo and established facts, the burden of proof is incumbent upon you to substantiate that claim. You'll find that I'm all ears and open to new evidence. When I say 'new', naturally, you'll be keen to avoid trotting out the same old obligatory gullibly consumed and regurgitated junk online conspiracy theory that has been parroted over and over and over and over and over again and routinely debunked innumerable times. Instead, what is your singular, most definitive, compelling, persuasive, conclusive and irrefutable piece of evidence that the Apollo moon landings were faked? I look forward to hearing something original and your own observations.
Off you go then.
7
-
No, it made you wonder since you obviously have zero knowledge about the subject and rely on conspiracy theorists to tell you what to think. Those that do understand - including entire branches of science and specialist fields such as aerospace engineering that you seem to think you know more than, have no such incredulity. Incidentally, they are belts since there are two with a third that is transitory. Let's face it, the only reason that you've heard of them is through some dumb conspiracy video that knows as little as you do.
Temperatures in the VABs can reach up to 20,000 Kelvin, however, heat and temperature are two entirely different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the region of space in the VABs is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited and temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between them is what creates heat. In the VABs what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun which space craft mitigate through active and passive thermal management.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Nope, the precise selenic coordinates of the Apollo landings are all verifiable. The answer to your question is, because they are every small, whilst objects outside our solar system are massive and distant objects on the fringes of the observable universe can be captured by telescopes such as James Webb and Hubble because they are trillions of times bigger. Physics dictates you would require telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see the lunar landing sites. To explain why understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide Apollo landers at the six landing sites.
However, The Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
7
-
@wokengoatdeath9668
Thank you for your reply. Good question.
It's important to understand that an aerosol is simply a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in a gas, so the atmosphere is full of aerosols both of natural and manmade origins - some more harmful that others. Examples of the former are sea salt, pollen, wind blown dust and volcanic emissions. The latter produces between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year and it is this that the proponents of SAI wish to artificially increase. “Secondary” aerosols form when different things floating in the atmosphere, like organic compounds released by plants, liquid acid droplets, or other materials combine, culminating in a chemical or physical reaction. Secondary aerosols, for example make the haze that gives the U.S.’s Great Smoky Mountains their name. Overall, human activity has increased the total amount of particles floating around in the atmosphere, which is about twice as dusty now as it was in the 19th century. The amount of very fine material generally referred to as PM2.5 which is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns across, has increased by 60 % since before the Industrial Revolution. As I said, industrial and urban activity greatly contributes to this and any combustion engine will release particulate matter - and in the case of a hydrocarbon fuel, C02.
So we are all releasing aerosols into the air that we breath whether we like it or not.
Regarding SAI - am I in support of this area of research? - No, absolutely not. The environmental unknowns are manifest and as Brennan said, the geopolitical implications were it to become a reality , very grave. Currently, Solar Radiation Management is almost entirely hypothetical but does exist in the form of ground based albedo modification. In addition to this 'marine cloud brightening' may have some potential. Of the other main division of geoengineering which is GGR (also termed negative emissions technologies) many are already in progress such as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation. But even schemes such as ocean fertilisation may have unknown feedback loops.
All forms of geoengineering are merely a 'sticking plaster though. The key to halting global temperature increase lies in the switch to renewables, curtailing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions reaching at least net zero.
To reiterate, SAI is proposed as a last ditch attempt to arrest global temperature rise, but is fraught with logistical and environmental difficulties and dangers whilst policy and international governance would be nigh on an impossibility which is why it is highly unlikely that it will ever be deployed. So it doesn't concern me in the slightest because beyond small scale trial involving a balloon and a few kilos of chalk, it will never become a reality. Despite this, am I opposed to it in theory? Absolutely.
7
-
@rastiga9196
"I did drive before I was disabled"
I'm truly sorry to hear that.
"There have been tests on jet fuel that have consistently found stuff that wasn't supposed to be in it. Aluminum especially in higher than negligible amounts."
No there haven't. That would trash a jet engine in minutes.
All combustion engines produce metallic elements in the exhaust. These are present in the fuel and exhaust in trace quantities and also to a much lesser extent are the product of wear and tear. The total emission of metals will be less than 0.3 percent of total fuel particulate matter mass. Particles emitted from aircraft turbine engines are generally ultrafine, i.e. smaller than 100 nm. approximately 99.5-99.9% of the molar content of typical commercial engine exhaust consists of N2, O2, CO2, and H2O.
The most abundant metals in jet exhaust are Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, and Ti. As explained, the sources are kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components. To reiterate, all the elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in road going diesel and petroleum.
All hydrocarbon fuels produce harmful effects from combustion at close quarters. There are hundreds of parallel studies into the effects of exhaust from petrol and diesel exhaust. Why are you not similarly concerned about traffic pollution? Also, the effects of PM2.5 are far more acute at ground level - as is the formation and trapping of N0X in our towns and cities.
The relative amount of exhaust emissions depends upon combustor temperature and pressure, fuel to air ratio and the extent to which fuel is atomised and mixed with inlet air. 3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? All those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. Shall we turn to that now?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You are simply seeing contrails. The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
The "rainbow" effect that you are referring to is simply iridescence most commonly associated with aerodynamic contrails. This happens when air pressure and temperature over the wings drop dramatically, causing the water vapor to freeze at different sizes. These frozen water droplets refract the light at different wavelengths, which gives the rainbow effect.
Solar Radiation Management, with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical and has not graduated beyond research proposal and computer modelling - it's unlikely that it ever will. It has absolutely nothing to do with the contrails that you are observing that have been witnessed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation. Even if these programmes were underway, they would not leave a trail nor would they be conducted by commercial aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.
You are not the only one that has seen contrails or the atmospheric phenomena that you describe - the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon misidentification of the latter.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@CCoburn3
To clarify. NASA did not lose the original telemetry tapes from Apollo 11 but rather the taped recordings of raw analogue video transmitted back from the spacecraft. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording gear in order to capture the raw transmissions at the point of receipt in case anything should go wrong with the elaborate system used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Nothing did go wrong, and once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium.
The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world. So during the search, the team came across broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen. There were tapes recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. They also found kinescopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives they uncovered tapes that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived.
The relevant information from the telemetry was evaluated real-time and shortly after the missions, then the tapes were re-used. The majority of that information coming over telemetry was switch settings, voltages, tank volumes, etc., on a craft that will never be used again. Engineering data about performance of the various systems was sent back to the ground for analysis and diagnosis of any problem. Also, biomedical data on the astronauts. Today, such data would be measured by an analog-to-digital converter and transmitted digitally. At the time of the Apollo program, computers were heavy and expensive. Analog data was encoded in semi-analog formats—frequency modulation, phase modulation, pulse-code modulation—combined into a microwave signal, received on the ground, decoded with special equipment and recorded on large reels of magnetic tape. For viewing the data, the signals were often written out onto long charts with strip chart recorders. Data on magnetic tape that needed to be kept, such as telemetry data, was always printed out as a hard copy. So after each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the extracted telemetry data was analysed and presented as charts and graphs and tables. The telemetry for all the Apollo missions would be hours and days of details of obsolete equipment working normally. Nobody cares about that and the people who might know how to make sense of it are passing from the scene, as is the machinery that could read those tapes. Nowadays, vast quantities of data can be recorded to disk for negligible cost. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, that wasn’t the case. Data was recorded on big, heavy and expensive reels of magnetic tape that could only be read on big, heavy, specialised equipment. There are real-time recordings and transcriptions of all the missions and the data/confirmation can be found in the post flight mission reports. These are available in PDf format for download
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"These guys are a mouthpiece for government propaganda."
Nope, they are simply participants in a panel based comedy panel show produced by John Lloyd and Talkback ltd.
"The moon landing was fake."
Yet another dumb conspiracy believer that thinks there was just the one.
"How did they get past the van Allen belts without getting fried"
Why should anyone "get fried" in the VABs. Perhaps you should listen to what science has to say instead of what a crap online conspiracy theorist tells you what to think?
"how can you conveniently lose all the technology to return there"
You don't and they didn't. Why do you think that they did? Oh that's right, give me one guess.
"they live streamed the moon landing 240000 miles away in 1969"
False. Unified S band radio signal broadcasts.
"when they didn't even have colour tv?"
Colour TV was was first demonstrated publicly by John Logie Baird on 3 July 1928. CBS had been experimenting with Baird's ideas for colour television for some time, and by 1946 were confident of obtaining a broadcasting licence. So confident, they began advertising the GE 950, the first colour television produced for the consumer market.
"Once you realize the challenges to land a man on the moon you will realizes there is no way the technology existed at the time to overcome them."
Specifically, what technology was lacking? And why is it that for over half a century entire branches of science and specialist technological fields such as computing, aerospace engineering and rocketry have failed to notice this, but a random, insignificant gullible believer in dumb conspiracy theory on the comments section of You Tube with no actual knowledge of the subject whatsoever claims to know better?
"The only thing they could do was fake it."
Really? How?
"We know the government lies, is it so hard to believe they told a big one here?"
Your belief is irrelevant, as is any government. The scientific, independent and third party evidence for the Apollo moon landings has a voice of its own and is incontrovertible.
"Why has NASA been deleting all the videos on YouTube exposing the moon landing as fake"
They haven't - and if you actually believe that, then you are even dimmer that you initially come across. You can still find plenty of this nonsense on You Tube. However, since the platform fears brand damage for previously supporting and being associated with misinformation (if you hadn't noticed, conspiracy theory is a money spinner), they have been forced to decrease the visibility of this crap. Many of the charlatans and con artists that peddle this garbage have moved to alt-right and more extreme platforms such as 'Odysee' and 'Rumble.' Others having been comprehensively debunked and discredited have removed their content. A quick google search enables you to find all the confirmation bias that you want - and guess who owns You Tube genius?
"It's sick the level of deception."
The unintentional irony at this stage is as hilarious as it is tragic.
"It's taught to little children in schools that's why it's so hard for many to confront."
So you think that Bart Sibrel should be on the curriculum instead? 🤣
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The technology of Apollo was largely retired with the premature cancellation of the programme in 1972. The bespoke tooling, production processes, plants, hand built expertise was abandoned and the Saturn V was no longer required. With the political lobbying for the Space Shuttle and the subsequent construction of the space shuttle, deep space exploration became the preserve of far cheaper unmanned probes and landers which carried less risk and for which a heavy lift capability was not necessary. All of this technology remains, but is understandably obsolete. Project Artemis is currently purposing new and contemporary technology to meet the demands, objectives and the very different mission profiles outlined.
They stopped going because, With the OPEC crisis looming, amid an expensive foreign war in Vietnam, a lack of public support and political will, Congress prematurely pulled the funding who saw little benefit in continuing to plough the 4% of annual Federal budget into something that had already been achieved on nine occasions with six landings. That meant, as explained, with the cancellation of the Programme, production of the Saturn V ceased and since no one built a replacement until now. Without the requisite heavy lift capability manned missions beyond low Earth orbit were no longer possible.
5
-
"I can't even get phone singals some parts where i live and your telling me they got singal for a live feed 238,000 miles away people are so gullible to believe anything"
We are still receiving signals from Voyager 1 which is 36 AU (15 billion miles) from Earth, the farthest object created by humans. We can detect radio signals from quasars and pulsars that have travelled across 50m light years of space, whilst when the signal from the most distant FRB discovered - 20220610A - originated, the universe was just 5 billion years old. (For comparison, the universe is now 13.8 billion years old.) Presumably, you think that's all fake too?
Gullible? So entire branches of science in addition to the specialist fields of radio-astronomy and communications have in over half a century failed to notice that a live broadcast from the moon is impossible, but a random internet user and gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory that can't even punctuate a sentence knows better? Righto then. Seriously, what's wrong with you people? Why are you incapable of acknowledging and recognising your incredulity lack of understanding and insight? Are you actually willing to listen and learn?
The signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device, as opposed to a 64 metre wide radio telescope dish. The current 4G communication band is 0.8-2.6GHz, and the main communication frequency band used by 5G is also below 6GHz, your signal can dip as low as a trivial -30 dBm. The transmitters used in space have exponentially greater power than the few milliwatts of a cell phone, using a high gain receiver and directed focused antenna arrays. The Apollo radio transmissions broadcast via unified S-Band at 20 watts, to dishes that were up to 200 feet in diameter. They also had line of sight, i.e. there was no obstruction between the Earth and Moon. A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and has towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. They are entirely different scenarios.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
So you arrogantly declare something to be faked and draw conclusions based upon a complete and utter lack of knowledge about it. Do you have any conception how dangerous that is?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@carlton7015
"research standard camera film not, protected from heat or vaccume film."
So for starters you expect to be taken seriously but can't even spell the word 'vacuum'.
Hasselblad adapted their 500EL camera for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective bare metal, and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures Moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that was used was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection.
Also, appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"vaccume 10 to the minus 12 tor and suits not capable of protecting the former."
Never ceases to amuse that when a crap conspiracy video or junk currently trending on social media makes a claim it's then subsequently parroted en-masse by scientifically illiterate buffoons such as yourself in the mistaken belief that it makes you sound informed and clever. A vacuum doesn't exert a force. Increase the Torr value, the closer it gets to nothing. A vacuum of 10^-11 or 10^-17 torr can both be considered as zero, because they are so little. They are not negative numbers, but rather fractions: 10^-11 torr, for instance, is 1/100,000,000,000th of a torr. On the moon, particles are so sparse that there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. (In comparison, Earth's atmosphere at sea level has about 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter.) So assuming that there were half this in some other region of space, 50 molecules per cubic centimeter of even a quarter, 25 molecules per cubic centimeter, your Torr value would increase as you approach what is termed a 'perfect vacuum'. The Torr value associated with this has no effect whatsoever upon a spacesuit in which the pressure from within is maintained at a trivial 4.8psi. For reference, soda cans range between 30 and 50 psi, but can withstand up to 100. To clarify again - a vacuum is simply the absence of matter. It doesn't exert a force. You could place a suited astronaut in a perfect vacuum and the interior pressure of the suit would be the same. What difference does 100 molecules per cubic centimetre, 50, 25 or none make? So again, if the pressure inside is 4.8 psi and the pressure outside is essentially zero, the pressure differential is 4..8 psi.
"Repressuristion temp drop of capsule after moon walk"
What?
"flag"
What about it?
"foot prints"
Should be one word. What about them?
"not forget the saturn five rocket not capable of reach enough power to launch velocity to escape orbit"
What on Earth are you talking about? The first stage (SI-C) was powered by a cluster of five F1 engines collectively producing 7.5 million lbs of thrust at lift off. These burned for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 42 miles and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour. The second stage (S-II) contained five J-2 engines. After the first stage was discarded, these burned for approximately 6 minutes at 1.2 million lbs of thrust, taking the vehicle and payload to 115 miles altitude and 15,500 mph. The Third stage (SIV-B) then placed Apollo in a circular parking orbit 1,640 miles downrange at an altitude of 118.8 miles (191.2 km) with an orbital velocity of 17,432 mph. Trans lunar injection was performed by the restartable J-2 engine in the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V rocket. Apollo 11′s S-IVB burned for 5 minutes, 41.01 seconds @1,138.50 kN (255,945 lbf) achieving a velocity of 24,994.656 mph to send it to the moon.
"There's too much to list it's a joke"
So basically, you have lazily regurgitated ill-informed opinions and factoids and claims of others equally as clueless as yourself about subjects that you demonstrably haven't got the remotest idea about.
The only joke here is you.
Dumb online conspiracy believer.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well there's those entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, over 10,000 private sector enterprises, independent nations across the planet and each of the 76 other space agencies in existence. In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Biggest human feat in human history but yet no calendar day to celebrate"
There is though. July 20th, it's called 'National Moon Day'.
"face timing from the moon with no delay"
Facetime? I do hope you're joking. Nope. Radio transmission, it's a thing - newsflash, bloke called Marconi, 1895. And what on Earth are you talking about, there was a delay.
"riding dune buggies"
No, using purpose built lunar rovers during the later J missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17, in order to extend the areas covered during EVA.
"playing golf on the moon in the 60s"
Wrong again - Apollo 14 1971. Al Shepherd, a keen golfer, smuggled a six iron head that was affixed to the shaft of his sampling tool and hit three balls. He scuffed the first two shots owing to the fact that there was obviously no tee, was restricted in movement due to his spacesuit and had to use on hand. So what?
"brainwashed people believe that crap"
Said the gullible junk online conspiracy believer with demonstrably no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
_"What mixed bag of misunderstanding the issues, strawman arguments, untruths and dismissive analysis by the astronomer."
Well he is after all dealing with the same old obligatory junk conspiracy theory which specialises in strawman arguments, untruths and dismissal.
But then, online conspiracy theory is of course entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, disingenuous, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic, profiteering or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
The sole problem here is that he isn't saying what you want to hear.
1/ No it doesn't. It moves when disturbed either by contact with an astronaut or venting from the PLSS. And yes, the rod has everything to do with it.
2/ Incorrect. It was not possible to see the stars from the lunar surface due to the glare of the sun and the moon's albedo - just as is the case here on Earth during the daytime. And there are many accounts of the Apollo astronauts being awestruck by the stars, particularly around the far side of the moon during the lunar night time.
3. The moon does have a low albedo, but it was still bright enough to cast shadows, just as it can here on Earth. The shadows are entirely consistent with a single light source.
4. Absolute utter nonsense and highly ironic since conspiracy theorists and their gullible believers obsess over 'several feet of lead' not realising that this will actually produce secondary radiation when hit by charged alpha and beta particles in the VABs due to bremsstrahlung. In cislunar space the main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere as you say, comes from CMEs and solar particle events. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. 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. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs.
Astronauts on the lunar surface absorb about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight and about 200 times what we get on Earth's surface. Charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by faraway supernova explosions, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate of 60 microsieverts per hour. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but any prolonged habitation would necessitate shielding because this can spike massively. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). The Alpha and Beta particles within are easy to shield against. Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
5. Yes there was a camera mounted upon the MESA bay - but the amount of people in these comments sections that are unable to comprehend this is staggering. It's absurdly one of the most commonly raised objections to the moon landings.
Ah, the compartmentalisation chestnut - again - and yet you hilariously refer to his rebuttal as a "trope". The US government couldn't even keep a burglary on a hotel secret or a b*** job from a summer intern quiet. "Compartmentalisation" is just a magic spell hand-wave favoured by conspiracy theorists. You can't compartmentalise a project of such complexity and consisting of so many interwoven parts and reciprocity. Any alteration/revision in any part of the production process or system affected all the other parts. NASA actually had to do the complete opposite of compartmentalisation and engender a culture of communication and openness. An entire department was charged with the task of nothing except version-keeping and distributing materials to all the contractors involved. Contractors forced engineers from different departments working for NASA to interact and talk - for example, separate canteens were discouraged and closed to encourage greater cooperation Had it have been attempted any other way (not that it could have been) such clandestine working would have meant that Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade would have been unachievable. Even defence contracts operate like that, and NASA was not a military organisation. Plenty of personnel were dismissed during and since the Apollo Programme and its employees were mostly civilians, free to move about, have beers with strangers and go on vacations. Yet no one talked or smuggled a bunch of smoking-gun documentation out, and the entire scam would have been blown wide open by investigative journalism - not to mention the resident/participatory press and journalists. The Apollo Programme was scrutinised by the entire world and was under a global lens. It was then and has been in the half a century since. Yet a community of online conspiracy believers with zero knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight/the Apollo Programme claim to know better that entire branches of science, specialist fields and cognate disciplines such as aerospace engineering, Noble Prize winning physicists and Pulitzer awarded journalists that have collectively failed to notice these supposed 'gotchas' collectively consumed and regurgitated over comments sections and social media.
5
-
5
-
@neferpitou5163
Because, very simply, the bike went backwards developmentally.
No, that isn't how you define talent, but as I said, Rossi would not have won a title on the same bike. Ben Spies summed up the difference very well in saying when he followed Rossi, he could understand what he was doing, he couldn't do it himself. With Stoner, he couldn't understand what he was doing or how he was doing it, which is something that the many of his competitors at the time have echoed.
Rossi benefitted from ludicrous advantages throughout much of his career that simply were not availed to the rest of the field. He also engineered many rule changes and forced through many demands when things didn't go his way, that no other rider would have been able to influence.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"how we were to first to land men on the moon yet 50 years later we are totally dependent on the Soviet Union to transport our personnel to the space shuttle?"
I think you mean the ISS. And that statement is false.
"how did we penetrate the Van Allen belt without even the film getting damaged?"
They are 'belts', the plural not the singular, because there are two, with a third that is transitory. They are toroidal bands created through the trapping of charged particles by the Earth's magnetosphere. Since they vary in intensity and can be effectively shielded against, they posed no barrier to the Apollo mission trajectories that passed through the sparsest regions at high velocity in a short space of time. This had no implications for camera film.
"The supposed cameras on the astronauts suits were not even insulated to stop radiation let alone the heat for ASA200 to withstand 200+ degrees temperature."
Incorrect. Firstly, Hasselblad adapted their 500EL camera for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective bare metal, and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. Levels of radiation encountered during the Apollo missions did not have had a significant effect on the moderate speed and low sensitivity film types they used. The film for the cameras, was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Secondly, since there is no atmosphere on the moon, there is no air temperature or convection in the absence of this medium. Heat in a vacuum is through either radiative transfer or to a lesser extent, conduction and so you are referring to surface temperature. All of the Apollo missions were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn, meaning that the angle of insolation was low and the lunar surface was still relatively cool. There was sufficient insulation from conduction, whilst incoming heat from the sun was passively radiated and reflected away. 200°F may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not necessarily the temperature of any object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter. The temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Objects will slowly approach this from emission and absorption of radiation. Clearly, this had no bearing upon the film used in the cameras or their operation.
Just out of curiosity, why why do you people think that making ill-informed and ignorant statements in any way supports your contention that the moon landings were faked? Wouldn't it be better to actually first learn about that which you claim to be a hoax? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you demonstrably don't even understand the basic science?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Chemtrails are radio reflective, contrails are not."
You clearly have no idea about the derivation of velocity data. Most modern weather radars employ the pulse-Doppler technique to examine the motion of precipitation, but it is only one aspect of their capability in processing of the data. So, while these radars use a highly specialised form of Doppler radar, the term is much broader in its meaning and its applications.
"Chemtrails show up on on doppler radar, contrails do not."
Utter nonsense.
No - your deceptive junk You Tube conspiracy videos simply tell you that. If the radar is operating in "clear air mode", which is the case in the examples that I have seen, it is a highly sensitive mode in which there is no need for anything visible in the air. Note the scale here only goes up to +28 db. Clear air mode can also be used to locate frontal boundaries and mesoscale frontal boundaries such as outflow boundaries, sea breeze fronts and drylines. A sharp moisture and/or temperature gradient in the troposphere sets up an interface of higher reflectivity (an example is to think of skipping rocks on water, the rock is reflective as it hits the boundary between the air and water). In a case where rapid refraction occurs, some of the energy will backscatter. Also, convergence occurs along frontal boundaries. Dust tends to convergence along synoptic and mesoscale frontal boundaries. These increased regions of disturbance allow for a higher return on clear air mode thus allowing for the detection of these boundaries.
In Clear air mode, the radar sensitivity is increased and it can detect dust, fog, temperature inversions and other atmospheric disturbances that are not precipitation related. When the radar detects precipitation again, it automatically switches back to PRECIPITATION mode.
My specialist field is Remote Sensing, I would be more than happy to clear up any remaining confusion that you have over this.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Did a three stage, manned rocket that he designed as the director of NASA’s George C Marshall Space Flight Centre, really fly three men into Earth orbit in 1969?"
Yes - and it did so on nine occasions. This was witnessed on the ground, tracked around the world and observed whilst in orbit as was TLI.
"And did those three men really cross the vast airless vacuum of space, travelling some 238,855 miles ‘From the Earth to the Moon’, in a tiny ‘tin can’ command module that had the miniscule computing power of a pocket calculator?"
No, 24 astronauts made that journey in total and three of them twice. The CM was not a tin can and the AGC was a technological triumph, whilst also being supported on the ground by the RTCC comprising IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment. So no, not in remotely comparable to "the power of a pocket calculator."
"And did two of those men really set foot on the surface of the Moon dressed only in flimsy zipped up beta cloth space suits"
No. They were equipped with the robust five layer A7L suit. Perhaps read up about it alongside the architecture of the computer systems used by Apollo.
"from an untested and ungainly Moon lander"
It was neither untested or ungainly. The LM was tested during Apollo 5, Apollo 9 and taken to within 47,000ft of the lunar surface by Apollo 10's Tom Stafford and Eugene Cernan. How can something designed to operate within the vacuum of space be "ungainly"?
"that had the appearance of a hastily constructed film prop?"
Again, perhaps do a little reading and understand why it looked like it did. In over half a century, the entire specialist discipline of aerospace engineering has had no issues with the form or the function of the LM - and I'd also suggest that they would have noticed had it actually have been a "hastily constructed film prop". The full schematics and specifications are also available to you. Why don't you look at them too?
And if it was a hastily constructed film prop, do you not think that they'd have fashioned something vaguely resembling popular perceptions driven by sci fi movies to satisfy people like yourself?
"And did those three men safely return to Earth in their command module, culminating in a parachute controlled ocean splashdown"
Again, that would be 24 men in total...including one aborted mission. The service module was ejected and the command module performed a controlled double dip reentry using and ablative heat shield to withstand and protect the craft form the 5,000 °F temperatures generated by reentry. After entering the atmosphere, the acceleration built, peaking at 6 g (59 m/s²). This dropped as they slowed down due to aerobraking, and emerged from radio blackout. Passing through 7,300 metres (24,000 ft), the apex cover was blown by a pyrotechnic charge. This exposed the two sets of parachutes. First the two drogue parachutes were released, which slowed and stabilised the capsule from 310mph to 170mph. They pulled out the three large main parachutes some twenty seconds later which slowed the CM to around 22mph for the targeted splashdown zone in the Pacific Ocean.
"a rescue by ship"
Yes, that was the general idea as opposed to leaving them to fend for themselves in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Outrageous I know.
"and a triumphant homecoming to jubilant celebrations?"
Yep, which wasn't unexpected given the accomplishment. Neil Armstrong in particular was a very introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the globe on a 38-day around the world goodwill tour, visiting 29 cities in 24 countries, at the behest of the President of the United States must have filled him with despair and dread.
5
-
@deanhall9292
"The reality, because chemtrails cant be denied(just look skywards)....."
....And your logical fallacy is.
"Brennan....has basically just admitted this."
You sure about that?...
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
During his address as a voluntary speaker to the Council on Foreign Relations, Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if it were to be implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider and evaluate a range of technological initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan is discussing Solar Radiation Management in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a political, socio-economic and technological framework - research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even explores anti-ageing technologies.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or "talks about chemtrails" as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles that Brennan referred to mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilitse the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
Incidentally, you keep forgetting to link to the metabunk thread that resulted in a ban. Let's take a look.
5
-
5
-
So your proof of the moon landing conspiracy theory, is a series of videos about the moon landing conspiracy theory made by perpetrators of the moon landing conspiracy theory promoting the moon landing conspiracy theory? And you then have the temerity to mention 'an open mind'?
At what stage have you objectively critically appraised any of these nonsensical claims yourself? And at what stage have you attempted to learn about the science, technology and history of the Apollo programme instead of gullibly relying upon what these charlatans tell you to believe.
"we didnt go, no one has gone, and no one may never go to the moon."
Nothing like an "open mind" is there?
"Why go find out, compare the facts with the b.s. from nasa.....good hunting"
"Facts" - from the 'Apollo Detectives'. Is this actually serious?
And of course online conspiracy theory is entirely honest, accurate, informed and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda. Righto then.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"I’m going to have to call BS!"
Entire branches of science and the specialist field must currently be devastated at the news.
"So we’re supposed to believe these guys spent 3 full days on the moon in cramped quarters"
The submersible Alvin can dive to a depth of 14,700 feet and remain submerged for 72 hours. Presumably that's fake too? I'm guessing that you are also completely unaware that the Apollo 17 EVA totalled 22 hours? - So, no, they did not actually spend "3 full days on the moon in cramped quarters".
"in temps of 250F"
The temperature was not 205°F though. That is the surface equilibrium temperature that takes time to build up to. I'm confident that you have no idea that the length of a day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 Earth days. That all the Apollo missions were timed to coincide their landings with the lunar dawn, that in a vacuum, there is no air temperature and therefore no convection, or the dual purpose of MLI.
"with life support run completely off batteries?? "
Because of the fuel-cell complexity, the development costs, and the schedule problems, the prime contractor was directed to convert to an all-battery system. In the dc system, five descent-stage batteries, rated at 400 ampere-hours each and two ascent-stage batteries, rated at 300 ampere-hours each, were used. Two electrical-control assembly (ECA) units were placed in the descent stage for the control and protection of all descent-stage batteries. One ECA was used for each ascent stage battery. The silver Zinc batteries made by Eagle Pitcher who have collectively amassed 2.6 billion cell hours in space without a mission failure. Would you like to discuss this in greater detail or are you happy to concede for the benefit of anyone reading this that you haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about?
"They also seemed to have a never ending supply of oxygen!!"
The Lunar Module descent stage contained two oxygen tanks, each of which contained 48 pounds of gaseous oxygen at 2,690 psia. This supply provided the oxygen that they used during descent, and during their stay on the Moon, including filling their backpacks and re-pressurising the cabin after their EVA (“moonwalk”). The ascent stage contained two tanks, each of which contained 2.43 pounds of oxygen at 840 psia. This supply provided the breathing oxygen during liftoff from the Moon and rendezvous with the Command Module. This was later expanded for the J Missions. Again, we can discuss this further if you wish to learn more.
Personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
5
-
5
-
Eli
If you construe so called ‘chemtrails’ to be responsible, then instead of parroting anecdotal conjecture uncritically rote learned and regurgitated off a YouTube video, you will instead need to provide primary hard data yielding objective evidence demonstrating a causal relationship between ‘chemtrails’ and the ecological decline of said species. As yet, no one has - and as long as this continues to be the case then ‘chemtrails’ will remain the preserve of fringe agenda ridden bias of conspiracy websites and rebound aimlessly within the vacuous echo chambers of YouTube or vapid social media inhabited by the paranoid, the delusional and the scientifically illiterate. In other words – the inconsequential and the irrelevant.
Moreover, since this spraying has allegedly been taking place for over a quarter of a century do you not think it odd that no one has collaborated to fund an analytical study at source? There are plenty of erroneous and spurious claims about chemtrail deposits – but these invariably stem from Michael J Murphy’s fallacious, deceptive and sensationalist series of internet movies, in particular, the farcical ‘What in the World are they Spraying’ involving the slapstick soil sample attempts at Shasta. However, there are have been no efforts to obtain samples directly through active or passive means which would be a routine endeavor. Murphy pledged that his next project would involve flying a light aircraft into a contrail, but it appears that the funding has been allegedly embezzled or misallocated and for now, the protagonist has gone to ground.
Instead of shamefully scaremongering the vulnerable, gullible and the scientifically illiterate perhaps the ringleaders of this scam - Tanner, Wigington and Carnicom (amongst other bandwagon jumpers), should combine their resources and commission a legitimate scientific investigation. They should then publish their findings for the scrutiny of the peer review process adhering throughout to the scientific method instead of churning out random nonsense for the consumption of the naïve and the impressionable about ‘desiccated blood’ and high bypass jet engines being incapable of producing vapour. If chemtrails were real, even the most routine, cursory amateur scientific investigation could blow this wide open in an afternoon as an afterthought.
If you genuinely cared about protecting our environment as opposed to meaningless slacktivist online posturing, then you would perhaps be devoting your time championing a noble and worthy cause instead of desperately trying to assign purpose to your life pointlessly and fatuously protesting about suspended ice crystals at 30,000 feet via the comments section of YouTube.
If you wish to discuss the conditions governing the formation of contrails in terms of aviation, meteorology and atmospheric chemistry I would be more than willing to oblige. If you lack the requisite knowledge to do so and are unable to identify/eliminate the series of logical fallacies that hamper your argument, then on the contrary, I suggest it is pointedly you that should ‘shut the hell up’.
4
-
"So let me get this straight solar rays that they say that if we had no ozone to protect us would absolutely annihilate the human race. But those same solar rays in space without the protection of a ozone layer directed onto a space craft with aluminum and epoxy resins are you kidding me with that kind of analysis."
The ozone layer helps to shield life on earth from damaging UV radiation. Without the ozone layer, too much harmful UVB radiation would have reached the Earth's surface over time. Increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation can cause skin cancer and eye cataracts, and damage crops, plants and micro-organisms, affecting ecosystems and food chains. The damage is cumulative and organic. This has no bearing whatsoever on the construction or structural integrity of either the Command Module or the Lunar Module.
"So basically every field of science has been bought off and now we're just consistently lying to each other"
No entire branch of science has been 'bought off', science has a voice of its own. As is the case in virtually all walks of life, 'scientists' themselves can be corrupted, but this is virtually impossible to conceal.
"And then no one can answer why all the technological stagnation"
Money not technology. Technology certainly requires the latter and the cost of sending manned missions to the moon is obscenely expensive, hence the premature cancellation of the Apollo programme, the paucity of funding for Constellation and the sporadic drip-fed funding for Project Artemis. The latter was only approved in 2018 and as the capability to return manned landings to the moon is painstakingly rebuilt with modern technology, this is not in anyway comparable to the virtual blank cheque from Congress that was afforded to Apollo. Post Apollo, the funding and the technology was channeled into other projects such as the construction of the ISS, the shuttle programme and unmanned probes and landers which is much cheaper than crewed exploration.
And on the subject of perceived technological stagnation, the aviation sector has the capability to offer a supersonic commercial passenger service - any idea why it hasn't for in excess of two decades now?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Kyle_G1993
"it was the technology which Uncle Don referred to when he said that they destroyed it and it's a painful process to build it back again. He didn't specify so I don't need to either because I don't blindly believe stories from alphabet agencies."
Yeah right. Because the alt-right, dumb conspiracy theory that you consume and mindlessly regurgitate is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Thought so, it's the Don Pettit quote...again. Jeez, how many times? It's the same thing over and over and over and over again.
Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"He didn't specify so I don't need to either"
Yes you do since you made the claim.
"because I don't blindly believe stories from alphabet agencies."
🤣But that's precisely what you've just done.
You're not all that bright are you?
So why can't we replicate the technology necessary to go to the moon genius? Go ahead then.
Thanks for playing!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@MediaLieDetector
"Do some more research."
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"Ignorance is curable
In your case I highly doubt it.
However, to address your question, radiation was not an issue for 8 - 12 day sprints to the moon and back.
In terms of deep space, long duration missions however, it is, which is why there is a vast amount of research currently into novel shielding techniques and materials. Regarding Apollo which was a sprint to the moon and back, the energies and the distribution of the charged particles within the Van Allen Belts, (alpha and beta radiation, which is easy to shield against in such concentrations), were well understood. That is why mission planners were able to calculate safe trajectories through them exposing the astronauts to as little as 1 - 1.5 rems. On the surface of the moon, astronauts were subject to a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour from GCRs. That's only 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight. The main danger came from SPEs and CMEs which NASA took a calculated risk over. In fact, because Apollo took place during a solar maximum, between Apollo 16 and 17, in August 1972, there was indeed a large solar storm. A moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
Now why don't you answer the question. Specify the type and intensity of radiation that you are referring to supported with independently verifiable measurements.
Secondly, why do you think that entire branches of science and in particular, the specialist fields of particle physics, astrophysics and radiobiology worldwide have no doubts about the ability to shield radiation during the Apollo missions? Meanwhile, you, a random insignificant nobody and gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory, that tells you what to think about subjects that you clearly have zero knowledge of whatsoever, claims to know better?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"((((ALUMINUM IS NOT A NATURAL OCCURRING METAL YOU FOOL!))))"
As the third most abundant element on the planet - are you sure about that?
"THERE IS EVIDENCE EVERYWHERE, documents / patents / and in 2018, congress discussions on the subject...."
Evidence of what? Patents mean nothing, and of course congress are discussing the implications of geoengineerig research. What does that have to do with a contrail?
"Jet engines CHANGED in the mid 1980s'.. Rolls Royce developed the 80% BYPASS turbo fan jet engine. Only 20% of the (thrust) is exhaust, where before, 100% was exhaust..."
GE provided high-bypass turbofan engines to the Lockheed Galaxy C5 in the late 1960s. The Tf39s achieved a bypass ration of 8:1 and I can assure you that they produced contrails.
https://youtu.be/mi43q8kQxiE
The turbojet uses thrust generated solely by the expanding exhaust as a means to propel the plane. The exhaust gasses exit at high velocity and high temperature, and therefore are widely dispersed by turbulence before cooling sufficiently to condense into a large, but mostly transparent contrail. In contrast, the turbo fan engine uses the exhaust gasses to mechanically drive a large fan at the front of the engine to generate the majority of the thrust. As the exhaust passes through the additional turbine disks needed to drive the fan, it slows in velocity and cools, so that when it exits the rear of the engine it can condense more quickly into a thick contrail. In addition, this central core exhaust plume is surrounded by a thick layer of cool air from the bypass fan which helps to contain the water vapour, thus enabling it to cool faster while the water molecules produced by combustion are still in close proximity. Any jet engine has a core combustion chamber burning a hydrocarbon fuel and id the conditions are conducive will result in a contrail be it high bypass, low bypass or no bypass.
High bypass turbofan engines actually have a higher contrail factor than their jet-turbine predecessors as the following paper demonstrates.
http://elib.dlr.de/9247/1/aerscitech-2000.pdf
"contrails only last minutes or less."
The duration of a contrail is entirely dependent upon the prevalent atmospheric conditions. They may not form, they may only remain from seconds to minutes or they may last for hours. No different to a cloud. If the surrounding ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, then a contrail will be unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state of invisible water vapour and will not only persist, but can expand and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. They can also be fanned by vertical and horizontal wind shear. There is a large volume of current research into the extent of radiative forcing associated with both persistent contrails and resultant contrail cirrus.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+Damanizyo
"For the rest in this thread google patent US3813875 and patent US5003186."
Have you actually bothered to read these? US3813875 is a patent for the release system on a sounding rocket in a vacuum. These are intended for ionospheric research and contain about 1 kilogram of trace material. About 25 are launched a year - so in all, that'll be 25kg released above the Kármán line and into the vacuum of space per annum. Meantime, have you ever explored the contents of a domestic firework? Let me help you there. Typically, that'll be strontium salts, lithium salts and barium compounds. On July 4th alone there are 260.7 million pounds of consumer fireworks and 24.6 million pounds of display fireworks detonated all close to or at ground level. Taking that into account, now add up all the similar festivals around the world, all the private functions and all the countries that sell fireworks for display and domestic use. Then read this...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/20/delhi-covered-in-toxic-haze-after-night-of-diwali-fireworks
- So what's your point?
US5003186 - The Welsbach seeding patent, gas mantles essentially - hence the title.The patent doesn't mention barium or strontium, and they aren't recognised as Welsbach materials, yet the chemtrails believers have incorporated that piece of mythology into chemtrail lore. Again if you actually read it, you'll find it actually discredits the "solar obscuration" method because it leads to further trapped infrared radiation. It also says this...
"The greenhouse gases are typically in the earth's stratosphere at an altitude of seven to thirteen kilometers. This suggests that the particle seeding should be done at an altitude on the order of 10 kilometers."
So what does this have to do with the erroneous belief that contrails at half the altitude are evidence of chemical spraying which is all that Rogan is debunking in this video.
Now here's one for you. What do you make of this? Suspicious?...
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5486900
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+TheConspiracy Realist
https://youtu.be/L6SqF3W5xH4
???? This is a Dane Wigington video. So you link us to a chemtrails conspiracy theory video made by one of the main perpetrators of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, about the chemtrail theory, featuring believers in the chemtrail conspiracy as supposed evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory? Genius.
"Look at the numbas my friend of the amounts of particulate matter of certain substances in lab testings that show these things being dumped on our heads in quantities way above EPA safe levels."
Do feel free to produce these lab tests together with the proven causal link to chemtrails, details of collection and the methodology to ensure discrimination between these samples and contamination from existing sources of both anthropological and natural origin. Do you even understand ICP-MS?
"That is a statement based on what? Fact? That is an imbecile statement designed to deflect from the truth at hand. And the truth is the military has been using weather modification for decades, and continues to do so to this very day."
Why do you suppose that localised weather modification/cloud seeding bears any resemblance whatsoever to a contrail? What's your point?
"The best way to hide something is in plain sight."
Research into SAI has never been concealed which is precisely the reason that you clowns are able to conflate it with your chemtrail hoax - it has never been concealed. As has been explained to you, SAI if ever deployed would be imperceptible to the ground based observer and certainly wouldn't resemble a large white plume in the wake of a commercial airliner at half the designated altitude.
"CHEMTRAIL/GEOENGINEERING projects have been deployed by various groups, including universities on a regular basis"
Present your analytical data to support this claim. A sample of a chemtrail at source or ground based spectroscopy would be a good place to start. There are hundreds of such studies into contrails - in the purported two decades that this spraying has been in progress you must similarly have a wealth of similar publications into your chemtrails.
"And they continue to do so with impunity as we just accept it as 'normal' when rhe lab tests and facts remain"
What lab tests - what facts? I do hope you're referring to Wigington's Mt.Shasta pond sludge submitted to Basic Laboratories in Redding, or Francis Mangles slapstick rainwater samples.
"So please, don't try and bullshit me with statements that have no basis in fact about things being put in the atmosphere would be invisible IF they were doing that at all. IF you want to speculate about that that's fine, and I am quite sure that there are a number of substances that would be invisible if areosoled into the atmosphere."
Do you even understand the basic principles of SAI? Have you actually read the research first hand as opposed to regurgitating online con artists such as Wigington? The objective is to simulate the reflective cooling effect caused by aerosols produced by volcanic eruptions. This requires deployment at 65 - 70,000ft in the form of a fine mist at near double the altitude of the contrails that you are observing. The novel materials/elements to achieve this aim are still the subject of research which has not yet progressed to small scale trial.
If you are alleging that SAI would resemble condensed atmospheric water vapour in the wake of a commercial aircraft, then the burden of proof is incumbent upon you to substantiate this claim both scientifically and through the derivation of empirical data otherwise your contentions are worthless. The ludicrous irony about your absurd conspiracy theory is that geoengineers wish to achieve diametrically the opposite to the radiative forcing effect of contrails.
"Would that include Aluminum Oxide, Barium, and Strontium?"
The obligatory parroted three elements. Have you ever questioned why you people aimlessly bat this about your echochamber?
"since we are speculating and all"
The speculation is entirely yours. TheConspiracy Realist? - even your YouTube moniker is an oxymoron.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@johnpolaski6126
The aluminum particles break up the light (roy-g-biv) red orange yellow gold blue indigo and violet colors of the spectrum"
No, that would be irisation. named after Iris the ancient Greek goddess who passed messages between the mortals and the gods. As Iris ran back and forward her multicoloured robes shimmered in iridescence like a rainbow. You are seeing diffraction - caused by water droplets or ice crystals - bending rays of light - the colours have a metallic quality like colours on an oily surface. Incidentally, I don't advise looking anywhere near the sun - even if there is cloud cover.
Strange then that this effect has been documented throughout recorded history. While Aristotle had mentioned halos and parhelia, in antiquity, the first European descriptions of complex displays were those of Christoph Scheiner in Rome (circa 1630), Hevelius in Danzig (1661), and Tobias Lowitz in St Petersburg
(1794). Chinese observers had recorded these for centuries, the first reference being a section of the "Official History of the Chin Dynasty" (Chin Shu) in 637, on the "Ten Haloes", giving technical terms for 26 solar halo phenomena. Halos were used as part of weather lore, which was an empirical means of weather forecasting before meteorology was developed. You may also wish to learn about the Vädersolstavlan "The Weather Sun Painting" - arguably one of the oldest visual depictions of the phenomena.
https://elib.dlr.de/9247/1/aerscitech-2000.pdf
"Being sprayed You See Spot rainbows or sun dogs huge Sun dogs around the Sun I've been paying attention to these things for years"
Oddly enough so have the entire fields of meteorology and atmospheric science.
"they used to use many planes to spray the sky they've now perfected their methods after the incident with Trump and the paris accord ...."
There is no incident with Trump and the Paris accord concerned reducing emissions in conjunction with addressing climate change.
"but it is real they are doing it the sun is hotter at times there is a hole in the ozone"
We are actually experiencing a solar minima, whilst the damage to the ozone layer is repairing due to the ban on CFCs.
"look up geo engineering and weather modification"
Geoengineering is a very broad term split into GGR and SRM strategies. In respect of the latter, with the exception of ground based albedo modification, SRM is entirely in the realm of hypothetical research proposal and computer modelling. Weather Modification is the technical term for cloud seeding which artificially introduces additional nucleation into existing stratiform or cumulus cloud masses. Neither have anything to do with the misidentification of persistent contrails that the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon.
"the fact is it is chemicals and thay are trailing behind airplanes for real period!"
You mean persistent contrails that have been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of aviation.
Instead of consuming junk conspiratorial nonsense, why don't you actually read up on the science of contrails, understand cloud seeding and learn about the different types of geoengineering proposals rather than allowing junk online conspiracy videos to tell you what to think?
Before you do that, mastering the basic rudiments of written English - in particular, the principles of punctuation will greatly improve your ability to communicate.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes, because after all, nothing says nothing says informed, honest, trustworthy and accurate like a former cab driver and convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry, turned career conspiracy theorist and a proven liar and fraud with absolutely no specialist knowledge of scientific expertise whatsoever.
What is hilarious is that you mention "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and "Astronauts Gone Wild" in the same sentence as "complete hoax" and "utter nonsense" in the absence of even a shred of irony.
Sibrel is a conman and a grifter. He knows full well what he's doing, and his target market, which you are evidently part of, is outright gullibility and sheer stupidity.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@daryllect6659
"Anyone capable of critical thought knows that no human has ever been on the lunar surface."
So that'll be entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise worldwide such as aerospace engineering, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalism, Nobel Prize winning physicists, some 10.000 private investors and space sector organisations, and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet to name a few, all incapable of "critical thought"?
The Apollo Programme has been dissected by technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century. It was completely transparent and there is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, in excess of half a century, the physics of every mission profile, the engineering of every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject. The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies I mentioned. To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions who base aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo. Then there are the professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities whose work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program.
Meanwhile, let's listen instead to an insignificant, non-achieving nobody arrogantly mouthing off and trolling on the comments section of You Tube that thinks "critical thought" involves mindlessly regurgitating what some dumb online conspiracy video or social media meme told him to think about a subject that he has absolutely zero knowledge of whatsoever.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"We never landed on the moon."
Incorrect. There were six landings in total. Would have ten were it not for the cancellation of the Apollo programme and the failure of Apollo 13.
"And that has been really proven now when we are actually trying to do it and sending first probes, then dummy vehicles to test radiation very carefully and maybe after all of that we can land a human there."
What on earth are you talking about? The first probe was sent to the moon in 1959. If you are referring to the 'dummys' in the Orion capsule, that is not the sole purpose of the mannequins. They are wearing the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. These are fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration. Engineers will compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same manikin, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion will provide data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluates the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - Artemis 1 is 42 days in comparison and unlike Apollo reaches an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. One of the mannequins is testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincides with peak solar activity which is a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
"Come on, we still gonna talk about this fantasy?"
Tens of thousands of academic publications have done; discussing and analysing the science, the technology, the history and the findings of the Apollo missions. Why don't you falsify them instead of wasting your time on the comments section You Tube? You clearly think you know better.
"I don't know if we can even do it now in 2022, apparently not based on all precaution and not being there for 50 years"
The main barrier has actually been the funding - not the science and technology.
"Moonlanding is joke stop it."
Nothing gets past you does it?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hotheadedjoelhaha
"I Believed the same Crap as You for over 50 years"
To clarify again, the known science and technology associated with the Apollo Programme is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned mine. I am irrelevant to this exchange, whilst the latter is demonstrable and has a voice of its own.
And meanwhile, for over half a century, entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, some 10,000 private sector initiatives and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet have no issue with the veracity of the Apollo landings. In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
"Then I began my Real Research. As you should."
So what you actually meant to say, in the last two year's or so you allowed yourself to succumb to junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you know absolutely nothing about. Funny you should mention it, because I work in research capability - that's my job, enabling post doctoral research. So appreciating that "real research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Go ahead. In your own time.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"The fact they supposedly did this just 60 years after the Wright brothers invented an airplane is laughable."
Why? You can progressively trace every stage of the technological development that culminated in the moon landings that made it possible. This is all documented.
"The command module supposedly reached 4,000 degrees upon re entry at a speed of 25,000 mph but yet it just miraculously slows down to almost nothing so parachutes float it down?"
Prior to reentry the speed of the CSM had exceeded 24,000mph. The service module was ejected and the command module performed a controlled double dip reentry using and ablative heat shield to withstand and protect the craft form the 5,000 °F temperatures generated by reentry. After entering the atmosphere, the acceleration built, peaking at 6 g (59 m/s²). This dropped as they slowed down due to aerobraking, and emerged from radio blackout. Passing through 7,300 metres (24,000 ft), the apex cover was blown by a pyrotechnic charge. This exposed the two sets of parachutes. First the two drogue parachutes were released, which slowed and stabilized the capsule from 310mph to 170mph. They pulled out the three large main parachutes some twenty seconds later which slowed the CM to around 22mph for the targeted splashdown zone in the Pacific Ocean.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@carlhawkins-tu9yl
On the contrary, lunar resources encompass solar power potential, oxygen, and abundant elements including, among others, hydrogen , oxygen, silicon, iron, magnesium, calcium, aluminium, manganese and titanium. Also, non-radioactive helium-3 from the moon may one day power nuclear fusion reactors. Water can also be found in the poles. Beyond our near neighbour, measurements by rovers and satellites at Mars have also indicated massive amounts of water in the form of ice beneath and within the regolith. Mineral resources are in abundance as well, including iron, titanium, nickel, aluminum, sulfur, chlorine and calcium.
When the technology is put in place to extract this in an economically viable way, there will be a race to lay claim to different regions of the moon and later Mars and the scramble to exploit their resources will commence...in the case of the moon, likely in the latter half of this century as the lunar economy opens up.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@amrasurvival5580
Actually, 280 F (138 C) - which may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not necessarily the temperature of any object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter. The temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Objects will slowly approach this from emission and absorbtion of radiation.
All the Apollo missions to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. Bear in mind here that the lunar day is just under 700 hours long. In addition to this, the angle of insolation ensured that the sunlight was not too strong.
There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the albedo on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts. The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. As you correctly said, the moon has no atmosphere. The normal kind of thermal transfer we see on Earth requires matter for the heat to transfer to. With no air, heat has no immediate way to escape a body. and so in respect of convection - the most efficient process of heat transfer - there is no medium for this to take place.
Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb.
All very basic thermodynamics.
Radiation? - Because they are made EVAs in places with far less than lethal exposures. Radiation in space isn’t uniformly distributed.
The big remaining problem was radiation from solar flares and CMEs. So NASA looked at solar activity, launched during periods when activity was low and hoped a CME wouldn't occur. The Apollo astronauts were in significant danger from solar storms. There actually was a solar storm during the Apollo missions, in August 1972, but luckily there were no astronauts on the Moon at the time. It was after the Apollo 16 mission ended in April and before Apollo 17, the last mission to the Moon in December.
The space suit shields the astronaut from UV light, and also helps regulate temperature caused by being in the sun or in the shade. Cosmic rays can't be stopped by less than 10 meters of so of water, which is roughly the optical depth of the Earth's atmosphere - fortunately, the flux is low enough that you'd have to be in interplanetary space for a year or more to get a 1% increase in chance of fatal cancer before death.
Solar wind is much less energetic and is shielded partly by the spacecraft and by the astronaut's own body, but mostly by the Earth's atmosphere. Even so, a years regular dose is about the same as the cosmic ray dose, so you're not going to die straight away, or likely even at all.
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Because they spent over a million dollars to invent a ballpoint pen that would write in outter space, while the Russians used a pencil."
Actually, that's nothing more than a popular urban myth. The Fisher pen was developed using private capital, not government funding. And yes, the development of the thixotropic ink cost Paul Fisher around $1 million but it was used by NASA and the Soviet Union.
Originally, NASA astronauts, like the Soviet cosmonauts, used pencils which may not have been the best choice anyway. The tips flaked and broke off, drifting in microgravity where they could potentially harm an astronaut or equipment. In 1965 Fisher patented a pen that could write upside-down, in frigid or roasting conditions (down to minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit or up to 400 degrees F), and even underwater or in other liquids.
That same year, Fisher offered the AG-7 "Anti-Gravity" Space Pen to NASA and after testing the space pen intensively, the agency decided to use it on spaceflights. From February 1968, NASA ordered 400 of Fisher's antigravity ballpoint pens for the Apollo program. A year later, the Soviet Union ordered 100 pens and 1,000 ink cartridges to use on their Soyuz space missions.
Since the late 1960s American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts have used Fisher's pens. In fact, Fisher has created a whole line of space pens. A newer pen, called the Shuttle Pen, was used on NASA's space shuttle programme and on the Russian space station, Mir. You don't have to go to space to get your hands on a space pen - you can buy one yourself for a mere $50.00.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@rastiga9196
"Maybe commercial planes don't but it is really common amongst private planes by farmers to cloud seed for rain"
Actually is isn't. Despite high profile state schemes in China and the UAE, and the private organisations that offer contracts largely in the agricultural sector, cloud seeding isn't that widespread. Also, the aerial application of the practice involves negligible quantities of silver iodide, retrofitted to the wings of light aircraft in the form of flare canisters which are then burnt - so it doesn't involve spraying either - and certainly no lasting trails.
"the military has admitted to testing on US citizens by planes multiple times so not exactly a conspiracy."
They have - all at very low level and for a range of reasons. Largely, as opposed to the "people" being the test subjects, using tracers to evaluate dispersion (such as St.Louis). However, there have been more concerning experiments, such as San Francisco. I can assure you that the belief that aircraft contrails are evidence of a sinister programme of chemical spraying (which is what we are discussing here and in this video) absolutely is a conspiracy theory - but you're right, it isn't a "conspiracy" because it isn't happening.
"Do you check what is in your fuel every time? Do you know what is in your fuel?"
Yeah pretty much - and trust me, road traffic is far more harmful to the environment and health than those white trails six to eight miles above your head that chemtrail believers don't understand.
Tell me - do you drive?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@neilarmstrongsson795
"There's nothing particular "clever" about science, it's not infallible nor is it exacting in many areas."
And yet here you are using a device that lets you instantly share this asinine claim with people all over the world. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method. It's a lot easier to hide behind a conspiracy theory than it is to learn the mathematics and applied science involved. Of course it isn't "infallible" - that's precisely how the scientific method advances. And naturally, the junk conspiracy theory that you defer to is completely infallible, accurate, informed, reliable and dependable? Righto then.
Perhaps visit a department of aerospace engineering, or an astrophysics academic conference - tell them that there's nothing 'clever' about their science, tell them you know better because Bart Sibrel said so - and don't forget to let them know that the University of You Tube sent you.
"In fact there is so much that we don't know or that has any explanation, and likely never will."
Absolutely, but science is committed to pushing those boundaries, expanding the frontiers of our knowledge and there is much that we will continue to discover as a species.
"But you bought into all that 'clever stuff' didn't you, they made you believe it."
Science is not a question of belief - it must be evidenced, testable, reproducible, and ultimately, falsifiable. I am irrelevant to this exchange. The known science that you are in contention with is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms, it thereby is demonstrable and has a voice of its own.
But you bought into all this dumb conspiracy stuff didn't you? They made you believe it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Except they didn't. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to.
The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this? - again?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Eli Many thanks for your civil and courteous response.
“I'm parroting facts from a YouTube video? How about talking from personal experience in my forest on my property.”
I am not casting aspersions over your “personal experience” or your observations which are perfectly valid as is your outrage. There are and always have been many, many pests and diseases that affect trees. There are also many environmental stresses, including those due to relatively recent human causes (such as pollution), which can both affect trees directly and cause them to be more susceptible to opportunistic pests and pathogens. However if you or anyone else believes that the ecological damage that they testify to is solely a result of aerosols sprayed at 30,000ft then in order for this hypothesis to be validated it needs to be tested and a causal link established. The first stage towards accomplishing this is to analyse your so called ‘chemtrails’ at source. Contrary to your contentions, no one has done this. I do however invite you to prove me wrong.
I witness a world beset by rising global temperatures, Nitric Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Hydrocarbons, Ammonia, ground level Ozone and other photo chemical oxidants, Nitric Acid, Fuel Ash, Sulphur Dioxide, Metallic Catalysts and particulate, deforestation and loss of habitat – a consequence of mass industrialisation and our disposable consumer lifestyles. Evidently, you choose to overlook the sources of primary and secondary pollution, instead attributing all this ecological damage to the trails that you see in the sky.
“You think nobody has tried to investigate this?”
Legitimately, through application of the scientific method? No they have not, but again, please feel to provide the published findings or the objective empirical data that proves otherwise – I would be fascinated to see it.
“Any attempts have been squashed, ignored”
Specifically, what “attempts” are you referring to?
“And without the msm and then enough people fighting for this, the government will keep on doing as they have been, the populous oblivious to it.”
My apologies, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
“Scientists seem too scared to even respond to questions about this”
Examples? I think it’s more the awkwardness of how to effectively broach or respond to fringe internet conspiracy theory and the growing anti-science movement prone to disingenuous behavior and dishonestly manipulating facts and quoting out of context. For those schooled in science, I think it’s more a case of bewilderment and disbelief than fear.
“Now, yes, please tell me how these contrails form, citing older non government-modified resources.”
Perhaps start by reading the excellent 'Flight to Arras' was a book published by Antoine Saint-Exupery detailing his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". - which was obviously not in the interest of a covert operation. This was a story published in 1942 about a flight in 1940.
Professor Ulrich Schumann, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 4(2000) 391-401 "Influence of Propulsion efficiency on Contrail Formation” although this has been subject to subsequent revision.
Following registration, you can read this particularly informative study:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6138/1320.full
The following is a seminal scientific study into contrail mass:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf
This - Peter Kuhn, " Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970)
And here is the link...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
An interesting excerpt from the following link:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometres is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf
Quick question to ask yourself - and please employ some objective critical thinking to challenge your preconceptions. Given a typical commercial heavy, say a Boeing 777 powered by two GE90 jet engines jointly capable of 188,000lbs of thrust assuming a cruising speed of 550 knots and an altitude of FL35F, in an ambient temperature of -50C travelling through supersaturated air and a crosswind of 35knots burning a hydrocarbon fuel within a combustion chamber...what would you expect to observe?
Thanks again for your reply and I am sorry for any offence caused. Although your post was suffused with logical fallacies, I hold my hand up and concede that argumentum ad hominem, as one of the most commonly encountered in these situations is neither helpful or conducive to constructive discourse. For that, I apologise Eli.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the Van Allen Belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts. That is why mission planners were able to calculate safe trajectories through them exposing the astronauts to as little as1 - 1.5 rems.
They also knew that GCRs both in cislunar space and on the surface of the moon would not present a challenge given the short duration of the Apollo missions. On the lunar surface astronauts were subject to a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour from GCRs. That's only 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight.
The main hazard was the possibility of a CME/SPE during one of the missions. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum and NASA took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
There were plans in place to deal with a large scale CME. These storms would not have been instantly deadly, but could have caused a serious case of acute radiation syndrome. The plan was if such an event happened was to get home ASAP, and treat the ARS on Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Absolute nonsense, pure online conspiratorial claptrap. HAARP is owned by the University of Alaska and is currently undergoing refurbishment, whilst SURA. like HAARP is an ionospheric research array. The original purpose of HAARP was to explore the Luxembourg Gorky effect to enhance long range communications. HAARP has been able to create Extremely Low Frequency waves as low as 1 Hertz, the hydroacoustic potential of this meant that the Navy could more effectively communicate with its fleet of submarines worldwide - though at an almost uselessly slow data rate. Both HAARP and SURA are HF heat pumps - it is not within their capability or designation to 'manipulate' the weather or seismic events, which is not scientifically or physically possible. Furthermore, in spite of whatever your internet conspiracy theory tells you, neither have anything remotely to do with persistent contrails under discussion in this video which have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You mean the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan and his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous titles of the junk chemtrail conspiracy videos that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is in progress, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
To clarify, chemtrails are a baseless hoax predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails that have been observed, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation - it is precisely this that is being addressed in this video. Perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax have intentionally conflated this with goeengineering research manufacturing disinformation which then owing of knowledge, education and understanding of the subject is then parroted by chemtrail believers such as yourself and spread as misinformation. (There is a difference between the two). You are caught in a circuitous logical fallacy. You are told that geoengineering would resemble a contrail, so when you see a contrail you think that it is geoengineering. Pure false-equivalence.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Wow what an idiot."
Said the chemtrail believer.
"Totally happening"
Persistent contrails? Indeed. You'll find that they have been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation.
"I have seen the airports they fly from"
Aircraft? - Clever lad.
"I have seen stuck open sprayers on jets landing"
Of course you have. You mean that ludicrous appropriated You Tube footage of a Cathay Pacific Boeing 777 producing aerodynamic contrails at LAX, deceptively titled, "Pilot Forgets to turn off Spraying During Landing"?
"Do your homework before you pass judgement on other people"
The tiresome trope and mindless meme of the conspiracy believer. Appreciating that "research" does not involve a squandered evening in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked, click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites...how precisely did you do yours? No coincidence that you people omit the actual atmospheric science, aviation and aerospace engineering from this so called 'homework'....much easier to claim overnight 'expertise' from some crap conspiracy video that you have mindlessly consumed and regurgitated.
"You sound like an ass"
The lack of self-awareness at this stage is on par with the top tier levels of unintentional irony.
"Look up haarp. While you are at it"
The High Activity Auroral Research Programme? - the one that isn't actually active at all? That HAARP. What about it? Would you like to discuss it in detail?
"And the people you get your so called information from. Is doing the spraying"
Known science is self evident/axiomatic and speaks for itself. Incidentally, I think you meant to type "are doing the spraying".
"Do you think they would tell you😂so nieve"
And the 'people' that perpetrate your baseless online conspiracy theory that you gullibly accommodate are of course entirely honest, agenda free, not in the slightest bit deceptive or manipulative, and unfailingly historically and scientifically accurate? Ok then.
Not only do you round this nonsensical diatribe off by hilariously accusing someone else of being naive - but you can't even spell it correctly. And coming from someone that said this:
"I have seen stuck open sprayers on jets landing"
You actually couldn't make it up...only someone did and you fell for it. You absolute, utter fool.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"They're now saying there's "air" up there"
To clarify, what has been discovered is that the geocorona extends further than thought. Recent observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona are (a cloud of hydrogen atoms). On the moon this equates to a mere 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter, so completely insignificant in terms of crewed missions and essentially a vacuum.
Explain the fast falling dust at feet, tyres of lunar rover"
What "fast falling dust at feet"? The tyres of the lunar rover send dust in a ballistic arc and a trajectory that is entirely consistent with 1/6th gravity. Other than that, all objects fall at the same rate as demonstrated by Dave Scott during Apollo 15.
"The horizon is tiny (like a studio)"
No it isn't as the panorama shots reveal and the panned camera footage. Have you actually looked at any of the photographs or the footage for yourself outside of what junk online conspiracy theory presents to you?
"and someone told me it would be more expensive to fake than carry out that mission."
Expense it irrelevant - it would have been impossible to fake.
"Hollywood certainly couldn't agree less as they did so on less budget"
Hollywoood? But...but - what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Nevada? The Utah or Arizona deserts? Devon Island Canada? Shepperton UK? This dumb conspiracy theory can't even get its stories straight. I guess it depends upon which conspiracy theorist or online grifter you allow yourself to be duped by?
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood studio' to convincingly replicate 1/6 th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Bibiisachildkiller
Nope. Wrong again.
The burden of proof in this case is incumbent upon you because you are attempting to falsify something that is a given. I did not make the claim. Nothing to do with me. You are questioning known and independently verifiable technology that I referred to, not me. The Ground-Commanded Television Assembly was operated remotely from Houston. To clarify, the Lunar Rover was equipped with a video camera specially designed and purpose built by RCA. Once attached to the lunar rovers, these television cameras could transmit footage directly to Earth via the Lunar Communications Relay Unit (an antenna) and using the power sources aboard the rovers. Researchers and scientists back on Earth could remotely-control the television cameras to examine the lunar surface for themselves and track the astronauts as they explored areas around where they stopped the rovers. To reiterate, you can find the technical details in the following paper that I am again referring you to: Soltof B, Journal of the SMPTE (Volume: 81, Issue: 12, December 1972). You will also find schematics, technical specifications and the details of the operation of this television camera and the remote control unit arc described and block diagrams provided.
To remind you, this is what you said:
"That "remote controlled" scene was IMPOSSIBLE, zero (0) chance, therefore fake."
Therefore you need to demonstrate why through falsification. The onus does not lie with me to establish a negative/absent based upon your arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity. Basically, what's happened here is that you've made a statement that you are incapable of backing up.
So very simply - there was a remote controlled camera developed for the lunar rover with a motorised pivot mount which was used to film the ascent stage of Apollo 17 departing the moon. I have furnished you with a source of the technical details, please explain precisely why this is, quote, "IMPOSSIBLE"? Surely you can back up your contentions with a basis for that claim?
Again, in your own time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@elijah5993
"Why does he say there trying to inject us with Viagra or turn us into half human half monkey hybrids when ive never heard such a claim about chemtrails that type of deflection only happens with paid individuals or companys."
And what do you base that on? There are plenty that mock and lampoon conspiracy beliefs - in particular one as asinine and comical as chemtrails - which are simply misidentified contrails.
"They use comedy and outrageous claims to make people seem crazy when theres senators that know there's chemtrails"
Oh Jesus wept, you're right up to the eyeballs in this aren't you? There have been those in politics that have attempted to pander to conspiracy believers to gain popularity and I can cite many examples. Senators? Surely, surely you can't be gullible enough to be referring to Dennis Kucinich?
"do research before you speak on something"
Said the chemtrail believer.
Firstly - atmospheric science is my background. Secondly, I now work in research capability, it's my job. Thirdly, I absolutely guarantee that I'm infinitely more familiar with the origins, history, the background, the false equivalence and the perpetrators associated with your crap conspiracy than you. Fourthly and finally, appreciating that "research " does not involve self-proclaimed overnight 'expertise' following squandered evenings watching junk You Tube videos, quote mining and searching for cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, false equivalence or self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites....do feel free to share - how did you do yours?
"You can do a barium test after it rains to see the proof"
Proof of what precisely? Any rainwater test would need to detail the full sampling methodology together with the means to differentiate from existing sources of both natural and anthropogenic origin in addition to demonstrating causality with your supposed aerial spraying. Moreover the international analytical laboratory test standard is ICP MS, can you tell me why that is significant? Of course you can't. Let's see your results, data and full methodology then - I absolutely guarantee what you'll come back with, because I've seen it over and over and over again - the same self-referencing nonsense batted endlessly around your vacuous echo-chamber.
If you want 'proof' ask yourself why in supposed two decades of this alleged spraying there is not one in situ analytical study of one of your chemtrails at source and why independent atmospheric and environmental monitoring remains oblivious to these operations?
3
-
@elijah5993
Why are you people almost invariably utterly incapable of consolidating your irrational emotional impulses into one response?
"one question do you believe the government has ever tested on the citizens?"
You refer to "the government" as though it was one single entity. It's not a question of 'belief' - there are known examples of biological dispersal tests and covert experiments throughout history. However, simply because these have occurred that does not afford legitimacy to chemtrails or any other random conspiracy theory of your arbitrary choice or devising. Moreover, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified contrails discussed in this video that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"and there only goal is to cover up what the bible says so noone looks toward God"
And you think that's what contrails are doing?
"i dont need fancy words to see the truth"
If as you claim you genuinely wish to see the truth, you certainly don't need junk online conspiracy theory or the exploitative frauds that perpetrate it.
"you probally dont believe in the mark of the beast either"
Known science is not about unfalsifiable beliefs.
"where you work does not matter everything is on a need to know basis why would they tell you"
Firstly, you said the following - "do your research before you speak on something". I simply pointed out that research capability is what I do and atmospheric science is my background. I notice in common with all of your ilk you avoided the question. Given that "research " does not involve self-proclaimed overnight 'expertise' following squandered evenings watching junk You Tube videos, quote mining and searching for cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, false equivalence or self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites....do feel free to share - how did you do yours?
Secondly, known meteorological and aviation science is governed by mathematical axioms and physical laws and has a voice of its own - irrespective of whoever "they" may be.
"one more conspiracy question for you... Do you believe in subliminal messages?"
Again, not a question of 'belief'. Subliminal messages appeal to our subconscious mind. They work through a process in which external sensory stimuli work to trigger reactions without us noticing the signals - which is why they are commonly employed in advertising.
"and im not here to fight with you if you can prove it wrong I'll believe you"
Again, not a question of 'belief'. Chemtrails are simply misidentified contrails. They can be nothing other that this since the notion that they anything other that the product of condensed water vapour is a physical and mathematical impossibility. Your conspiracy theory therefore debunks itself. Moreover, the burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim - it does not lie with me or another party to establish a negative or an absent. There is not one shred of evidence in support of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, simply deception, false equivalence and pseudoscience.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A contrail does not "evaporate" - it sublimates. In relation to this their duration is entirely dependent upon the prevailing atmospheric conditions, specifically the interrelationship between temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Contrary to your claim, a contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In conditions of supersaturation in respect to ice, the aircraft merely precipitates the trail where 99% of the ice budget is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture. This is why contrails can not only expand and spread, but increase in mass becoming indistinguishable from cirrus clouds which is actually all that they are. Contrails have been observed and measured lasting up to a day.
Cloud seeding has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft trails that you are witnessing. Cloud seeding aims to introduce additional nuclei to existing masses (cumulus and stratiform) that are already conducive to precipitation, in an attempt to induce rainfall in a designated area or intensify it. This is precisely why it is conducted at altitudes between 2,000 - 6,500 feet, where the aircraft trails that you are witnessing are formed in the tropopause and stratosphere, six to eight miles above your head. The results are actually erratic and the very science/efficacy behind it questionable. Nonetheless there are private sector organisations that advertise their services online in addition to state sponsored schemes in China and the UAE. In spite of this, it is by no means a widespread practice. It is typically conducted via retrofitted light aircraft using rack mounted flares releasing silver iodide - but may also use pylons, rockets and modified artillery shells. It is highly unlikely that you have ever seen its deployment and it does not produce lasting visible trails.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has nothing to do with cloud seeding or aircraft contrails. "Admitted process"? SAI is a hypothetical research concept that has never been hidden, secretive or out of the public domain. How do you admit to something that isn't denied? Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with cloud seeding or the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bjjbrawler1
"Yes I did."
Let's see shall we?
"There's no way we orbited the moon 50 years ago"
52 actually, the last Apollo landing was 1972.
"dropped a dune buggy"
They didn't take any dune buggies. There were however, three lunar rovers folded and stowed into quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage that were employed as part of the later J Class missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17.
"did burnouts"
What burnouts? A burnout isn't possible in a lunar rover on the moon. Do you even know what one is?
"shot" back up leaving purple sparks"
There were no "purple sparks" - simply the fact that you don't understand how scattered MLI behaved when captured by a colour wheel camera.
"rendevoued with the orbiter and returned"
What prevented this?
"and flimed it all(some remotely)"
TV signals were first sent in 1927 whilst remote control can be traced back to the latter half of the 19th century.
"using less tech than in your phone."
It wasn't though. And smart phones don't send crewed missions to the moon.
"We sent a lander there 5 months ago unmanned and it flopped on its side and ceased communications. LOL."
That was IM, not NASA with a miniscule budget. And you would be wrong again. In spite of the landing IM was able to communicate with Odysseus and its sensors remained operational.
"It was a sham to fool the Russians."
The Soviet Union infiltrated the Apollo Programme. Wasn't hard - it was completely transparent. The Apollo Programme has been forensically dissected by entire branches of science and specialist fields and disciplines, investigative and technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century. There is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, in excess of half a century, the physics of every mission profile, every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject. The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies on the planet. To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions. They're also basing aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo, specifically data derived from the three rovers on Apollos 15-17, which you also claim to be fake. And then there are those professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities whose work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program).
Meanwhile there are random, insignificant, scientifically illiterate, incredulous, gobby nobodies on the comments section of You Tube such as yourself, that gullibly consume and regurgitate junk online conspiracy theory because they are under the impression it makes them sound informed and clever.
Now to return to Kubrick, have you actually looked into this? Which social media meme was it this time that told you what to think about a subject that you clearly know absolutely nothing about whatsoever?
(This should be even funnier).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@seancoleman2388
"Closer, but no. I listened to an audio version of Dave McGowan's articles and then i followed it up with quite a few videos. I have done enough reading for three lifetimes b now and I am not anxious to add to it."
And there it is...well there you go. You relied on a conspiracy theorist with no credentials or relevant technical expertise to 'inform' you about the Apollo Programme followed by some conspiracy videos. A man that thinks that Apollo went to the moon on a "single tank of fuel" and can NASA design one for his station wagon?
"May I ask you the same question? My guess is that you have read science articles, quite a lot of them by the sound of it. Have you read any textbooks on the subject? You might list them and briefly explain how these have convinced you."
I am irrelevant here, because the science and the technology has a voice of its own and speaks for itself - but I will answer your question. Yes, I have read about and studied the Apollo missions in great detail for much of my life and possess large volumes of historical and technical literature on the subject. I'm not suggesting that you do that, but you can, at the very least, independently verify the claims of conspiracy theorists and online grifters. You'll soon find that they are inaccurate, ill informed, technically and scientifically wrong, atrociously researched and for the large part, ludicrous, deceptive all out lies. I can however as an antidote to this, highly recommend W David Woods' "How Apollo Flew to the Moon". This is the consummate technical breakdown about the Apollo lunar program for the nontechnical reader. It takes one of the most complex undertakings in the history of civilisation and makes it graspable, but still retaining the levels of detail that it deserves.
"I should add that I am an unwilling conspiracy theorist. I was happy with my earlier interpretation of what was happening which seemed to explain everything by collective fantasy. Now I have to admit that there is quite a lot of deliberate deception thrown into the mix."
If by "collective fantasy" you are referring to the conspiracy theory that you deferred to, then you are not a conspiracy believer, for the simple reason, you possess humility, the desire to challenge your preconceptions. Unfortunate, by "deliberate" deception, you mean the Apollo programme which I suspect you do, then the unintentional irony coming from one that subscribes to Dave McGowan is as hilarious as it is excruciating.
Incidentally, you can never do enough reading for a lifetime. If do you have integrity and are are brave enough to dissect McGowans' false claims, then can suggest that you obtain a copy of the book that I recommended to at the very least gain an appreciation of the sheer scale and intricacy and complexity of the Apollo programme if not the science and technology behind the undertaking?
3
-
3
-
3
-
"It's a shame that all world leaders are in cahoots."
Are they? Tell that to Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin, or Benjamin Netanyahu and Ali Khamenei.
"The people with critical thinking know full well we've never been to the moon."
Whilst entire scientific disciplines; physics, mathematics, geology, branches of science such as astrophysics, astronomy, related specialist fields including rocketry, aerospace engineering, orbital mechanics and petrology - in short, all comprising highly skilled expertise, knowledge and individuals substantially more informed, accomplished and clever than a random conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube, do not? Ok then.
Incidentally, watching crap online conspiracy videos is the diametric opposite of 'critical thinking'.
"I've not mentioned this before"
Do you really think that you're that important or that the rational world gives two shits about your personal incredulity? You're nothing more that an insignificant self-aggrandising nobody on the comments section of a video entertainment platform afflicted by gross illusory superiority and a chronic case of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
"but that moon dust must be super heavy, while the astro nots were falling around and jumping and bouncing around they kicked up dust or sand that was not affected by the lower gravitation, it fell like sand at the beach while the astro nots were 'seemingly' relatively weightless"
Of course it was affected by the lunar gravitation, which is why it fell back to the surface. On the moon, the dust is just like a projectile motion. It goes up and it comes right down which is why there are no dust trails left by the lunar rover. It fell at the same rate of any other object but not necessarily at the same trajectory of the astronauts. Apollo 15's Dave Scott demonstrated that in the absence of air resistance a feather fell at the same rate as his geology hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass. This is precisely what we observe in the footage.
"what is probably the funniest part of this whole thing is people still believing anyone ever went to the moon"
Incorrect. What is "the funniest part of this whole thing" is people with zero knowledge about the topic gullibly consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory in the belief that they are informed and clever whilst deriding experts that are infinitely more accomplished than themselves.
Stick to making your crap comedy skits son.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Oh Jeez, here we go, yet another self proclaimed authority but in reality nothing more than a gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with no actual knowledge of the science, technology and the history of the Apollo programme whatsoever.
"They can't land a man on the moon now. With sll our technology & advanced computers."
A moon landing is not possible now because the original LM is defunct and obsolete and Space X is currently developing the HLS.
"But back then. The computers would struggle to turn a light on, they were so primitive & they supposedly landed on the moon."
Why is it that you complete goons think that prior to the advent of the iPhone mankind was banging rocks together and rubbing sticks to create fire, whilst comprising communities of troglodyte cave dwelling hunter gatherers? Would struggle to turn a light on? Seriously, what's wrong with you people? Would you like me to explain the workings of the AGC to you in addition to the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston using IBM 7094-11 computers and later in the programme, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment? Why are you people so oblivious to your ignorance and incredulity and proudly brandish stupidity like a badge of honour?
"When they were asked how they got through the van allen belt. They said they had lost the technology."
No one has said any such thing. The reason that crewed missions cannot travel through or beyond the Van Allen Belts - (note the plural, since there are two, plus a third that is transitory - you didn't even know that) - is because the heavy lift capability was abandoned with the cancellation of the programme. This is completely false - no one from NASA has ever said that any technology has been "lost".
"Wake up"
Never ceased to amuse that the ones sad enough to still be using this cringeworthy cliché are those that slept through science classes.
Quick tip - It's always prudent and advisable to be in possession of even the most basic, fundamental knowledge and facts about a subject that you wish to brand as faked.
3
-
3
-
Even in the 1/6th gravity of the moon, the Apollo A7Ls and PLSS combined were bulky, quite cumbersome, rigid top heavy with a awkward centre of gravity. Despite the fact that the combined weight was 14kgs on the moon, this was still cumbersome and they a mass of 81 kilograms / 180 lbs which was quite restrictive.
You are also failing to factor in that in low gravity, none of your muscle memory works. Your sense of balance is completely shot. You essentially have to learn how to walk again, nearly from scratch, and while wearing that constrictive suit, with an unfamiliar top-heavy center of gravity. Such low gravity is deceptive in that while it feels like you are “only” carrying a 14 kg weight if you build up momentum in that, it will still act as an 80+ kg mass when you have to stop it from moving, or change direction. They did jump, and much higher than they would have been able to wearing the same gear on Earth, but they were unable to crouch or properly spring.
What we see in the footage is entirely consistent with the physics of an astronaut on the lunar surface.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This again? Seriously - how many times?
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to.
The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes.
Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?...again?
3
-
@rosshitchen-ij6en
Sigh. Seriously? How many times now? It's the same thing, repeatedly, over and over and over again.
No they aren't. They have never made any such statement. Besides, 'Low Earth Orbit ' is defined as below 1,000 km, and Gemini 11 used the rocket on its Agena target vehicle to raise its apogee to 853 miles (1,373 km) way back in September 1966.
So what's wrong here? Well first and foremost, NASA have never as you claimed said anything of the sort. NASA are also 'on record' saying that they've sent crewed missions to the moon on none separate occasions - so something's amiss. The reason is, that you have simply mindlessly parroted quote mined junk conspiracy theory about subjects that you clearly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about under the deluded belief that it makes you sound informed and clever. Instead of having the intellectual ability, curiosity and honesty, the critical faculty and the capability and will to independently verify this claim, you simply consume and regurgitate the same nonsense that other conspiracy theorists and believers equally as clueless as you parrot on comments sections and social media. Why? because it tells you what you want to hear. I'm willing to wager that this is either attributed to Terry Virts who was referring the (then) current lack of a heavy lift capability, or engineer Kelly Smith discussing commissioning and validation of the Orion capsule back in 2014 and its unmanned test flight into the densest regions of the Van Allen Belts.
So you have two choices at this point. Firstly, you can actually attempt to place these quotes into their full and intended context for yourself (which will also introduce you to the realisation that online conspiracy theory is not only deceptive and lies to you, but also targets those too lazy and incapable to clarify the alleged 'truth' for themselves), or secondly, you can present this 'on record' statement here - full quotation and source and I will do it for you.
And guess what? Your dumb conspiracy theory is also "on record" as saying that humans have indeed left low Earth orbit - why? because it's inconsistent fantasy and moronic horseshit invented by online grifters, opportunistic frauds or clueless nobodies, designed to monetise and harvest stupidity and gullibility - and guess what? you are willingly the target market.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"anyone who believes this shite needs their head examined."
So that'll be entire branches of science such as physics, astronomy and geology, related specialist cognate fields of expertise including aerospace engineering and rocketry, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning Physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet. In short, areas and disciplines vastly more informed, clever and accomplished than a non-achieving, arrogant random gullible conspiracy believer over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
"aldrin not to long ago admitted "we never went" on TV."
Assuming that you are capable of placing that into the intended context, you'll find that he then in the next few sentences describes being on the moon in addition to the subsequent missions.
"stop listening to shite from the world's biggest liars. the us government !"
Nothing whatsoever to do with the "US Government" - the scientific, third party and independent evidence has a voice of its own. So why not listen instead to junk online conspiracy theory? - which naturally is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda.
Righto then.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I am a moon-landing denier!"
No, you are simply another two-a-penny drive by Dunning Kruger afflicted troll and gullible believer in online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject spouting opinion based ignorance and personal incredulity and an internet connection that you don't know how to use responsibly.
"The hubble telescope can see light years ahead into space, but Nasa nor any space agency has not once turned a decent camera onto the moon! Maybe there is a pact amongst space agencies Not to do this in order to prevent embarasing NASA!"
There is no telescope in existence that can resolve the details of the Apollo landing sites other than those in direct orbit of the moon. The resolution of a telescope is limited by diffraction. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see them from Earth. To explain why, understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide spread of the lunar module descent stages at the six landing sites.
Hubble is designed and calibrated to image deep space phenomena such as galaxies and nebulae which are very, very large. You can see M31/The Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye - and that is 2.5m light years from Earth. By your logic, we should also therefore be able to discern a flag on the moon.
Meanwhile the Apollo landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2. The best of those are LRO and Chandrayaan-2. Chandrayaan’s camera has a resolution of 0.25 m per pixel. LRO is at about 0.5 m per pixel.
Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'embarrassing'.
"The moon itself is our natural satelite, why do we need a laser reflector to measure the distance from it to us?"
To enable precise measurement and accuracy.
Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'satellite'.
"We have a space station barely a tenth of the distance away to the moon with the most advanced technology with the most highly trained international personnel! For the life of me, I can NOT fathom how 3 men, without today's technology, which is INADEQUITE apparently to get space station personnel to the moon"
Because the Apollo Programme was prematurely cancelled in 1972 and with it the heavy lift capability. We now have the SLS which has replaced the Saturn V and although Artemis 2 will return a crew to orbit the moon, whilst Artemis 3 will land on the surface, this was only approved in 2018. After the abandonment of Apollo emphasis shifted to low Earth orbit whilst deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned probes and landers that are cheaper and carry less risk.
Incidentally, the ISS does not orbit at a tenth of the distance to the moon whilst the correct spelling is 'inadequate'.
"LANDED ON THE MOON WITH LESS BRAINPOWER THAN THE FIRST DIGITAL WATCH?!"
Incorrect, the AGC was a remarkable technological innovation whilst this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston.
Incidentally - if you press the caps lock key a second time, you'll find that you can turn it off.
"What Solar wind? The moon hangs in a vacuum in space."
The term 'solar wind' refers to a stream of charged particles released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun, called the corona. Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
"The dust kicked up by the boosters on take-off would most likely have covered the items claimed to have been left behind."
How have you determined that it wasn't?
What do you mean boosters? Aside from the RCS - The LM upper stage was powered by a single ascent engine.
"The ONLY "Proof" moon-landing disciples have is "WE SAW IT ON TV"
Again, complete and utter nonsense. The Apollo Programme moon landings are supported by a wealth of scientific, independent and third party evidence that not only are you completely ignorant of but is irrefutable.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ArizonaGunsDave Here is my response in full to your post on the other Curious Droid video that you trolled...
"In 1969 it would have been a physical impossibility to go through the radiation belt."
Said no particle physicist, astrophysicist, radiobiologist or aerospace engineer ever. Incidentally, they are belts, since there are two, with a third which is transitory. You can't even parrot that correctly.
"Neil Armstrong could barely control the lunar module in test flights here on earth and crashed it multiple times in training and yet, he landed it perfectly on the moon?"
Incorrect again. The Lunar Module wasn't capable of being flown on earth - it was a spacecraft and was tested during Apollo 5, Apollo 9 and taken down to within 60,000 feet of the lunar surface by Tom Stafford and Eugene Cernan during Apollo 10. You are referring to the LLTV, a vertical take-off vehicle that used a single jet engine mounted on a gimbal so that it always pointed vertically. It was adjusted to cancel 5/6 of the vehicle's weight, and the vehicle utilised hydrogen peroxide rockets which were configured to best simulate the behaviour and characteristics of the actual LM. In May 1968 at Ellington AFB in TX, a stuck thruster meant that Neil Armstrong was forced to eject during a training exercise. Aside from this, the LLTV performed hundreds of take offs and landings and alongside the hundreds of hours spent in the simulator at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston and was an invaluable training vehicle for the Apollo astronauts.
"There was no debris left on the feet of the module as it landed and moon dust was not present anywhere even though the thrusters were activated"
Why should there be debris? What "thrusters"? The radial disturbance of regolith was entirely consistent with 2,400lbs of thrust from the DPS in 1/6th gravity and a vacuum.
"there where photos that showed the crosshairs behind the subject which is a physical impossibility if the photos were real"
No it isn't. The same thing happens here on Earth. Crosshairs, known as fiducials or reseau marks are etched on this glass plate. This superimposes the crosshairs directly on the original shot. Brightly lit objects make the crosshairs appear fainter. When these images are copied or scanned some of this detail is lost completely, giving the effect that the crosshair is behind the object in certain shots.
"the pictures on the moon were perfect yet there was no view finder on the camera AND the astronauts big bulky suit made it almost impossible to take photos and yet they were perfect"
No they weren't. A total of 8,400 pictures were taken by the 12 Apollo astronauts that walked on the moon. A large proportion of them were unusable.
"the flag waving"
When disturbed by the astronauts.
"the overlayed images of Nevada compared to the alleged moon landing geography being the same"
Nevada is it this time? You goons can't get your stories straight. And what do you mean "moon landing geography"? Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; or the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley?
"it was broadcast live all over the world and yet we can barely broadcast a live stream consistently today all over the world and we did this in 1969 to the millions of people with tube televisions????"
Television broadcast and streaming is not the same thing. Major sporting and political events were also broadcast live around the world and into homes in the 1960s - what's your point?
"Also, the technology used was less than that of a modern iPhone"
iPhones do not send crewed missions to the moon. However, if you are referring to computers, the purpose built AGC did, using pre-etched rope core memory supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. Would you like me to explain their operation and capability to you?
"AND the fact that we have not gone since is further proof that it was a complete lie"
Or simply that the premature cancellation of Apollo meant the loss of the heavy lift capability by which to send crewed missions to the moon, whilst the emphasis changed to LEO with the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS - deep space exploration being the preserve of unmanned probes and robotic landers.
"add to the fact that the cold war and the space race against the Soviet Union was at an all time high so making up the moon landing was the best we could do considering the Soviets were the first to put a man into space and put a satellite into space"
And yet having a fraction of the budget of Apollo and being hugely set back by the untimely death of Korolev and the consistent failure of the N1, they were unable to land a man on the moon.
"Just stop already, stop!"
I seriously suggest that you do. Your response is the usual farrago of the same old obligatory, predictable, gullibly consumed and regurgitated junk conspiracy theory, personal incredulity, ignorance and outright falsehoods.
Why do you people do this to yourselves?
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I have strong doughs that US ever got to the moon."
You bake bread in your spare time then?
"It looks more and more as a Hollywood movie staged to beat up the Russians."
Hollywood? Sigh. And what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Nevada? The Utah or Arizona deserts? Devon Island Canada? Shepperton or Pinewood UK? You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood Studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley that you were unaware of. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
"It is not possible for the USA to advance in ONE YEAR to get technological advance to get to the moon, it is just not possible"
What on Earth are you talking about? The Apollo Programme was eight years in the making and possible through the Mercury and in particular Gemini projects that laid the essential foundations.
"WILL SEE THE TRUTH WHEN RUSSIA, INDIA AND CHINA WILL REALLY GET TO THE MOON AND WILL LOOK FOR ALL EVIDENCE OF US LEFT BEHIND (The US flag, the ramp left behind when the space module departed the surface of the moon and many other articles claim to be there in the moon)."
Several observations here. Firstly, you seem to be under the impression that there was only one landing and are evidently completely unaware of the other five.
Secondly, the Apollo landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
Thirdly, the purpose of space exploration and missions to the moon is not to satisfy the insistence of a cretinous community of scientifically illiterate online conspiracy believers that are too lazy to actually learn about the history of spaceflight or the Apollo programme themselves and will simply declare any further evidence to be fake, or their default position and defence mechanism - claims of CGI. Neither NASA nor the other 76 Space Agencies on the planet are obligated or duty bound to conform to the demands of dumb online conspiracy theory.
Finally, you really don't need to keep turning your caps lock on and off, it simply makes you look just as dumb in the process.
3
-
3
-
"At 1/6th the gravity of Earth, propelled by a rocket motor, the LM would've taken off like a scolded cat, not slowly rise up in a linear fashion."
Incorrect. The LM ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and only needed a 3500 lbf engine. It steadily gained velocity as it ascended.
Incidentally, the correct term is a "scalded cat".
"Oxygen was one of the fuels pumped into the rocket motot, so there should have been some sort of flame."
Incorrect. The fuels were hypergolic, an oxidiser, which was also pressure fed, was used to to self ignite the reaction which then burnt without a flame in the vacuum of space.
"Also, the biggest scoober diving air tanks, approximately the size of the space suit backpack, would only last 3 hours max but, somehow they managed to do 25 hours of moonwalks."
Wrong again. Cumulatively, the longest EVAs totalled 22 hrs and four minutes, there were three of them during Apollo 17. The longest singular EVA was also Apollo 17 at 7 hours and 37 minutes. A diver's tank is usually not a rebreather like the Apollo PLSS and can last much longer than an open circuit Scuba. (Note the spelling). Diving air is usually either regular air at 21% oxygen or Nitrox with up to 40% oxygen, and 60% nitrogen. Astronauts on spacewalks with tanks of 100% oxygen. Divers can’t use 100% oxygen because it’s poisonous under high pressures, while space suits maintain comfortable low pressures. In other words, they get 5x more oxygen per tank.
"The door to the LM was barely big enough to get through with a spacesuit on, the astronauts would have had to climb 3 feet to reach the first rung of the ladder, there is no footage of them achieving this feat."
Yes there is.
"There wasn't enough room for them inside the LM to take the spacesults off."
Yes there was. It was cramped and they had to do it one at a time, but the cabin of the LM had 235 cubic feet (6.7 cubic meters) of interior space for a crew of two astronauts, which was ample.
"The fuel tanks for the LM were nowhere near big enough to hold the fuel they said they carried."
No use simply saying it - show your calculations.
Or, let me help you here. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. With no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation tells us that the 2 tons of fuel in the LM ascent stage could propel the ~2 tons of empty mass to a speed of more than 2000 m/s, when they only needed 1600 m/s to get into lunar orbit and dock with the CM. In 100 sec, the ascent stage was travelling over 600 mph. In under seven minutes, they had reached orbital velocity.
"If the launch from the moon had been mistimed by as much as 10 seconds they would never have been able to dock with the CM doing 2,000 mph"
Source?
"and as for matching speed in order to dock with the CM seems impossible."
Simply because you don't understand something, that does not then mean that it is fake.
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program. Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jeromesevy1112
"Contrails will disappear in a matter of minutes"
Yeah, reading this I thread, I notice that you keep saying this, (but then you also think that a jet engine is comparable to the exhalation of your lungs on a cold day). So what if you were to at some stage to discover that this is simply not true and that contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading - or actually may not even form at all? What then for the entire basis of your conspiracy belief and this false premise that it is predicated upon?
"Chemtrails on the other hand will not disappear."
Fascinating. Could you actually identify these mysterious 'chemicals' that when released form a cloud which not only lingers but can expand and increase in mass, just like...well you know, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Actually, while you're at it, could you also name the precise aircraft that is able to deposit one of these horizon to horizon trails? Any idea how much these weigh? Of course you haven't.
"A jet engine sucks air and blows out air. Carbon dioxide and water vapor is what it blows out. Both of those things should dissipate"
??? Both of which are ejected as a gas. CO2 remains in the atmosphere and is a dangerous greenhouse gas, as is water vapour actually - but if the superheated exhaust of the airliner encounters frigid air at a high relative humidity and differing vapour pressure, then the water vapour will condense forming a cloud. In such conditions, the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (invisible water vapour). If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will not only remain, but expand and spread almost entirely composed of the available atmospheric water vapour - hence the growth. No different to cirrus clouds which they become indistinguishable from.
"There have already been tests done."
No there haven't - there have been deceptive claims made by the perpetrators of this hoax about analytical results which are then lapped up and regurgitated by scientific illiterates that believe in this nonsense.
"Are you aware that the pH of soils have become much more alkaline than before?"
What??? Link? Surely if you are alleging al, then that should be the reverse?
"are you aware that the aluminum in the soil has doubled in the last 10 years?"
No it hasn't. That's an outright lie. Soil acidification and the mobilisation of aluminium has been a known problem for farmers for centuries.
"Are you aware that there was a test done on Mount Shasta the snow had 61,000 micrograms per liter of aluminum?""
Of course he is aware - it's more of Dane Wigington's claimed nonsense. Are you aware what ICP MS is and why this is significant?
"Where the hell is all that aluminum coming from?"
The fact that it is the most common metal on the planet and third most abundant element in the earth's crust may well answer your question.
"are you aware that our aquatic insects and even our terrestrial insects are at 20% the normal population? When I was a child going camping in the early nineties if you so much took out an apple to eat there would be bugs and bees all over you. Now the bugs and bees have somehow disappeared. And the fish in our rivers are borderline gone as the aquatic insects population have shrunk down"
And sole explanation can only possibly be, those white lines six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand.
"Are you aware that Alzheimer's has become rampant lately?"
Yes. A greater awareness and understanding of the condition mean more people are now receiving a diagnosis. Also, age is the biggest risk factor for any form of dementia, so as we are living longer the number of people developing dementia is increasing. Furthermore, now if a person dies with dementia, doctors can report it as the main cause of death on their death certificate. Previously, the immediate cause of death would be listed, such as a fall or an infection like pneumonia.
"Yeah go indulge in your fantasy world thinking that your government is not spraying you"
The irony. What government? Oh hang on...
"A government that couldn't even be honest about 9/11 or this covid hoax"
The usual online 'truther' nonsense. Wait, you also think that a studied and measurable zoonotic disease that is claiming people's lives, originating from a known family of viruses is a hoax? And your point about fantasy?
"And I don't know what sort of planes spray these.""
Of course you don't. Nothing whatsoever of course to do with your utter ignorance concerning anything connected with aviation.
"But I do know it's a military operation because passenger planes would not fly one direction West and then turn around and go back east and then back to West again""
Why do you think that they do? Evidence?
3
-
@jeromesevy1112
"ok mr "y-ass-ass-in" believe what you want."
So the ad hominem logical fallacy commences straight away? Spare me, I've heard it all before - completely impervious to your predictable jibes, concentrate on the content of my response, not the individual. Oh, and known science is not about belief...that would be baseless online conspiracy theory.
"That name itself suggests you take it up the ass."
Does it? Nothing to do with the Turkish for 'long live' or the third track of The Lodger then? Right you are. And so what if I did, as you say, "take it up the ass" - what bearing would my sexual preferences have upon the meteorological science that you are both ignorant of and blindly in contention with?
"The evidence could be right in front of your face as it is and you will still be in denial."
Denial of what precisely? This "evidence" - do you think you could get around to presenting it at some stage?
"I honestly believe that Satan's zombie army has awakened and are pushing this Marxist agenda through covid."
Why does that not surprise me in the least.
"People like you that cannot be reasoned with that have no brain that will abandon all true science"
😆 😅 😂 🤣 Again, is this irony intentional? Perhaps at some stage you should apply some of this "reason" and 'true science' to your deranged, irrational and unhinged posts yourself? No use saying it, refute the contents of my reply to you. Everything that I have said is independently verifiable - ignoring it won't make it go away. I notice that you are completely unable to answer my questions either. Let's start with the atmospheric science behind persistent contrails. Go ahead, let's hear the "true science".
"and believe whatever nonsense you want to believe."
To clarify, you said this, yes? "I honestly believe that Satan's zombie army has awakened and are pushing this Marxist agenda through covid"
😆 😅 😂 🤣
And to reiterate, known science is not a question of 'belief'.
"Sorry pal you lost me right when you said that CO2 is a toxic gas. So apparently humans are toxic and all life is toxic. Because all animals exhale carbon dioxide and all plants inhale carbon dioxide."
Strawman anyone? I said nothing of the sort. I said that CO2 is a "dangerous greenhouse gas", so is water vapour. You're not the sharpest tool in the cutlery drawer are you? You do realise that toxicity is a function of concentration, time and exposure? CO2 itself is not poisonous, and as you say is necessary for life on Earth. However, carbon dioxide acts as a simple asphyxiant; in other words, as CO2 levels in a closed room rise, carbon dioxide replaces the oxygen your body needs. When your body can’t get oxygen, it slows down and does not function properly.Elevated levels of CO2 are indeed lethal, concentrations of more than 10% carbon dioxide may cause convulsions, coma, and death. Saying all that, I was referring to CO2 as a greenhouse gas which can trap heat in the atmosphere. Although CO2 only comprises a little over 0.04% of the atmosphere, Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm. We have now reached about 414 ppm, so we are on the way to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of this century.
"You've been brainwashed "
Said the online conspiracy believer.
"and I'm not going to waste my time trying to deprogram your stupid ass."
Why have you bothered replying with this complete and utter drivel then?
"I'm not going to answer any of these it'll be a waste of time trying to argue with a zombie."
How convenient.
"by the way there have been cases where the government admits to spring toxic chemicals."
Such as?
"YouTube has just been deleting them now."
So You Tube is your sole window to the world? You can google all of this nonsense and false equivalence in seconds...and guess who owns YT genius?
"Yeah freedom is gone buddy."
Assuming that was the case, at least in such a scenario you wouldn't be at liberty to post total horseshit over a public comments section then.
"Welcome to the new communist republic of America."
I don't live in America.
"I know how my body feels. And each and every time when they are spraying I feel like shit. I get headaches and mucus etc. So it's not a coincidence anymore."
Of course it isn't...like I said, because the sole and only possible explanation can only be, those long white trails that have been observed, measured and studied for the best part of a century and that you don't understand.
"My manager at work always gets and I mean always gets migraine headaches on days when they spray."
Damn!! That settles it then.
"So something is going on"
Because you and "your manager" said so? Righto.
"your ball game is over"
Indeed it is. We just hammered Stoke City 4-0 in the fourth round of the FA Cup
"go spew out your nonsense you zombie"
Squawked the delusional and paranoid online conspiracy parrot.
"and may the deepest circle of hell await you"
You believe in that too? Hardly surprising I suppose. Tell me, why should challenging a scientifically illiterate online conspiracy believer over the comments section of a video entertainment platform consign me to your fictitious eternal damnation?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jeromesevy1112
Ah you're back again.
"You are the kind of moron that will try any way to explain that beer drinking somehow will not make you gain weight."
What an utterly bizarre rand random response. You're struggling here aren't you?
"That's the level of idiocy that is in you"
Again, to reiterate, you subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to convince you that a cloud is a conspiracy theory. You think that your breath on a cold day is analogous to to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C and 4 litres per second, emitting a stream of 600°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst travelling at speeds up to and occasionally in excess of 500 knots. You also believe that a communist army has been mobilised in association with a global infection of zoonotic origin? And your point about idiocy was precisely what?
"I suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is jet fuel also melts steel?"
The melting point of steel is 1510°C. The temperature at which jet fuel burns is between 426.6°C and 815.5°C. If you are referring to the WTC, the steel structure didn't melt. Additional combustion sources means that that the fires in the towers reached at least 1000°C in certain pockets. The point at which steel weakens is 593.3°C, at which point it will have lost about 50% of its strength. Heated to 1000°C, steel will have lost about 90% strength. It was this weakness in the steel that led to the loss of the buildings’ integrity. As the steel warped, distorted and buckled, the columns and steel beams holding the towers up were no longer able to support the weight of the buildings, leading to the pancake collapse of both towers
"Or that the closest distance between two objects is not a straight line?"
Why would I question Euclidian geometry?
"Everything that is nonsense and stupidity is something that you are trying to explain and you sound really ridiculous when doing so."
Again, the unintentional irony is excruciating. I should take a look at your own posts on here which remain as testimony for all to see. I am irrelevant. Everything that I have said is independently verifiable and supported by known physical laws and mathematical axioms - thereby having a voice of its own. Your contention does not lie with me, rather, known science which speaks for itself. Again I invite you to falsify it. No use saying it, demonstrate that it is "nonsense" and "stupidity". Go ahead then. Start with the science of persistent contrails outlined in my original reply to you. You have the floor - and all I can say is good...luck...with...that.
"Dream about the tooth fairy doing you in the ass. And try to explain that that is somehow not gay."
Come again?
"It's already funny enough when you look at the sky and two planes are flying in similar altitudes and one plane has nothing coming out of it and the other one has a Long trail coming out of it that covers the sky.Wait let me guess your explanation. One of those planes is burning a hotter fuel and therefore it's reacting with the antlers of a reindeer and the thrust is creating long white Tinkerbell fairy tail dust?"
And equally, I find your personal incredulity and scientific ignorance just as amusing. Not my explanation. The scientific explanation however is that the atmosphere is neither homogeneous in terms of humidity and pressure, nor is it isotropic. Similar altitude? The latter can change in a matter of seconds and mere metres. Are you similarly perplexed by patchy cloud? Added to which aircraft are subject to separation minima. Why is it necessary to even explain this?
"Idiot"
Indeed. Pretty much sums it up.
So in view of that, could you name these mysterious chemicals that can linger, expand and increase in mass, just like - well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Could you name any aircraft capable of depositing a horizon to horizon trail? Also, could you tell me how much one of these weighs?
As you'll demonstrate yet again - of course you can't.
3
-
@jeromesevy1112
And back again. I thought you said that you were going?
"it's funny."
I agree, you're utterly hilarious.
"People like you remind me of these mask wearing fanatics who want to believe in Covid."
Only a chemtrail believer could insist that their government is poisoning them from the skies and at the same time mock people for wearing masks and respirators. You actually could not make this up.
"Even tho Newsom went to a party with no mask and no social distancing as if he is saying right in front of your face that covid is a hoax."
"as if he's saying"??? You mean, as if you want him to be saying.
"People like you will still say "oh no it's real"
No, measurable science says that it is real as does virology, immunology and epidemiology. As I explained, I am irrelevant, known science has a voice of its own.
"You go ahead and believe there are no chemtrails if it helps you sleep at night."
As I explained on innumerable occasions, science is not a question of "belief" yours or mine and at no stage in this fatuous exchange have I mentioned the latter.
"Who knows how much aluminum has already gone to your brain already."
Wearing a tin foil hat won't be helping you in that respect.
"Are you going to tell me that my eyes seeing the same plane go one direction and turn around are actually two planes?"
Your flawed perception an anecdotal personal incredulity does not substitute for evidence.
So back on the subject following another spectacular series of tangential non-sequiturs. In common with your equally clueless ilk, you still haven't been able to answer my very straightforward questions. You insist upon branding people that challenge your comments as idiots and dumb, but are yourself, incapable of answering the questions they pose to you. What are you so terrified of? You are the one arrogantly claiming authority and you are the one making these claims. Surely you are able and prepared to substantiate those contentions? Your inability to do so is becoming embarrassing. Let's try again shall we?
Could you name these mysterious chemicals that can linger, expand and increase in mass, just like - what d'ya know, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Also could you name any aircraft capable of depositing a horizon to horizon trail of chemicals? Any idea how much one of these trails weighs? Any chance you'll have the courage and conviction to address these questions?
Of course there isn't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
A hangar is it now? But I thought it was supposed to be a film studio in Hollywood? No, wait, Shepperton UK...or was it Elstree? no, no, definitely Pinewood...or maybe Twickenham? Which hangar? Cannon AFB New Mexico, or Area 51 or Groom Lake Nevada? Hold on, surely it was supposed to be filmed in the desert - Nevada, or possibly the Utah outback? What about Death Valley?...although most insist it was Arizona don't they? Forget all that - definitely Devon Island Canada. You complete goons can't even agree. I guess it depends upon which online conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Gotta say, that's some aircraft hangar to convincingly replicate 1/6th gravity and a vacuum. And what about that concrete dust, sand and stone enabling the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock from this consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.Meanwhile, a random, insignificant gullible conspiracy believing troll on the comments section of You Tube knows better.
Nothing gets past you genius.
3
-
And yet entire branches of science including orbital mechanics and specialist disciplines including rocketry and aerospace engineering have no such issues understanding and accounting for the lunar orbit rendezvous. Simply because you don't understand and are unable to comprehend something, that does not mean that it is fake.
It wasn't the first try at all. In fact the entire Gemini Programme was largely predicated upon the perfection of orbital rendezvous. Apollo 9 had practised this in Earth orbit and Apollo 10 flew the lunar module down to within 47,000 feet of the lunar surface.
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program. Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock.
3
-
3
-
"The Problem with the Next Moon Mission is that it will actually be the First moon mission"
There were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six government space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions. Three private/commercial missions, Beresheet (hard landing), Hakuto-R (hard landing), and Odysseus (soft landing) have also reached the lunar surface. Hope this helps.
"and it will never launch"
And when it does, you'll brand that as fake as well.
What a strange way to live your life.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@blackhat856
"ok so a mini nuclear power plant,probably like voyager"
Yes, that's correct, utilising radioisotope thermoelectric generators to convert heat from decaying plutonium into electricity.
"back to the Apollo missions,that was not used…so 10 ,12 days powering air con ,life support for 3 grown men on 1960’s batteries and ‘’fuel cells’’
Firstly, Apollo did not use "air con" - why are you branding something as fake, when you didn't even know this basic information. Yes fuel cells for the CM, which were more than adequate for the short missions to the moon and back, extremely expensive. A set of three fuel cells combined oxygen and hydrogen in the service module. The result of the chemical combining also created water. The Apollo Lunar Module descent stages had four (five in the J-class missions, Apollo 15–17), silver-zinc primary batteries of about 30V and 415A-hours. All power for the landing and time on the lunar surface came from those batteries (in an emergency, the ascent stage batteries could have been tapped).
The ascent stages had a pair of smaller silver-zinc batteries, of about 296A-hours. You can find the full specifications for yourself.
Do you honestly believe that in excess of half a century later, entire branches of science, specialist disciplines such as aerospace and electrical engineering worldwide, Nobel Prize winning physicists, esteemed technical writers and Pulitzer nominated investigative journalists, 10,000 private sector space organisations and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet would not have noticed if these deficiencies in power were real? Every nut, bolt, schematic, specification, circuit breaker has been forensically examined since. There has not been another project in history of such scale that has been so transparent and exhaustively covered by publications, journals, and media scrutiny. Not to mention the fact that it was infiltrated by the Soviets. And yet you, a random, insignificant gullible conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube claim to know better? And you have the temerity in another thread to call me "arrogant".
Even funnier, you, an individual that actually thought that the CM and LM used air conditioning.
Seriously, genuine question - why do you do this to yourself?
"wake up"
Never ceases to amuse me that those sad enough to still be parroting such a cringeworthy cliché are demonstrably the ones that slept through science classes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"We don't have the technology to send astronauts beyond earth's orbit."
Yes we do.
"Nasa said we "destroyed" the technology."
Following the cancellation of the Apollo Programme, it was left to lie fallow.
"In "Orion": trial by fire Nasa engineer Kelly Smith said that right now, the Van Allen belts are an impenetrable barrier to manned missions."
He said no such thing. Smith presented a video about the then upcoming first unmanned test flight of the new Orion spacecraft (now over 4 years ago) said that the challenges of the space radiation environment had to be solved for the new design.
Orion completed that flight shortly after that video was made and was successful as expected.
Orion is being designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgam3y/orion-radiation-survival
The challenge to be solved for Orion was therefore a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design.
"Other Nasa astronauts have given interviews that right now we can only go in lower earth orbit(about 365 miles"
No they haven't, you are referring to Alan Bean and deceptively edited footage by Bart Sibrel in which he was talking about the Command of Skylab 3.
"If you disagree, just do your own research with impartial sources of information"
You mean subjective, pseudoscientific websites and you tube videos that tell you what you want to hear.
"If you don't like what I'm saying, take a number you'll come to your senses just like me."
I couldn't really give two shits what you are saying and neither could the rational world, because you are wrong. Here, have this:
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Illusory+Superiority
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"dude you stupid!"
Said the chemtrail conspiracy believer.
"they been spraying chemtrails for decades!"
You mean those contrails that you don't understand. And who precisely are "they"?
"if anybody think our government wont lie to us,,,,,,Jump off a BRIDGE! YALL need t wake up"
What does "your government" have to do with the known science of persistent contrails?
"and stop wearing mask."
2020 update... instead of wearing masks to avoid chem trails, conspiracy theorists now avoid masks, even in the midst of a global pandemic.
"its about control, depopulation"
How's that coming along?
"mandate biometric vaccine with nanotechnology, it will alter your DNA. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU! You got 5G ALSO! WERE GONNA BE INSIDE A MICROWAVE! Ai, D Wave, Cern, Transhumanism, agenda 21, The Reset! All collides together."
The entire gamut of baseless junk online online conspiracy theory and paranoia related to what you don't understand then. Yep...my Alex Jones bingo card is full.
"And most of you still trust in these luciferian worshippers. You sleep realize that were living in the last & evil days. Rather you believe it or not! This is a spiritual war going on now! And its one thing they want more than contro and...thats ya SOUL. Rom.6:12, Rev.13:16"
This is a video about aircraft contrails - and placing "trust" in physical laws and known atmospheric science as opposed to online charlatans, conspiracy merchants, scaremongering quacktitioners, snake oil salesmen and pseudoscience.
3
-
"There was no crater impression, but the footstep impression was possible."
There was ample disturbance in a radial pattern, which is entirely consistent with the thrust of the DPS in 1/6th gravity and a vacuum. Because it was throttleable, at the point of contact it was producing a mere 2,700lbs of thrust. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.5 PSI . Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure. Perhaps you should reconsider your question?
The surface of the moon is covered in regolith which is a blanket layer of material covering solid rock - so yes footprints. Now consider the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does not make a crater when it lands - even on grass!. Do VTOL aircraft ever make a crater?
"A cameraman was already there."
Seriously, how stupid does it get? Do you think that NASA staged this gargantuan hoax on a colossal scale but were too dumb to realise that people would notice such a glaring error? Or could it just possibly be, that knowing absolutely nothing about the subject and mindlessly consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory, gullible dimwits such as yourself don't understand that a camera could be deployed via an extendable arm on the descent stage and activated by a switch in the cabin? Look up 'Westinghouse camera MESA bay'. Clever lad.
"The waving flag and shadows made is so obvious."
What is obvious here is two things. Firstly the flag moved when disturbed, whilst the shadows are entirely consistent with the lighting and you can observe similar on Earth. Secondly, that you are simply parroting the same old crap conspiracy theory that has been repeated and debunked over and over and over and over and over again. Do you by any chance have anything remotely resembling and original thought or observations of your own?
3
-
3
-
3
-
"You are not able to go now."
Project Artemis sends its regards. We are simply awaiting the development of the HLS from Space X.
"Never mind that 1969 was all bullshit to scare Russians in the Cold War."
The Soviet Union tracked all the Apollo missions to the moon. They were even able to detect the experimental packages left there by astronauts.
"The temperature in the moon surf, according to scientists like yourself, is 120 degrees celsius, which means you would have to have extremely cold suits"
Actually, shedding heat from within was the main challenge. You are getting confused with surface temperature and these are equilibrium figures which take time to reach. A day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 days on Earth. All of the Apollo missions were timed to arrive at the lunar dawn. In addition to this, in a vacuum there is no convection and therefore, obviously, no air temperature.
"They look like a goldfish aquarium upside down. With this protection, you could cook your brain in 5 minutes"
"I don't understand something therefore it must be fake"
"stop the bullshit computer processor on the Apollo missions, which was as efficient as a 5-dollar calculator today"
Incorrect. The AGC was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a brilliant piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby. Why are you making what you assume to be authoritative comments about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever?
The spacecraft computers had a performance comparable to the first generation of personal computers like the Apple 2 and Commodore 64 (the guidance computer had RAM of 4KB, and a 32KB hard disk). They were only required to take large amounts of numerical data and organise it into a more useful format. That original data was calculated by the main frames at NASA, and then beamed up to the spacecraft by radio telescope at the rate of 1,200 bits per second. They did not need the power for touch screens or to hold graphics etc like today’s smartphones.
"and with that, you could correct the route and avoid thousands of km of sun radiation."
There were no CMEs/SPEs in the direction of Apollo during any of the nine voyages to the moon. What on Earth are you talking about "correct the route"?
"God knows where you got the information about the radiation spots."
What do you mean. "radiation spots" - what the hell are you going on about? What does this even mean?
"Remember, there were non-existent satellites at that time that traveled 360 000 km to the moon and circulated at 4000 km per hour around the moon orbit?"
Again, what are you talking about? The first unmanned probe placed into lunar orbit was Luna 10 by the Soviets in 1966.
"Detach the moon lander, land"
Yes, it undocked from the CSM and descended to the surface, that was the general idea.
"assemble the moon rover"
The lunar rover was taken by the later J missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17. It was folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the descent stage equipment bay. What's your point?
"under 120 degrees Celsius"
Again, your incredulity concerning heat and temperature in a vacuum is irrelevant.
"and play around
What?
"The flag looks like it is made of nilon, so it resists pretty much at those temperatures."
I think you mean 'nylon'. And to reiterate, there is no air temperature/convection in a vacuum. Eventually they would have been bleached by the radiative heating from the sun and those that toppled over, conduction from the surface of the moon.
"right them after taking photos and collecting samples of the moon jump on the moonlander. take off and catch the moon orbit module at 4000 km/h, attach with great precision one another, turn back to earth"
What do you mean "turn back to Earth"? Are you really that dim?
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendez-vous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock. The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. Apollo did not "turn back to Earth". The SPS performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth.
"pass the Van Alle belts again"
At high velocity, through the sparsest regions in a very small space of time. So what?
"avoiding concentration spots of solar radiation"
Again, what the hell are you talking about? The VABs consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator. the energies and the distribution of the charged particles within the Van Allen Belts, (alpha and beta radiation, which is easy to shield against in such concentrations), were well understood. That is why mission planners were able to calculate safe trajectories through them exposing the astronauts to as little as1 - 1.5 rems.
"and enter the earth's atmosphere, perfectly landing on the Pacific."
The command module performed a controlled double dip reentry using and ablative heat shield to withstand and protect the craft form the 5,000 °F temperatures generated by reentry. After entering the atmosphere, the acceleration built, peaking at 6 g (59 m/s²). This dropped as they slowed down due to aerobraking, and emerged from radio blackout. Passing through 7,300 metres (24,000 ft), the apex cover was blown by a pyrotechnic charge. This exposed the two sets of parachutes. First the two drogue parachutes were released, which slowed and stabilized the capsule from 310mph to 170mph. They pulled out the three large main parachutes some twenty seconds later which slowed the CM to around 22mph for the targeted splashdown zone in the Pacific Ocean.
"All this is done with a 5-dollar calculator computer from Apollo, right???"
No, wrong.
Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I"t's weird why 99.9% of videos of YT are just debunking videos
Not in the slightest, since the platform was facing imminent brand damage for nurturing and hosting misinformation and lucrative online conspiracy theories since its creation. And your claim of 99% is plucked out of your arse. Meanwhile, you can find all of this horseshit through the confirmation bias of a quick google search....and guess who owns You Tube genius?
"Armstrong wouldn't swear on the bible. Watch his reaction. Guilty as sin."
Why should he?
Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel? Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did. Then some opportunistic grifter with a camera crew comes up to you - again - and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly making himself the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.”
However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that - but you won't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You mean the same things over and over and over and over and over again consumed and regurgitated by dumb conspiracy believers with zero knowledge of the science, technology and history of the Apollo Programme that have been comprehensively debunked on innumerable occasions? For your benefit, let's do that, let's mention them...again then.
"the radiation belts"
What about them?
The Van Allen Belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth. As explained, the VABs are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. To reiterate, a spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts, at high velocity and a very short period of time.
"and the fact that no ones ever left earth atmosphere"
Technically, no they haven't since observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, recently showed that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth (the geocorona), reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet - much further than previously thought. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona extends. This is so thin on the lunar surface that it equates to 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter. So what's your point?
"And the fact they said they destroyed the technology that enabled them to get there"
No, wrong again. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"and they lost the tapes"
What does this even mean? Some of the magnetic back up tapes of the Apollo 11 EVA which were never intended for archival use and are now defunct anyway were erased. Others have been sold in auction. You realise that there were nine missions to the moon in all and a total of six landings? No, you probably didn't did you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Because contrails are not anything like 'jet wash'.
A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all - it is governed by the prevailing atmospheric conditions, in particular, the interplay between temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. In conditions of high RHi then a trail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible gaseous state (water vapour). However if the air is saturated in respect to ice, the contrail will not only linger, but expand and grow in mass where 99% of the visible trail and ice budget within it is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture. Contrails are simply cirrus clouds. If you question their duration and expansion, then you must logically also question cloud formation too.
Here is the science behind the phenomena that you are seeing:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
Persistent contrail coverage has been recorded to last over 24 hours. The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Hope this helps.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I believe Bart Sibrel"
Possibly the funniest thing that I've read on the internet this year. You place your faith in a criminally convicted proven con artist, stalker and ex-taxi driving cult member with absolutely zero relevant knowledge and expertise?
"then through researching more information"
You mean you watched some more crap online conspiracy videos about a subject that you know nothing whatsoever about.
"I realised the Astronauts would not be able to get through the Van Allen belt"
No you didn't - you were told that be people as clueless as you are. Why don't you find out what James Van Allen himself had to day about that? or a branch of science called astrophysics? Also they are 'belts' in the pural, not the singular. You don't even know that, but expect to be taken seriously?
"the radiation wouldve killed them"
What radiation are you referring to? And do you mean the total mission doses recorded which ranged from 1 - 1.5 rems? Why?
"and then, and especialy regarding Gus Grissom and the other 2 Astronauts being killed made me doubt the moon landing"
Why? Because again crap online conspiracy theory told you that? The crew of Apollo 1 perished due to a stray spark in a pure oxygen atmosphere and a capsule full of flammable material which prevented egress to the pressure exerted on the inward opening hatch. There were many, many astronauts, engineers and contractors that were more vocal than Grissom in their criticism of the programme and specifically, the development of the CSM. The tragedy of Apollo 1 ushered in a sea change in management and a raft of technical changes and safety measured - had it not have happened, it is very unlikely that Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon that decade would have been achieved.
Regarding a 'blast crater' at low gate and the point of contact on the surface the DPS was producing a mere 2,700lbs of thrust. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.5 PSI . Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure. The surface of the moon is solid rock. Now consider the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does not make a crater when it lands - even on grass!.
Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself? Why don't you learn about the actual science and technology instead of gullibly parroting what a social media meme has told you?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
On the contrary, here were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. This is supported by scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence that is incontrovertible.
Moon landing conspiracy theories on the other hand have zero factual basis and are predicated upon incredulity, deception, scientific illiteracy and outright lies. Those that entertain these and the grifters that perpetrate them, have zero knowledge of the actual science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme.
And why should anyone listen to someone that can't differentiate between a preposition and an adverb?
3
-
@robinroberts7398
Honestly, where to start with this?
"They are as dumb as fuck"
To clarify, you think that there is no thrust in a vacuum?
"they say they did all these tests, well didn't they think it would have been a good idea to film them all"
They filmed what was pertinent to that particular edition of Mythbusters which concerned lighting.
"i have seen many tests proving their is no thrust in a vacuum, only nasa shits can show you otherwise"
Nope, nothing to do with NASA, that would be an entire branch of science known as physics, Newton's third law of motion together with mathematical axioms which have a voice of their own. What you have seen are a series of pseudoscientific junk videos on You Tube designed to dupe the uneducated, the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.
"Who the fuck gets on tv to spout their unproven beliefs"
Unfortunately, everyone from populist agenda driven anchormen and supposed pundits to evangelists to conspiracy theorists to politicians. No different to social media in that regard depending upon the editorial policy. Some favour free speech for all the pitfalls associated with it. Even lunatics such as Bill Kaysing were offered multiple television appearances.
In this instance, they are substantiating claims with evidence. Known science is not a question of 'belief' - that would be junk online conspiracy theory.
"how did they get the slot and why?"
The network would have booked them through their agent to fill a slot deemed to be topical discussion. They doubtless made multiple TV appearances to promote their series, which is completely the norm.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@heinzwernerwegener6545
He's taking the piss out of you.
Firstly, this is a reconstruction of the Apollo 11 mission which did not take a lunar rover. They were not used until the later J missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17. In answer to your question, each one, for each of those respective missions was folded and stowed into quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage. You could have established this for yourself, in addition to finding the full schematics and images.footage of it being loaded and deployed.
To address your other questions, which have been answered over and over and over again. Armstrong's descent of the ladder and his first steps on the lunar surface was captured by a Westinghouse camera affixed to an extendable flap in the Lunar Module MESA bay. This was deployed by tugging a d-ring lanyard and activated by Aldrin in the cabin of the LM. Subsequently the camera was detached and mounted on a tripod placed on the surface of the moon.
The lunar surface is solid rock covered by a heterogeneous material called regolith. A compressed boot will form a print in this layer of dust. The LM descent engine although rated to 10,000lbs of thrust. was throttleable. At low gate and approaching touchdown this was only producing around 2,700lbs of thrust. The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was less than 1.5 psi nozzle pressure. A VTOL aircraft such as a Harrier jump-jet produces around 24,000lbs of thrust directed downwards at landing. This is not sufficient to even create an impression on grass, far less a crater, so why do you think that the LM should or actually, could have done on solid rock?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@NeilPeelParanormalPeepShow
This has been explained to you innumerable times.
Bean was dishonestly interviewed by grifter Bart Sibrel and his responses taken out of context and deceptively edited. For a start, in September 1966 he was capcom for Gemini 11 which used it's Agena docking target rocket to boost the orbit to to raise its apogee to 853 miles (1,373 km), the highest Earth orbit ever reached by a crewed spacecraft aside from TLI. He can be heard, and also you can read from the mission transcriptions, discussing the VABs with astronauts Dick Gordon and Pete Conrad.
Bean was referring to his command of Skylab 3 but also Apollo 12. You have been duped by Sibrel.
Regarding the glass used on the Apollo Command module, the CM windows were triple-pane (except for the telescope optics). The outer-most pane was made of fused amorphous silica and protected the cabin from micrometeroids, radiation, and re-entry heat. Because the outer-most pane was not air-tight, the space under it voided to vacuum once in space. The two inner panes were made of thermally-tempered aluminosilicate glass, provided an air-tight seal, and filled in between with 7.0 psia dry nitrogen. This was ample protection against the alpha and beta particle radiation in the VABs. You can block alpha radiation with a sheet of paper.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lorichet
"There are differing opinions about where each of the Apollo moon landings were filmed"
Opinions. Precisely.
"as there are a few possible locations -- but we can all be 100% certain that none of them were filmed on the moon."
Can you? How?
"My comment about the vacuum of space had to have been visible since you responded to it."
That wasn't my question. You mentioned cold welding. There are clearly some that aren't visible to me.
"I already told you during Apollo 16."
No you didn't. It is however possible that again, your comment is not showing, as you know, the comments section of You Tube is a mismanaged mess which has yet to be corrected.
"April 18, 21, & 27 of 1972...of the 144 detectable flares that were recorded by NASA between April 17 and April 27, five (3.5%) were of the largest Class X and at least two out of the five were major proton events."
You've simply cut and pasted this from a Jarrah White column culled from yet another conspiracy website 'Aus Online' run by the publishers of Dark Moon. Firstly, these events did not take place as you stated during launch. Secondly they are not as you claim "one of the biggest solar storms" - whatever that means. They were indeed five Class X flares and although the nuclear particle detection system registered a slight increase in proton and alpha particle fluxes, no measurable radiation dose increment was received by the crew from these flares. Why? Because what White neglects to tell you is that solar flares are directional. Solar flares are primarily distinguished by their localised enhancement of UV and x-ray light. Electromagnetic radiation propagates through space in the direction it was emitted. The Solrad network detected these events during the Apollo 16 mission but they posed no problem to the mission flightpath. Regarding SPEs, the particle energy spectrum and arrival time seen by satellites varies with the location and nature of the event on the solar disk.
The most significant detected solar flare activity occurred from 2 to 11 August. Had this had occurred during Apollo 16 or 17 it would have forced an abort and the crew resorting to contingency measures. It would not however have as White claimed have been indisputably 'lethal to astronauts' - that is yet another bare faced lie.
"I didn't retract it -- the CIA deliberately coined the phrase as a derogatory term to silence the rising number of critics of the Warren Commission report."
You stated that the CIA invented the term and now you are contending that they "coined it." This is a flagrant and wilful lie. And no, at no stage was it used as a pejorative or derogatory term, that is absolute nonsense. Read the report - it is no different to the application of the phrase dating back in literature and popular parlance for the century that preceded this.
Objectivity? Critical thinking? You are deluding yourself.
3
-
3
-
@lorichet
"If "conspiracy theory" was never intended as a derogatory term given by your beloved CIA, then why do you and every other CIA apologist use it as a derogatory term?"
At what point have I expressed any preference or liking for the CIA? Yet another strawman logical fallacy to add to your growing list. Also, as I explained, in the context of the report that you refer to in which you laughably claimed they "invented the term", there are no negative connotations in the slightest. I suggest that you actually read it because you clearly haven't.
As I explained to you, the liars, conmen, anti-science and vile agendas that ironically you and many of your ilk are apologists for have earnt the disdain. That conspiracy theory is largely a disparaging term now is entirely down to those that perpetrate it, the ludicrous claims made and the deranged lunatics that then act on it. Being associated with a belief in flat earth or Alex Jones' shameful profiteering doesn't exactly help you people either. I don't believe in crude categorisation but for many, susceptibility to online conspiracy theory is like an illness that consumes and spreads. You are clearly displaying all the symptoms.
"You know, you NASA/CIA fans would make a perfect cast in a remake of Orwell's "1984."
- And there's another.
So shall we return to the nonsense about solar flares that you lifted word for word, unwittingly from Jarrah White via Aulis? You see this is what happens when you think that parroting conspiracy theory and confirmation bias can instantly substitute for zero knowledge of the subject concerned.
3
-
@lorichet
"You mean the dispatch to "counter and DISCREDIT the claims of the conspiracy theorists"? Yes, I read it. And, yes, it had very negative connotations about "conspiracy theorists."
Nope, to discredit the criticism of the Warren Report. Again, there is no evidence that the CIA memo had any impact whatsoever on the popularity of the concept. As I said, the casual way the memo uses the phrase just on one occasion acknowledges that the concept was already quite popular in the 1960s. And to return to the point, squirm out of this all that you like, but your original claim was that "the CIA invented the term conspiracy theory" is an outright lie and simply more evidence of your blind and uncritical faith in the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly parrot.
"Are you thinking that you "caught" me on something? lol -- I made it clear where the quote was from before I even copied & pasted it because I knew the link would get deleted!"
Which I think that it was, and I believe you, because as I said at the time, it was quite clear that some of your comments weren't visible. Unfortunately if you elect to deploy links the crude and broken shadow ban filter will tend to remove the posts.
"White is an excellent researcher"
Jarrah White is nothing of the sort. For a start, in order to be an excellent researcher you need impartiality which is a foreign concept to you.
"and he wrote a very informative article on the solar flares."
So much so, he neglected to tell you that they are directional.
"You should read it sometime."
I did. It's a shame that you didn't, given your subsequent claim that they occurred during the launch of an Apollo mission. Moreover, I can assure you that I am infinitely more knowledgeable than yourself about the origins, background and protagonists of your dumb conspiracy theory. White is no different to the rest of them, simply more cerebral which means he can bamboozle and dupe the likes of scientific illiterates such as yourself with greater ease. Given though that you fall for the likes of Sibrel and Kaysing it makes you wonder why he expends the effort.
"You might learn something."
I learn more about these con artists each day. In terms of education, I'll stick with the objective science if it's all the same to you.
"And like the "conspiracy theorist" accusation, now comes the "flat earth" accusation "
What accusation? Seriously, do you have learning/comprehension issues? I merely provided an example of the increasing stigmatisation of conspiracy theories along with the deplorable behaviour of individuals such as Alex Jones.
"probably another psyop started by the CIA in their attempt to discredit moon landing critics so that people won't look at the evidence they present."
Just pause for a minute and read that back. I genuinely don't think it's possible that even you could be so stupid to believe what you just typed.
"You're wasting your time, Yassassin. You'll never succeed in getting any FORMER moon landing believer to RE-believe in that transparent fraud."
I don't expect to. As a believer in online conspiracy theory you belong to one of the most closed minded and ignorant communities on the entire internet next to religious extremists and cult members - which is why it is potentially so dangerous. Where I do demonstrably succeed however is effortlessly debunking the stream of nonsense that you gullibly regurgitate.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@spaceted3977
So instead of acknowledging my response to your question, you simply respond yourself with yet more incredulity.
NASA have never said any such thing and I defy you to find an original authentic quote at source saying such. You simply believe that because dumb online conspiracy theory has told you what to think.
You don't, lose technology in the sense that it is "forgotten", mislaid or mysteriously disappears. All the technology remained but rapidly became obsolete. You lose the capability and with the premature cancellation of the programme the production plants, the tooling, the specific expertise to mount such a huge project was all abandoned or left to lie fallow and became defunct. Most significantly, the heavy lift capability necessary to send crewed missions to the moon was also forsaken in favour of the folly of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment which is obsolete. There is no longer the capability to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. When civil aviation eventually returns to supersonic flight (it's been nearly half a century since the demise of Concorde), it isn't about to roll a 1960s design, featuring 1960s hardware out of the hangar. Rebuilding such a complex project as Apollo on a similarly massive scale and utilising contemporary technology on a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme has been a long and protracted, painstaking process. Project Artemis was only approved in 2018.The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket are stored on microfilm at Marshall Space Flight Centre, and the Federal Archives in East Point, Ga., also house 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has archived dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program, which was initiated in the late ‘60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production and assist in any future restart.
3
-
3
-
+Thebassinkid.
"truth is when our own government has sprayed residents with toxic chemical dust, the doors of possibilities are blown open"
Given the negligible quantities and the low altitude of release it has nothing whatsoever in common with your alleged chemtrails - and tellingly they also did the exact opposite of what a "chemtrail" supposedly does: They dispersed quickly and became invisible once dispersed.and as for motive, well let's take a closer look.
Without even clicking on the link I knew what it would be - The Martino-Taylor paper.
The army performed some experiments to assess dispersal rates of airborne materials. People would have been exposed to minute quantities of those substances. But the army were not testing those substances on people. They were merely evaluating how far the wind blew them, and over what area, and in what proportions.
the author of this thesis wrongly implies the Zinc Cadmium sulphide used in these Biological Warfare field trials was radioactive just because it was manufactured by the US Radium Corp. Unfortunately she seems to be unaware that the ZnCds used in both the US and UK LAC BW field trials was originally manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co. (codenamed NJ 22660) and not the US Radium Corporation. After a company reshuffle, the New Jersey Zinc Co. later became known as the US Radium Corporation and the ZnCds codename changed to 2267. ZCS was chosen for its lack of solubility, like barium sulfate used for x-rays. This suggests that care was taken to avoid harm. Why would anyone bother to render harmful something they had already attempted to make harmless?
ZCS fluoresces in UV light, which means that its presence, even in tiny amounts, may be constantly and precisely monitored. It is already an excellent tool for measuring wind-borne dispersion (which is its designation), and needs no refinement. The products released were biologically inert to "mostly harmless" by contemporary standards of harmless. Some (like FP2266, which does not contain radium at all) were chosen because they reacted to a blacklight - the tests were of dispersion, not effect, the countries involved already knew how effective their aerosol weapons were, most of them had been used in battle as long ago as WWI which yielded applied understanding of their effectiveness, but also how badly understood properties of aerosol dispersion were, often resulting in winds blowing these agents back into the faces of their own troops.
So the flimsy "evidence" that this paper is predicated upon is the fact that it has 226 in the name - that's it. As for the illnesses there is no causal relationship established and just as is the case today, industrial and ground level pollution would have been far more harmful to public health.
Incidentally, I thought you people didn't trust MSM? Selective cherry picking is evidently permissible?
"...adding some of these planes have 5 streams of chemtrails adds to that suspicion"
I took a quick glance at your link and it's a chemtrail website. So as usual the confirmation bias consists of nothing more than a conspiracy theory website, dedicated to this conspiracy theory on behalf of the proponents of this conspiracy theory as evidence of this conspiracy theory.
Being a conspiracy theory site first thing to realise it that it is lying to you... its raison d'être is to deceive the gullible and impressionable - evidently it worked. Five streams of chemtrails? I take it you are referring to Image C - and you would be wholly incorrect, because this depicts nothing more than 5 condensation trails. I quote directly from your source "The arrows in frame B and C point to anomalous aerosol emissions unrelated to normal water vapour contrail formation. The aerosols appear to be be released from the fuselage of the aircraft"
- Indeed they are...and that'll be because these pictures are merely capturing the discharge from a heated drain mast. Very small in fact and certainly not what you would employ for the purpose of releasing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere - (not that an aircraft at cruise altitude would have any effect even if it did). Here are some images of some...
http://ecs.ittaerospace.com/Products/drain_masts/
http://www.flugzeugbilder.de/v3/show.php?id=806977
http://www.camtronicsllc.com/capabilities/drain_mast/etb-drain-masts
- Simply an overflow nozzle releasing an intermittent stream of sink and galley water during flight. They are located on the belly of the aircraft and sometimes at the fore and aft of the fuselage. At such altitudes, in the same conditions that are conducive to the formation of contrails, (low ambient temperature, ice saturation) the water simply condenses into ice crystals. Also worth noting that the auxiliary power unit can also produce and additional contrail, although these are not usually activated during flight.
If you look at Number 6 in this link, you'll also find an accompanying schematic diagram of a drain mast system.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29587/what-are-these-elements-on-the-back-of-a-boeing-737
Why on earth do you people do this to yourselves? Why uncritically parrot and regurgitate this nonsense without conducting your own independent verification? All that you accomplish is your own humiliation.
3
-
"John Yossarian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_cadmium_sulfide
See health effects yes a government study said so...."
Have you actually bothered reading this? - here's what it actually says, confirming my original post.
"Anecdotal evidence[2] exists of ZnCdS having adverse health effects as a result of LAC. However, a 1997 U.S. government study, done by the U.S. National Research Council stated, in part, "After an exhaustive, independent review requested by Congress, we have found no evidence that exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide at these levels could cause people to become sick."
Further - "It is used for its fluorescent properties."
"exactly like chemtrails it's literally not even a conspiracy my second link proves that they have been working on weather control for decades"
What does established micro scale weather modification have to do with the chemtrail hoax that this video is debunking and why would it resemble a large white plume deployed in the wake of a commercial aircraft between six to eight miles in altitude?
"lol your (sic) believing that Zinc cadmium sulfide doesn't harm you"
No, read my post. I'm stating that there was no radium in the material deployed as alleged and that the compound was chosen because it shows up under a blacklight so dispersal patterns could be studied as opposed to an intent to harm civilians. There is an extensive toxicological study in the following link on its effects that disproves any claims of illness. Once again because you seemed to struggle to understand the first time, in the absence of proven cause and effect and owing to the negligible quantities deployed it would have been significantly less harmful than industrial ground level pollution present both then and now in a large urban settlement such as St.Louis.
https://www.nap.edu/read/5739/chapter/1
It is pretty long, reasonably well indexed, and with some pages not html formatted. It nonetheless provides data as to the number of tests that were performed, where, what areas were covered, calculations as to exposures and details all the known toxicology info for ZcdS.
In the worst-case scenario, ZnCdS would have the toxic properties of soluble cadmium compounds. However, the physical and chemical properties of ZnCdS are known. It is insoluble in water and lipids and only poorly soluble in strong acids. Read the data. It was dispersed in minute quantities that would amount to a fraction of the existing hazard of urban pollution or traffic fumes.
Could you provide the longitudinal epidemiological studies demonstrating cause and effect to the contrary? - only I couldn't find any. Thanks.
"Your believing the government who says there's no health concerns really?"
No., I never mentioned the "government" - I'm simply referencing known and demonstrable science and asserting that Martino-Taulor paper is baseless in addition to the fact that the quantities released would have been harmless.
"conspiracy theory website lol are you serious that's operation LAC and from cbs"
Why do you keep typing "lol" - how old are you? And yes, it is a conspiracy website - and a particularly inept one to boot. I was of course referring to your chemtrails planet link not CBS - although as I say, I thought that MSM was anathema to you people?
"your acting like you have done your own research which is a total lie your just regurgitating garbage don't try to call me out on that. You haven't done any independent verification, you just suck up to the lying government."
Actually I am citing independently verifiable references and a single aircraft part that I was already aware of hence I assembled the links with ease - nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with 'research'. Objective fact as opposed to subjective factoid.
"and the problem with your airplane parts is many of them don't produce a chemtrail im the sky just because there's drains doesn't mean they produce a chemtrial,"
What airplane parts? Many of them? We are referring to a heated drain mast releasing a stream of condensed water vapour...nothing more - and no, I agree, they don't produce a chemtrail, rather, they do result in the trail in your photographs as my links illustrate. What would you like to contend about the sources?
"Literally nothing you stated above was proof of anything expect for how gullible you are."
Stated without the slightest trace of irony.
"Your evidence is literally just random pieces information your trying to piece into a big picture"
Coming from a believer in online conspiracy theory.
"just regurgitating what you see online come on now."
No, that would be anyone naive and scientifically illiterate enough to post a photograph of a routine waste water discharge flow from the underside of a commercial aircraft off "chemtrails planet" as supposed evidence of a programme of aerial toxic spraying.
"your attempt to insult me shows your ignorance."
I have no intention to "insult you" - your posts are suitably absurd to accomplish that without my assistance and are ample testimony of your impressionable gullibility for all that have the misfortune to be reading this exchange. Incidentally, I would recommend that you concentrate your efforts upon mastering the basic rudiments of English grammar and at the very least understand how to differentiate between a possessive pronoun and a contraction. Perhaps then we can move on to the fundamental principles of atmospheric chemistry which render your supposed chemtrails both a physical and logistical impossibility.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Area 51? Wow...now that's a thought. Was it your own? It wasn't was it. Tell me more, because, (at the risk of sounding contrary), I thought that is was supposed to have been filmed in Hollywood. Actually, on second thoughts, it was Stanley Kubrick at Shepperton UK. Wait, some say Pinewood, or was it Elstree?...or maybe Twickenham so as not to arouse suspicion. Hold on, stop right there! - it was definitely Cannon AFB New Mexico, that was it. A converted hangar...or was that as you say Area 51? No, that was in the desert, Groom Lake. Or was it Arizona? the Utah outback? Death Valley some say. No, without a doubt Devon Island Canada.
You complete goons can't even make your minds up. I guess it depends upon which dumb online grifter/conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'stage scenery" to convincingly replicate, uncut, and six times, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process. Any other rays of insight genius?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@coolnamebro
Ah, the online conspiracy theorist - self proclaimed expertise in aerospace engineering, rocketry, orbital mechanics, astrophysics, geology, economics, behavioural psychology, in addition to being historians, archivists and whatd'ya know?...cinematographers. Did you actually type this with a straight face? 'Parallax effect gives the game away" Seriously? Where do you get this junk from? There is no such technique evident in any of the Apollo footage.
I'd also be most intrigued to learn how continuous uncut footage and a sound stage in Area 51/Hollywood/Culver City/Shepperton/New Mexico/ Arizona (delete as applicable) replicated 1/6th g and recreated a vacuum. Remarkable that the 2D 'backdrop' precisely matched Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Pretty impressive props department too to fabricate over a third of a ton of moon rock entirely consistent with each of the landing sites and fashion a precise replica of the Surveyor 3 camera.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DanielCharlesWilson
Agree, governments, organisations, oligarchs, self-serving politicians and senior civil servants frequently lie, conspire and deceive. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of faked moon landings or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. - A lazy syllogistic fallacy.
And meanwhile the online conspiracy theory that you yourself place your faith in is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda?
3
-
3
-
3
-
Except for the fact that it wasn't a cardboard box with tin foil.
The rovers were taken as part of the later J class missions - Apollo 15, 16 and 17. They were folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the descent stage. You can find ample images, footage and the full schematics relating to their storage, loading and deployment.
There is no telescope in existence that can resolve a flag of that size on the moon which is 125cm long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. To explain why understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide Apollo landers at the six landing sites. However, the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the landing sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
Do you really think that you, a random online conspiracy believer over the comments section and your parroted 'gotchas' are actually significant, whilst entire branches of science such as astrophysics and specialist fields like aerospace engineering have remained oblivious for over half a century?
Each of your comments are based upon a staggering lack of understanding and ignorance which you appear to wear like a badge of honour. You could have established all of this for yourself if you either had the will or the capability to do so. Unfortunately, you are yet another example of a buffoon with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@prasadsahu3044
"Ask NASA, what I want to say."
What precisely do you want to say? You haven't typed anything of worth yet/
"NASA never went to the moon."
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six nation's space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with un-crewed missions.
"Now they say they destroyed everything of the Moon landings of the 1970s."
No they don't. If that were true you wouldn't be able to view everything from a Saturn V, an unused LM to an A7L suit for example. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Rosalind Peterson Presentation TO THE 'United Nations' 2003"
No it wasn't - wrong again . Rosalind Peterson was speaking at an annual climate conference organised staged at the UN not a UN session. Here you go -
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/index.htm
Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC is simply the name of her website. Here's the session that she spoke at:
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/Roundtable4.htm
You're obviously not aware that she has distanced herself from you lunatics?
In 2012 Peterson concluded that there she did not think there was any good evidence to show the trails were anything other than normal contrails. Here's the full quote...
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate.And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminium coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminium coated fiberglass by military aircraft." (Rosalind Peterson 2012).
Anyway, I thought that you people maintained that the UN was complicit in your conspiracy theories?
"I don't have time for you"
Well you clearly do - which is the reason you keep replying with your imbecilic drivel and moronic abuse and precisely why you will be compelled to respond again and humiliate yourself in a similar idiotic fashion. It is as amusing as it is tragic.
"Pilot in 1947 .. 'they' COULD CONTROL WEATHER/HURRICANES .. THAT IS OVER 70 YEARS OLD NEWS .."
Citation? Show me the original reference and I'll illustrate why and where you have become confused again.
It's never been possible to control a hurricane, however, attempts have been made at influencing their initial conditions, so adjusting humidity or temperature could be enough, as the storms grows, to divert them from sensitive areas or to seed precipitation within.
"Fuckoff 'Trolling Shill'
On the contrary, I am in full agreement with the contents of this video so cannot therefore by definition be trolling it. As the one posting abuse on this page the troll is in fact none other than yourself. I have however responded to people's posts which you'll find is what tends to happen in the comments section of YouTube. Many of these are refutations to scientifically ignorant conspiracy theorists such as yourself.
"May I Pee in your Mouth ?"
Not into watersports I'm afraid, perhaps you could ask Josephine Hogg? - though evidently talking shit is more up your street.
On the subject of which you have conveniently forgotten that you said this, remember?...
''snibbit'' IS .'. NOT A WORD Twat ... 'Snipit' IS Though !"
...not realising that I was quoting the previous post by Josephine Hogg. (Actually, you're both wrong it's "snippet")
To clarify then, you are saying that fellow online conspiracy theorist Josephine Hogg is a "twat" or do you wish to retract that statement?
Question for you Louie...why do all conspiracy theorists and their ilk have intermittently malfunctioning caps lock keys? Perhaps that's a conspiracy in itself?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
And meanwhile it couldn't possibly be anything whatsoever to do with that f**k off 50,000 m2 wet market and second largest seafood market in China that you chose to ignore - located right next to it, half a mile from the station and directly in the middle of one of the city's largest residential areas? A place in which stalls are practically on top of each other, the aisles are narrow and close proximity, livestock brought in from the surrounding province were kept alongside wild animals and dead produce, and slaughtered and their carcasses skinned.
The consilience of the scientific community (virology) is that it resulted from a natural spillover, but it could equally be the result of research-related activity, such as a lab leak or even a fieldwork incident - we simply don't know. That is also accepted as a possibility However, there is no equivocal evidence either way, just largely historical precedent and circumstantial evidence. And what do you mean "the more information that becomes available the more likely it seems" that it originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology? On the contrary, there have been a multitude of studies which indicate a natural origin for Sars-CoV-2 and this data/literature has steadily grown in volume since the outbreak. Only this week a published study examines samples taken from raccoon dogs, bamboo rats, palm civets: (these are just some of the animals whose DNA has been found in swabs taken from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China,) The swabs also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease. The analysis, provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over from animals to humans at the market. Conversely, there is not one paper offering evidence that a lab leak was responsible to have passed peer review because the is no substantive data to support it. Additionally, although the DOE have backed the recent FBI intelligence assessment indicating a lab leak, they have a 'low confidence level. According to guidance from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “A low confidence level generally indicates that the information used in the analysis is scant, questionable, fragmented, or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from the information, or that the IC has significant concerns or problems with the information sources.”
Again, this does not mean that the possibility of a lab leak should be ruled out. In my view, it's a very strong possibility that we won't ever determine the source. Pinpointing the site of a spillover is tricky and becomes increasingly challenging with time. Also, matching the genetics of those initially infected by Alpha with sequences derived from animals to isolate the host is a very difficult task. In terms of the lab leak possibility, as relationships between China and the West continue to deteriorate, the situation continues to be so politicised, and whilst Beijing refuses to cooperate the necessary transparency to allow an independent forensic investigation into research activities at WIV, we have nothing more than circumstantial supposition.
3
-
"how come then since 9/11,are we seeing contrails actually GROWING wider and wider after leaving the engines? "
Because that's what contrails are prone to doing.
"This phenomenon was not in evidence over 20 years ago."
Because you say so? I assure you that it was. Persistent, expanding contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of aviation. In 'Flight to Arras' Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
"Remember the days when an aircraft would fly over,leaving a short trail,then within a few minutes it would disappear?"
Yeah I do - no different to today. I also 'remember the days' when contrails persisted, expanded, spread and merged into single contrail cirrus coverage. Again, no different to today, other than the fact that 'since 9-11' (as you say), commercial air traffic has increased by 50% - so the persistent contrails that you failed to notice before you learned about this ridiculous conspiracy theory are far more prevalent now.
"The trail expands and does NOT dissipate like of old,but continues to stay at a great height,causing in a lot of cases the Sun to be completely covered for most of the day!"
Bernd Kärcher, also of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Oberpfaffenhofen, has calculated that contrail cirrus clouds cover around 0.6 percent of the global skies at any one time — nine times the amount covered by contrails themselves. In areas with high amounts of air traffic, they can merge to cover as much as 38,000 square miles, roughly the size of Indiana, and last for many hours or even days.
Here you go, the science behind your observations is explained here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04068-0
"Most aircraft fly within a zone of 30 to 35,000 feet,ok? So how do you explain the huge discrepancies between the same type of aircraft flying at virtually the same height,but both producing vastly different contrails?"
Actually that very much depends. Aircraft contrail formation can occur at anything between FL180 and FL440 - it can obviously be much higher in the case of business jets and military aircraft, but cruising altitude of commercial aircraft will be in the tropopause and lower stratosphere - commonly up to an operational ceiling of about 44,000ft.
Firstly, the atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogeneous. The factors that govern the formation of contrails - temperature, humidity and pressure - and the interplay between them can change within mere metres and a matter of minutes. Secondly, air traffic is subject to stipulated separation. Even taking into account reduced separation minima, this will be 1,000 feet vertically and five miles lateral and longitudinal distance. It is impossible to judge altitude as a ground based observer when viewing aircraft at cruise altitude in the tropopause and lower stratosphere. An aircraft at FL360 looks no different to one at FL370. However either may be producing a contrail while the other one does not. In short, they are not occupying the same immediate airspace. Also, aircraft 100 miles from their destination even at these altitudes will have commenced descent and will have completely different thrust settings of those in cruise or climb.
A contrail may last seconds, minutes or many hours or it may not form at all. It is entirely dependent upon the ambient conditions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@johnnymcblaze
Geoengineering in the form of SRM is entirely in the realms of hypothetical research and hasn't even reached small scale trial. Several problems with your claim. Such a strategy which aims to recreate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols would take place at double the altitude of the trials that you are seeing and certainly wouldn't resemble a long white trail in the wake of a commercial jet aircraft (that the rational and informed identify as contrails). SAI/SRM wouldn't even be visible to the ground based observer. Additionally, contrary to your claims, there are no aircraft being "outfitted with spraying equipment". There are cloud seeding operations, usually light aircraft with wing mounted flare racks, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with SRM and again, these do not leave lasting trails at the altitude that you are seeing. In fact one of the main challenges facing SRM is that currently there is no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite material to the designated altitude which is 65,-70,000ft. Moreover, there is no agreement upon those materials - that is, which could best be employed to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols.
Regarding your final point about cloud cover trapping heat, you are absolutely correct and there is currently a large volume of research into the extent of radiative forcing of contrail cirrus.
3
-
@johnnymcblaze
Thanks for your reply,
"I am aware the numbers don't make sense in the case of geoenginering, but to say it's in its fancy is incorrect in my opinion."
It isn't. There are many GGR strategies practised such as carbon sequesterisation and ocean fertilisation. However, SRM with the exception of ground based albedo modification, is purely hypothetical.
"Independant scientists have noted for several years that aluminum particulates are accumulating exponentially in Arctic areas of the North and the anarctic areas of the south."
Seriously??? "Independent scientists"? You mean self-referencing conspiracy theorists? Could you name them, together with their full credentials, fields of expertise and publications?
"This was the first admitted case of which aircraft were actively spraying things into the air."
Admitted???
"Ironicly the american government denied all knowledge of this, but the British government not only acknowledged that they "spray", but they also divulged the canisters used were given to them by the American government."
Could you link me to this admission - the original government source please. Thanks.
"At the end of the day, no one is certain. But just like the Epstein murder, it's plain that the official story is an insult to critical minds."
What official story?
3
-
3
-
@johnnymcblaze
"I literaly googled "scientists find man made increase of aluminum" and it was the first result. I never learned how to provide links honestly, so you can choose to Google search as I did, or not."
I simply wish to take a look at the paper that you referred to. If you are going to make claims, you need to understand that you need to substantiate them.
"Just as you can choose to believe everything scientists say as fact."
Three things of note here. Firstly, you are the one that appealed to authority not me. I simply asked you to provide the credentials and data of the scientists that you referred to - and to remind you, you are the one that said this; "I hardly think scientists taking core samples can be identified as "conspiracy theorists". Secondly, in common with any conspiracy theory, deferring to "scientists" is fine, so long as it appears to support your narrative. That's called confirmation bias. Finally, I'm only interested in what known science has to say, which is demonstrable, reproducible and governed by ineluctable physical laws which are axiomatic and so have a voice of their own and speak for themselves.
"I mention this only because I was once like you. The only things I was sure of, is what I thought I knew."
Reading back your posts, the unintentional irony at this point is unbelievable.
Science is not about what you think you know. I am irrelevant.
So you are unable to produce these claimed studies which show that "aluminum particulates are accumulating exponentially in Arctic areas of the North and the anarctic (sic) areas of the south"?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@NigarButterfly
"just a lie! It the take off was not thought over,it would have been arraised from the video"
You are actually attempting to suggest that a global hoax staged by the US government and NASA overlooked the fact that in reality there would be no one on the surface to film the lift off of the LM ascent stage? Your stupidity is indeed genuine then. The footage was captured by Ed Fendall in Houston using the remote control on the Lunar Rover camera and beamed by to earth via S Band. It was first attempted during Apollo 15, then 16, and they finally compensated for the delay and timed it perfectly during the lift of of Apollo 17's LM upper stage. Incidentally, I think you meant 'erased'.
"and yes, all the original footage is lost, wow, they keep hours and hours of useless footage,and the most important one was lost?"
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 "missing tapes" were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape at the time of the first Moon landing in 1969.. The data tapes were used to record all transmitted data (video as well as telemetry) and were backed up, therefore the originals were erased. You are aware that there were five further landings after Apollo 11? Of course you weren't.
"If it was thought over to be put in the "evidence" then its for people who dont think for themselves, and believe everything hey were told by media. And in that case they are straight laughing at our faces. Not mine, though."
Because of course the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly parrot is unfailingly accurate, not in the least bit deceptive, exploitative, manipulative and opportunistic, and with your best interests at heart, completely free of agenda and ulterior motive? Ok then.
The known science of Apollo is nothing to do with mainstream media perpetuation. It is quite clear that you have zero knowledge about the history, the science and the technology of the programme. The junk online conspiracy theory that you consume and regurgitate online that substitutes for this, targets the gullible, the dim and the scientifically illiterate such as yourself - it harvests stupidity such as your own and as the low hanging fruit, you are ripe for their plucking. And yes, they are the ones "laughing in your face".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lizardfirefighter110
"The science is sound, the problem is that it does not explain why a blue sky transitions to a white sky in the course of 10 hours."
So you're saying that you don't understand cloud formation then?
"If my conspiracy theories debunk themselves then why do the readers need you? What is your purpose?"
It's a comment section - and there is a reply feature that's all. I am simply correcting your statements and misconceptions. Independently verifiable fact and known science supports this. Anyone is at liberty to learn about this, the problem is, as I explained, chemtrail conspiracy believers seek explanation elsewhere and then become emotionally invested with the results. For this reason, they are amongst the most closed minded individuals on the entire internet, next to religious extremists and cult members.
"It is true , logically, that if the government is corrupt that does not mean there is a conspiracy to secretly spray chemicals. However, logically, one might ask why is there no discussion in the mainstream media."
You mean of an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? Why should anyone entertain this nonsense when there are genuine threats to humanity and real world issues to confront?
"Am I the only one to notice? Evidently not."
Of course not. As I explained, this is a global phenomena. Wherever there is high altitude air traffic there will be contrails - and wherever there are contrails there will be conspiracy believers that don't understand what they are looking at.
"No, I guess Americans don’t need to know about Geo-engineering programs."
Geoengineering has never been concealed or out of the public domain. It is in the interest of the proponents of these strategies to publicise their work to attract funding and support. I'll ask you again, what does geoengineering have to do with aircraft contrails - and why do you suppose that any branch of this in any form would even resemble them? - other than the fact the internet told you what to think. What specific area of geoengineering are you referring to? - As I demonstrated, it is a very broad field.
"Nope, blue skies turning white - nothing to see here folks, move along."
Again, are you similarly perplexed about cloud cover?
"Lack of official dialog is suspect."
There is plenty of "official" dialogue - have you actually bothered looking instead of relying on a drip feed of junk conspiracy websites and videos. Surely you are able to comprehend, that a search engine will return whatever you instruct it to, and the more it does, the more it will skew your results towards your preferences.
"You said earlier that flight paths for commercial flights is unregulated to explain why we would expect to see a sky full of crisscross jet trails. Unregulated, are you sure about that?"
Sigh - can I clarify and correct you here - that is utterly incorrect. Read my comment again. I referred to the unregulated expansion of the commercial aviation sector and routes flown. Of course air traffic is controlled. The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in differing directions in accordance with multiple airways, headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace? Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"I am further suspicious when I tracked the stop start jet trail over my house, it read as a military plane. Just a coincidence I guess."
Military aircraft often do not show on tracking software. Question for you, do you actually understand what causes an intermittent contrail? Because if you did, you have no reason for any 'suspicion'.
"It is probably just my imagination that before the rainy season the sky is filled daily with crisscross jet trails and then it hardly rains for the season. Another amazing coincidence."
No coincidence. The unstable moisture laden air that results in so many contrails to form is frequently a precursor of this weather - or an incoming frontal system. As such, contrails are a result of this as opposed to the cause. If you understood relative humidity you'd know this.
"So with these observations the You Tube videos on subject hold more weight, even more weight than you explaining the science of contrails as if some how we are observing contrail phenomena."
Which as I explained has been studied and understood since the early advent of powered flight. Once again, your personal incredulity, special pleading and susceptibility to online junk has no bearing on physical reality. If you actually learned about aviation, familiarised yourself with some rudimentary meteorological science and humbly took the time to understand what geoengineering actually is and consists of, instead of relying on a ludicrous conspiracy theory then you wouldn't be making any of these statements in the first place.
Speaking of "weight" - do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in the trails that you are describing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't.
3
-
3
-
@shaencamara397
"you’re asking me why I feel the need to express my God given right to say what I want?"
No, I'm asking you why you felt the need to make such a worthless and valueless comment about a subject you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever or anything worthwhile to add about a video that you didn't even watch. This is everything that's wrong with the internet.
"You’re the one that felt some type of way about the comment I could care less. It’s just words."
In which case, why post in the first place and why reply?
"And I was talking about the title, as well as other videos."
So you said. And as I pointed out, your OP demonstrates otherwise and contradicts your claim - so don't try that again.
"You act like this is the only video on youtube that is titled this?"
Do I? How so? At what stage have I even mentioned this?
"Maybe I watched 3 other videos and decided to comment on this one. Maybe I comment on all the videos. Who cares ?"
About what you have to say? precisely no one - which is why I asked why you felt the need to comment in the first place.
"I say what I want."
Like I said, everything that's wrong with the internet in a nutshell.
"Also children may not understand orbital mechanics but the understand space machine."
What?
"Like I said, it is easy to “dumb it down” when you actually understand the mechanics."
And like I said, it depends upon precisely what it relates to.
"One more thing. You felt the need to break down a comment that didn’t need to be. It’s not like I went into some in depth philosophy about this, its just my opinion. And you have a right to disagree. But that isn’t what you are doing you are literally searching for an argument. Lol"
Well that seems to be precisely the rationale for your initial post. I break down the comments because that is the most efficient way to ensure that every aspect of the post is addressed.
"What you should’ve done is just expressed your opinion with maybe some evidence"
Known science is not a question of "opinion" (yours or mine). The evidence in support of the Apollo landings is manifest. The burden of proof is not therefore incumbent upon me, rather anyone seeking to falsify or question it. My reply was based upon your need to pass comment.
"but misrepresenting someone just shows a lack of understanding."
At no stage have I misrepresented anything that you have typed.
"That is all, thanks for your input tho"
Thank you for your civil and courteous response.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"where they admit to already carrying out geo engineering. Page 3 paragraph 3."
Here is what it actually says...
"There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate. Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third, we may need geoengineering as a “Plan B” if, in the event of the failure of “Plan A”—the reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues."
Some - albeit very small scale - geoengineering testing is underway. Again, what does that have to do with the persistent contrails in this video which are misidentified by chemtrail conspiracy theorists.
Geoengineering encompasses a very wide range of strategies divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors.
The latter is almost entirely in the province of research proposals and computer simulation, the exception being ground based albedo modification.
However, in terms of a "small scale trial", through the SCoPEx project, this year Harvard intend to launch a steerable balloon 20km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert to measure perturbation and dispersion releasing a few kilograms of calcium carbonate...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Again, what does this have to do with the subject matter of this video? Do you even understand the logical fallacy of false equivalence/association fallacy?
3
-
@TCM215
"why would movie makers bother to put contrails in films and put them in films set prior to the invent of the aeroplane?"
What??? None of these extracts pre-date the "invention of the aeroplane". As I said, contrails have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of powered flight. In the case of the animation, contrails have been added for artistic license and recreate reality. The films that are included in this video have inadvertently captured contrails. A classic example is Spartacus made in 1960.
"Also why bother to put “contrails” into old movies?"
They have not been put in, they have been caught on film. I can provide many examples of this.
"Why are you lying? You say after you had already referenced the proposed balloon experiment to block out the sun, which is the proposed mechanism to lower temp, that then there is no such plan to block out the sun"
Jesus. Once again, SAI is not designed to block out the sun, and the SCoPEx experiment will not involve "blocking out the sun". You are the one that keeps making that assumption not me. SCoPEx involves mere kilograms of calcium carbonate for chrissakes.
For the fifth time, the purpose of SAI is not to "block out the sun" it is to introduce small particle matter into the mid stratosphere in order to reproduce the cooling properties of volcanic aerosols which reflect a portion of the sun's incoming insolation. You merely associate this with blocking out the sun, because you falsely equate contrails and cirrus cloud to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection without actually understanding what it is.
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. I#ll repeat it again - the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
3
-
@TCM215
"No no don’t straw man argue me."
Bit rich you accusing another of a logical fallacy don't you think Scott? Nonetheless, I apologise, I misinterpreted your statement.
"my question again is for you to please explain why movie makers are bothering to place trails from planes in movies set prior to manned flight?"
My answer remains the same. They have not. The animated movies certainly employ artistic license and have depicted contrails to mirror reality. Spartacus, made in 1960 contains a well known continuity error which was noticed long before your chemtrails conspiracy theory. As I explained to you and substantiated with ample sources, persistent contrails have been observed, recorded, photographed, filmed and studied since the early advent of aviation - which is completely contrary to your irrelevant anecdotal incredulity and whatever you choose to "remember". It is inevitable that these have been inadvertently captured in movies irrespective of when they were set. I can give you many such examples.
"Would you agree that this is done in order to normalise these lines in the sky for the next generation."
No.
"What’s your spin on this please?"
Talking of "spin" - your You Tube video suggesting that these continuity errors have actually been subsequently added...are you actually seriously contending this?
Your confirmation bias blinds you to any evidence contrary to your claim. Do you also believe that "Flight to Arras" or the in situ studies of the microphysical properties of persistent contrails in the journal published papers that I provided dating back almost half a century that you choose to ignore have similarly been doctored? If so, who by?
Your tangential attempt at deflection aside, returning to your contention that SAI is already in progress...what is your evidence for this and what then is the purpose of the SCoPEx trial? Do you accept that the source that you provided, contrary to your claim is neither a 'government paper' nor does it "admit" to carrying out geoengineering? And what aspect of the content relates to the contrails under discussion in this video. If you were a ground based observer witnessing Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - explain precisely how you would expect it to manifest itself, together with the reasons why and supported by the wealth of official literature at source associated with these proposals.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@toddhumbert3752
"I just gave the video on JVA recommendations. Dufus."
No, actually you "gave" a link to an Apollo Hoax website which was not citing Van Allen, rather the Media Bypass Magazine. Much like your link to Jarrah White's farcical You Tube moonfaker You Tube conspiracy video. So you refer me to video produced by one of the main perpetrators or the moon landing conspiracy theory, featuring advocates of the moon landing conspiracy theory, about the moon landing conspiracy theory as proof of the moon landing conspiracy theory? Ok.
Not interested in confirmation bias, cherry picking or quote mining. To clarify, and for the benefit of anyone reading this exchange, could you provide an original quote at source from James Van Allen himself that recommends that lead shielding would be necessary for the trajectories flown by Apollo? Thanks.
"And no, the burden of proof lies with you that they went thru the VAB in the command module"
Incorrect. You are the one that originally claimed that they didn't. I have provided the Mission elapsed time of the jettison of Aquarius, whilst Odyssey having been powered up by Swigert, was boarded by Haise and Lovell one hour before. Are you aware of the speed that they were travelling prior to separation?
"according to NASA they went thru it in the LEM"
And there you have it - Citation necessary.
"Do the required reading."
And how did you do yours?
"Also, contact Orion, they are looking for safe transportation thru the belt."
An entirely different craft designed for an entirely different mission profile beyond cislunar space. And what does the systems architecture on Orion have to do with the solid state electronics on Apollo?
"Tell them Apollo solved it with aluminum foil
Who mentioned aluminium foil? That would be you again. Perhaps you were getting confused with your headgear?
"and it is basically physics"
Correct. Come back to me when you understand ionising radiation, high energy protons and Bremsstrahlung.
Also...
"The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James Van Allen (2002)
Unfortunately my questions seem to have slipped your mind again. Once more -
1/ What "additional shielding" are you referring to?
2/ Why are you claiming that James Van Allen recommended lead shielding for the Apollo mission trajectories? Please provide an original quote at source. Perhaps you could summon your "reading"?
3/ Why do you think that lead shielding would be necessary?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielguy1891
Like I said, pure confirmation bias. This is ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social Technological Environmental and Legal framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does research into the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection have to do with a baseless online hoax predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails?
"Also, Monsanto owns a patent for aluminum resistent corn"
The issue is soil acidity.
http://www.plantstress.com/Articles/toxicity_m/acidsoil_chapter.pdf
Firstly, given that aluminium is very common why wouldn't Monsanto have wanted to develop aluminium resistant crops to increase yields in areas with acidic soil? Given the ubiquitous presence of aluminium in the ground, When soils are too acidic, aluminium that is locked up in clay minerals dissolves into the soil as toxic, electrically charged particles - ions, making it hard for most plants to grow. In fact, aluminium toxicity in acidic soils limits crop production in as much as half the world's arable land, mostly in developing countries; in Africa, Asia and South America.and in view of the fact that aluminium ion levels (Al3+) due to soil acidity have been an issue since the dawn of sedentary agriculture and a known problem for a hundred years then it’s hardly surprising that organisations with to engineer crops to have a higher resistance to it.
Secondly, Monsanto no longer exist. They were subsumed by Bayer.
Thirdly, the correct spelling is 'resistant'.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sigh.
1/ The 10¢ airmail stamp honoring the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong, was issued on Sept. 9, 1969. No other person has been honored on more United States stamps during his lifetime than Neil Armstrong.
2/ By the time the capsule had reached the lower atmosphere, it had slowed to about 320 Mph, at which point they deployed the first parachute. The first “drogue” chutes were deployed at about 25,000 feet altitude. The main chutes would have been deployed at about 10,000 feet. The capsule had significantly cooled by then. The heat shield was ablative and the shell of the command module lost heat very quickly during its descent through very cold air in the stratosphere. Metal loses its hear rapidly after spending several minutes in a moving airstream that might be as cold as -80 degrees F.
3/ Because no government since has been prepared to sanction the huge budget required to place man on the moon. After years of drip-fed piecemeal funding from congress, we now have Project Artemis which pledges to return man to the moon this decade. There has been no supersonic passenger service since the cancellation of Concorde in 2003 almost two decades ago due to the expense and the fact it was unsustainable. It may be the same time or more until this is resumed. That does not mean that the technology has not progressed.
4/ Actually, to date, at least 47 NASA rocket bodies have crashed into the moon. None of these impacts suggest that the moon is 'hollow'. Following the planned impact of Apollo 13's S-IVB the moon was reported to "ring like a bell". This is because it’s much drier than Earth. Water weakens stone, almost acting like a sponge and deadening vibrations. When there’s an earthquake, the vibrations end quickly in comparison to bodies that are drier and more rigid—like the moon. therefore the seismic waves caused by the impact resonated and reverberated.
3
-
So, basically, because you say so - and yet in spite of this 'gotcha' in over fifty years, entire branches of science and related specialist feilds such as aerospace engineering have no issue with the validity of the Apollo moon landings whilst Jeffery Logan, University of You Tube, knows better? Ok then.
The surface of the moon is covered in regolith, which is a dust like blanket of heterogeneous deposits covering solid rock. It is also quite coarse, coagulated and thick. The descent engine of the LM was throttleable and at the point of touchdown was producing 2,700lbs of thrust. This was sufficient to disturb the dust on the surface beneath the lander and as you say, this was acknowledged prior to contact. Incidentally the voice you refer to is Aldrin's (not Armstrong), who remarked, "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage. What one earth are you talking about the lack of any disturbance? The rocket engines were not sufficient to clear the dust entirely but the impressions can be seen on each mission. The landing sites have been photographed by the LRO whilst the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have further been confirmed by India's Chadrayaan 2 handrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021) clearly showing the radial disturbance of the dust from the LM.
"Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Any made up bullshit reason why that is the case is nonsense."
Because Jeffery Logan said so.
- Reducto ad absurdium, a common lame tactic of the online conspiracy believer.
"Don’t need to analyze intersecting shadows or waving flags."
You mean parrot the contents of another dumb conspiracy video? Oh please do, I'd welcome the comic relief.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@therocknrollguitarlounge7057
"are you a pilot?"
No, neither are you. I'm a climatologist specialising in ground based remote sensing. However, that has no bearing on this conversation. Your dispute lies with the fundamentals of atmospheric and meteorological science and basic aviation not me. Address the subject not the individual.
"Do you have proof those planes are empty? Send me video before you get on the jet of the empty jet. If not stfu you have no solid proof to debunk what is being seen here in California. Dont debunk what you have no proof of."
Sigh. Yet another conspiracy believer that fails to understand burden of proof. Since you are the one making the claim, the latter is incumbent upon you, the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to establish a negative/absent. Surely you are able to comprehend that? If not, I suggest you refer to a simple thought experiment to illustrate this called 'Russell's Teapot'.
If I were to claim to you that Mr.Ed had spawned a family of talking horses the responsibility would lie with me to substantiate that claim. I wouldn't expect you to scour the entire equine world on a mission to disprove it. Your dumb, childish chemtrails conspiracy theory debunks itself through being a physical and mathematical impossibility. That you are completely ignorant of atmospheric science and aviation is the sole reason that you have been duped by it.
Regarding "those planes" - do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in any of these trails that you are observing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't.
"and like I said get out once in a wile and observe."
And like I said, you'll find that's precisely what the fields of atmospheric and meteorological science and aviation do. It's also my line of work and I've spent the last two and half decades measuring.
"The science tou talk about has no relevance to what is being done up there."
You'll find that atmospheric chemistry, meteorology and aviation has everything to do with what's "being done up there". I suggest that you understand the process of contrail formation, dry and adiabatic lapse rates, dew point and relative humidity in addition to supersaturation in respect to ice. As I said, this information is free for all to access and governed by physical laws, mathematical axioms and therefore has a voice of its own. Nothing to do with me.
"It doesnt fit the observational proof."
The persistent contrails that you are observing have been witnessed, documented, recorded, measured and studied for in excess of eighty years and since the early advent of powered aviation. Your ignorance of the science behind it and your personal incredulity has no bearing whatsoever upon the real world.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ryuranzou1936
Firstly weather modification is actually the legal term for cloud seeding which does not involve spraying at all - (it can also encompass hail and fog dispersal...all at the microscale).
"Same reason they put iodine generators on mountain tops and such... "
?????? What?????
Cloud seeding employs silver iodide flares, but other than that I I have no idea what you are talking about.
"the pollutants from car exhaust or airplane axhaust form a nucleus for water to adhere to even in the absence of an attempt to spray things. I love the absurdity of the skeptical viewpoint: "It's just natural water vapour" --- yes condensed around particulate material which is toxic."
In discussing contrails, the visible trail that you see is largely atmospheric water vapour in the form of ice. Yes, aircraft exhaust does contain a mixture of gases and chemicals, but the contrails that you see do not.
Actually modern high bypass turbofan engines are pretty clean burning and actually aviation in comparison to ground based pollution is far less of a hazard to human health - however, Emissions from airports and increased volume of air traffic will indeed contribute to the prevalence of respiratory and even neurological health conditions whilst the increased air traffic means higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere.
An aircraft burns a hydrocarbon fuel - the chief product of that is water and C02. The carbon footprint of the aviation sector is indeed a concern.
In terms of emissions, Ulrich Lohmann is a member of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich. Besides other things, she is seriously involved in efforts to assess and potentially reduce the atmospheric pollution induced by aviation, particularly in terms of nanoparticulate combustion exhausts. Here is the original abstract of the paper published by Atmospheric Environment which she coauthored. Here's the original paper - read it for yourself.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016302424?via%3Dihub
The detected metallic compounds were all internally mixed with the soot particles. The most abundant metals in the exhaust were Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, Ti and Zr was also found. They further investigated potential sources of the ATOFMS-detected metallic compounds using ICPMS. The potential sources considered were kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components again in trace quantities. Such an analytical method is very sensitive to the concentration of the analysed compounds which can be as low as one part in 10−15.The elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in diesel and petroleum.
Road going diesel contains similar trace metals and the emissions at ground level are all around us. In addition to Nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and pm2.5 - there are the huge quantities of metal particulates associated with an internal combustion engine and brake pads to consider. You are breathing these on a daily basis at ground level and such pollution that you seem oblivious to is thousands of times more harmful to health than the commercial air traffic that produces contrails.
3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? All those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. Shall we turn to that now? Do you drive?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Start with the first moon mission. Because that baby has been debunked."
How interesting. Has it? Why? Because some random on the comments section of You Tube decreed it to be so? Then you'll have no problem whatsoever presenting your singular most compelling and irrefutable piece of evidence then that the Apollo missions were faked. Naturally you'll be keen to avoid the same old obligatory, predictable dumb online conspiracy theory that is consumed and regurgitated ad nauseum by those with zero knowledge of the science, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme and has been debunked over and over and over again. So do you have anything vaguely resembling your own thoughts or observations based upon informed understanding that objectively debunks the Apollo moon landings? Or do you simply have personal incredulity and ignorance like all the rest?
"And the only people who still believe it are brainwashed."
You mean entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering and rocketry worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, technical writers, Nobel Prize winning physicists, over 10,000 private initiatives and investments and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They did, five more times. It would have been nine had it not been for the funding withdrawn for Apollo 18, 19 and 20 and the aborted Apollo 13 mission. After 1972, to answer your question, because Apollo was cancelled due to the obscene cost of sending manned missions to the moon - and with it the necessary heavy lift capability. And many unmanned missions have been back - in fact the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaan 2 handrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021) whilst China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2 has also confirmed the Apollo landing sites.
The emphasis shifted to low Earth orbit, the development of the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS. Constellation only received trickle funding, and Project Artemis (which was only approved in 2018) has been similarly drip-fed from Congress, whilst Apollo was effectively a blank cheque. Significantly, Artemis 1 completed a 25 day mission last year, Artemis 2 will be manned and Artemis 3 pledges to return a crewed landing to the lunar surface this decade.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I can see with my own eyes the chem trails appear in the crystal blue sky and then with 3-4 hours the sky is completely cloudy"
Chemical spraying that behaves exactly like ... condensed atmospheric water vapour. Who'd have thought it?
"the sky is completely cloudy and no moisture or humidity anywhere in the forecast"
No 'moisture' in the forecast???? The atmosphere is full of water vapour. How did you determine humidity at altitude? - you are surely aware that the atmosphere is not homogeneous in respect of humidity nor is it isotropic
Empirical data please.
"and no front moving thru with ppt."
So total cloud cover and no frontal system....but complete cloud cover. You'd think that an entire branch of meteorology, atmospheric science and environmental monitoring would notice something suspicious...or are they sworn into silence and co opted by this conspiracy too? - in addition to geo-political systems, every nation on the planet, the aviation sector worldwide, its contractors (ground crew, load masters, fuelling, airport management, ATC etc etc), aircraft manufacturers, pilots and air crew?
"This is not normal and it is happening more and more!"
I assure you that it is...and the increased prevalence of contrails is due to the exponential expansion and growth in demand within the global commercial aviation sector and associated routes flown. It is set to become much, much worse before it gets better.
"DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH FOLKS"
And how precisely did you do yours?
Got any hard data? An analysis of these chemicals at source would be a great place to start.
"AND DO NOT BELIEVE THIS FOOL WHO PUT OUT THIS VID...IT IS CRAP!"
Then I invite you to disprove and refute the independently verifiable science of contrail formation and the associated known physical laws of the atmosphere.
Good...luck...with...that
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is a video about aircraft contrails. You are referring to a hypothetical branch of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which has nothing to do with misidentified contrails upon which the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon. Gates has leant vocal support and some funding for the Harvard research initiative which he otherwise has no involvement in.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which Harvard's David Keith is the main proponent of would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. The formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even currently agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. The volcanic aerosols you refer to are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). These are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
In 2019 an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it currently looks like...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
So a few kilos of water which were never released, compared to the VEI 5/6 monstrous eruption of Shiveluch on the Kamchatka peninsula that same year which I guarantee, you are completely oblivious to, which caused huge stratospheric injection - alone lofting some 768Gg of sulphate mass up to 12 miles into the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year. To clarify, should a similar material be used, the amount of annual sulphur emissions to the stratosphere that have been proposed , 5–10
Tg (Tg ¼ 1012 g), is much less than the annual volcanic SO2 emissions into the troposphere, about 13 Tg, plus the annual human emission of SO2.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, those entire branches of science and specialist fields and disciplines, investigative and technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century that have forensically dissected every detail of the moon landings. The Apollo Programme was completely transparent and there is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, in excess of half a century, the physics of every mission profile, every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject. The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies on the planet. To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions. They're also basing aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo, specifically data derived from the three rovers on Apollos 15-17, which you also claim to be fake. The professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities then spring to mind. They should be alerted, since it's clear that they too have been wasting their time (their work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program). It's sad to think that some of the very smartest among us, the thousands and thousands of pioneering minds, scientists, engineers and technologies around the world involved in aerospace are oblivious to these gotchas.
Meanwhile we have random, insignificant nobodies such as yourself, that have zero relevance to the real world, with no knowledge or understanding of these subjects whatsoever, squandering their time on internet comments sections and claiming to know better.
Incidentally, known science is not a question of belief.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JaxAnanda
"Also when I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s and leading into the late 80’s I hadn’t ever seen the trails we now see."
Then you weren't looking. Wait, you're in South Island New Zealand right? Well obviously that's why. There were so few long haul routes overflying South Island or at the necessary altitude to form contrails, of course they were scare. I lived in Auckland in the mid 1970s and although you would see them, it was nothing like as common as today. Also, from a meteorological perspective, there is a reason that the Maoris christened the place Aotearoa, land of 'the long white cloud'.
As I explained, persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. So any claim that contrails were not present before the 90s (no coincidence that's when this dumb conspiracy theory originated) are demonstrably untrue. You can establish this for yourself. It's true that contrails are more prevalent today, but that is due to the high volumes of air traffic and the increase in routes flown.
"Now, what I now observe is that they begin to spread out and cause a fine musty layer that blocks the sun."
Sounds remarkably similar to this account by legendary French aviator and acclaimed author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry who in In 'Flight to Arras' wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
Jet engine exhaust exits at temperatures ranging from 500 - 600°C. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely all that contrails are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@twt3716
"Well nasa states that the engine power was too low to cause dust or debris to cover or land on the lander's feet."
Nope. They state basic physics. There is no atmosphere on the moon so dust that is disturbed is does not billow - it radiates laterally. You can see this in the landing footage and in the case of Apollo 11 hear Aldrin acknowledge this in the audio. Yes, the descent engine could be throttled and this was producing 2,700 lbs of thrust at contact (Apollo 11 was the only TD not to immediately cut the engine at this point). But this was still sufficient to disturb the regolith on the surface. As explained, this does not cloud upwards in the same way as it does on Earth where it would remain in the air for a little while, and then slowly subside and settle back down, which would cause some of it to fall on top of the lander’s legs. But on the Moon, any dust that does get kicked up would follow a more-or-less parabolic trajectory, spending no more than a few seconds in flight. By the time the lander’s legs touched down, the dust from its exhaust spread laterally had already returned to the surface
"But then they say the dust was interfering with the flag."
No one says that dust was "interfering with the flag". It is blown over during launch by the ascent engine. You realise that the LM was a staged craft yes? Different rocket engine?
"They cant have it both ways"
No, clearly you didn't then.
"Nasa needs to just be honest. Waiting for all those involved to die before blaming them for the lies is a very shoddy and pathetic way to divulge the truth. I'm very grateful that Nasa does the work it does, but the time for telling the truth is now."
What on Earth are you going on about?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh for Christ's sake - yet another drive by dumb conspiracy theory believer parroting the same old nonsense that can't even punctuate a sentence.
Space exploration has not 'moved backwards' at all. The pace of technological advancement has been exponential. Mankind is unable to leave Low Earth Orbit because no one has been prepared to fund and build the necessary heavy lift capability since the abandonment of the Saturn V. Project Artemis sends its regards.
It has not been possible to fly a commercial passenger service to New York in under three hours for almost a quarter of a century - despite the technology being there to do so. By your skewed and fallacious logic Concorde must also have been a hoax - or could it possibly be, that no one has been prepared to pay for a replacement.
A TV studio genius? That's a new one. And where was that? I though it was supposed to have been filmed in a Hollywood film set? No, no wait...wasn't it Kubrick in a UK sound stage...Shepperton? or was it Elstree? I'm sure it was supposed to be Pinewood...surely it was Twickenham? Hang on a minute, what about Area 51, Groom Lake Nevada? No, it was definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico...no, no, the Utah outback. Hold on, wasn't it Death Valley California. Nope, it was absolutely without doubt the Arizona desert. But then what about Devon Island.
You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'TV Studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Clever lad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"whoever you are."
I thought that you knew?
"And No, you qualified in none of the things you listed. Checked"
Impeccable logic given that you don't know who I am.
"I'm tired of all the troll emails asking me to prove,prove ,prove."
Here's a revelation for you which you seem unable to comprehend. In making a claim you need to substantiate it. Also, as the one visiting this video and typing "Bullshit" then the troll you refer to will be none other than yourself.
"I don't have to prove anything."
Then your claims are baseless.
"Like I told the other guy,..go to the U.S.patent and trademark office."
Patents are proof of absolutely nothing. What's your point?
"Type in weather modification"
What does weather modification have to do with the chemtrail hoax which is the erroneous belief that contrails in the wake of commercial airliners are evidence of global sprayng.
"days of reading complete with plane schematics and layout."
Which "plane" in particular? What did you discover?
"You'll find the type of sprayers used."
Link?
"Sad day when you can't just say, I saw a plane sitting on the runway after landing spraying something from nozzles not even attached to the engines."
But you didn't "just say" that did you? To recap, what you actually said was that you video taped an aircraft at Tennessee Airport which was spraying a chemical substance whilst stationery on the runway and as a consequence the passengers were detained, whereupon subsequent examination undertaken by your Dad revealed that their clothing had traces of aluminium oxide and thorium oxide. I have simply asked you, not unreasonably to produce this video that bizarrely in spite of your beliefs, you have not elected to share - in addition to details of the flight, the airline the make of aircraft and the time and date.
It's a sad day is it when someone calls you for bullshitting over the internet?
"I suppose folks don't believe in crop dusters either,.."
What does crop dusting have to do with commercial airline operations?
"Just go read "ALL" the documents"
What documents?
"They will explain much better than I"
That wouldn't be hard would it.
Why don't you produce your video instead? Which reminds me, back to my questions which you have conveniently sidestepped.
1/ This flight that you refer to, what was the date, the airline and the make of aircraft?
2/ Your supposed video. Why did you not post it to YouTube?
3/ Do you regard the footage in this video as being evidence of your chemtrails? The answer to that question will explain much.
2
-
So you provide a link to possibly the most predictable and obligatory video about the chemtrails conspiracy theory, made by the main perpetrator of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, re-posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, featuring appeals to false authority by proponents of the chemtrails conspiracy theory as supposed evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory?????
This is Wigington's ludicrous Shasta testimony. Tell you what. These supposed "Pilots, Doctors and Scientists" - could you provide their credentials, their fields of expertise, their analytical studies and publications into chemtrails, and in the case of the clown in the fancy dress outfit, the airlines that he has flown for and flying hours accrued. Then when you fail to do so, come back to me and I'll not only tell you about the circumstances surrounding this farce but who they all really are. Here, let me give you a helping hand with that, Iraja Sividas - y'know, the buffoon that thinks your exhaled breath on a winters day is analogous to a stream of superheated exhaust from a jet engine in an ice saturated environment - a local High School Mathematics teacher from Redding CA. "The Union of Concerned Scientists"? - open to anyone - you could apply for membership if you wished...which is frankly quite concerning.
2
-
2
-
Massively inaccurate statement there.
von Braun was indeed a member of the Nazi party, but he joined simply though expedience to get support and funding for his work. He despised Hitler and all that he ideologically stood for.
He did not directly murder anyone. He had sleep-walked into a Faustian bargain—that he had worked with this regime without considering the darker implications of the Third Reich and the Nazi regime. As Technical Director at the Army Rocket Center at Peenemünde his work attracted more and more attention in higher levels. His refusal to join the party would have meant that he would have had to abandon his life's work. Of course he bears some responsibility for his own actions but in the case of concentration camp labor, there wasn’t much he could do to help. Yes, he still bears some moral responsibility for being in the middle of that situation, seeing the concentration camp labor personally, face to face but powerless to effect change. Von Braun admitted visiting the plant at Mittelwerk on many occasions, and later referred to conditions at the plant as "repulsive", but he maintained throughout his life that he never personally witnessed any deaths or beatings. By 1944 he was certainly privy to the atrocities but he denied ever having visited the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp itself - and there is no evidence that he did, where 20,000 died from illness, beatings, hangings, and appalling working conditions. Yes the slave labour was being used - more people died though this that the actual V2 itself, but contrary to your claim, he never murdered anyone. The slave labour you refer to was not at his behest or choosing and he certainly didn't preside over it as you imply.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mitchell-lc5kj
So you completely ignored my response. If the moon is made of a gaseous state, tell me why it doesn't behave that way and how we can determine the geology of the moon using spectrometry? How is it that rock and soil samples have been not only returned to Earth but validated by an entire branch of science called geology and through independent petrological analysis. Explain the cyclic phases of the moon and how you can discern its surface features yourself using a cheap backyard telescope or a cheap pair of binoclulars?
To answer your question, the surface of the moon is largely composed of igneous rock . It has no light of its own and the reason we see it is that it reflects the Sun's light. The Moon revolves around the Earth approximately once every 28 days orbiting on a plane that is almost aligned with the orbital plane of the Earth around the Sun. The lunar orbit just means that the relative position of the Moon and Sun in the sky changes over the course of approximately a month. They are completely independent of one another. Sometimes they appear close to one another in the sky; sometimes they are at opposite sides of the Earth. While the moon is out in the daytime the sun is generally too bright, or the unlit side of the moon is towards earth, for the moon to be visible. The moon orbits the earth, while the earth orbits the sun. It is inevitable, given that both motions are very roughly in the same plane (very roughly in mathematical terms), that sometimes the moon will be inside the earth's orbit, (daylight visible) and sometimes out (night visible). Based on the orbital geometry of the Moon, there will certainly be times where the Sun will partially illuminate the Moon, during the day and at night. During the new moon, the moon is between the sun and the Earth, the side of the moon that is lit by the sun is facing away from our planet. This means that the moon is still up there, but we can’t see it in the daytime, because all of the sun’s light is getting reflected away from us.
As the moon continues in its orbit around the Earth, away from the sun, increasingly more of its sunlit surface is visible. This is why the moon sometimes appears as a crescent or half-moon. When it’s farther from the sun and visible above the horizon, it’s easier to spot during the day.
This isn't even high school science.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jeez - it doesn't take much to persuade you does it? And what legitimate learning have you actually done about the moon landings themselves, as opposed to allowing a con artist and fake documentary maker to tell you what to think?
If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
It's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional charlatan/grifter and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these ridiculous conspiracy theorist's claims?
2
-
2
-
"Can't believe you don't see or think chemtrails are real!!"
What conspiracy believers refer to as 'chemtrails' are nothing more than aircraft contrails.
"The government even said that they are real!!"
At no point has any government anywhere on the planet said that chemtrails are real.
"First they denied it , then it's we are spraying to block the UV Ray's and spraying aluminum and barium and other harmful chemicals."
You see terribly confused. You appear to be referring to Solar Radiation Management which is entirely hypothetical. Research into this is not hidden or secretive - how precisely do you admit to something that wasn't denied in the first place? It would not involve aluminium or barium and it wouldn't bear any relationship to the aircraft contrails that you are seeing. This consists purely of computer modelling and research proposals. Look up SCoPEx, a small scale trial involving a balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere and a few litres of water to evaluate perturbation. That's as far as it gets - only it doesn't, since five years later it is still awaiting approval.
"The government has been trying weather modification in the late 40's it's to destroy other countries instead of war"
Cloud seeding, which has nothing to do with SRM or aircraft contrails.
"Con trails are water and evaporate!!"
How can water vapour evaporate? 🤣Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself? Contrails are formed through condensed. water vapour. If the ambient conditions - air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure permit, they will persist, if not, they will sublimate back into an invisible gas. No different to a cloud - because, that's precisely what they are.
"Chemtrails to into haze in the sky!!"
The persistent spreading contrails that you term 'chemtrails' have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"Use your head and eyes!!"
Perhaps you should?
"Government workers especially military do what they are told to do! Pilot's fly when their told to fly."
What do you find perplexing about a chain of command.
"Plenty of videos proving this."
Proving what precisely?
You watched some conspiracy videos on You Tube, so it must be true?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@feetusyeeter
"Why would you need to fly over a desert when there's nothing there"
Because commercial aircraft fly passengers on designated routes to a range of destinations. In doing so they may traverse deserts, oceans, forests, mountain ranges and polar regions. You said this...
"why are they in places without air traffic"
Specifically, what places are you referring to?
"And why do whenever you look up in the sky there are streaks across the sky every where"
There are not. That would depend entirely upon the immediate atmospheric conditions. On some days it can be completely clear. Are you equally perplexed and incredulous about variation in cloud cover?
"contrails" lasting for well over 5 hours, if it's just water vapor then why does it last so darn long?"
Contrails are a product of condensed atmospheric water vapour. The duration of the latter is dependent upon humidity, temperature and pressure. In ambient air which is saturated in respect to ice, a contrail will not only endure because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible gaseous state (water vapour), but may often spread due to high altitude wind shear and agglomerate, thereby becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
Again, are you equally bemused by the persistence of clouds? Both are the result of condensed atmospheric water vapour.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ThePenquinoS
"did you know Bill Gates openly announced that he funded Harvard millions to do stratospheric aerosol injections (literally a chemical trail of heavy metals and aerosol)."
Oh Christ almighty - how many times?
Bill Gates has pledged support for the notion of geoengineering and in particular SRM, but the Harvard Research Project which commenced in the spring of 2017 is much more complex than that. What you'll actually find that the grant allocation to this area of geoengineering is actually quite meagre and there are calls from many protagonists to step up the research in this particular domain.
Firstly understand that geoengineering is a very broad term, which can be divided into two main headings - GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR involves such strategies such as aforestation, carbon sequestering, ambient air capture, and biochar, whilst most funding and interest is channelled into ocean fertilisation. SRM meanwhile exists very much in the real of paper based proposal and would involve methods such as marine cloud brightening, albedo enhancement and space reflectors. One of these, Stratospheric Aerosol injection has not even progressed beyond the status of isolated small scale trial.
SAI exists on paper..that's it. The formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to attempt to curb global warming, that it would ever be employed. Contrary to your statement, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate (that's right, chalk) called SCoPEx will take place in Arizona.
"literally a chemical trail of heavy metals and aerosol"
Heavy metals???? Why would SAI involve heavy metals? and do you even understand what an aerosol is?
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground base observer to to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. It certainly wouldn't be resemble the long white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic that gullible online scientifically illiterate dullards claim to be "chemtrails". The latter is precisely what this video is debunking.
"He wants to "block the sun" for climate change lol."
No, as I explained the principle of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which can scatter incoming solar radiation to space, increasing planetary albedo, reducing the total amount of solar energy reaching the troposphere and the earth's surface, and decreasing the daytime maximum temperature (aerosol shortwave forcing). Amusingly, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing, the contrails that you mistake for this cause diametrically the opposite effect that proponents of SAI wish to engineer by trapping heat.
"People still deny it"
No one has "denied" SAI. Research into the latter is fully transparent and has always been in the public domain.
"i don't know what else to say about it at that point"
Perhaps saying nothing would be preferable. The problem with the internet is that it gives the uninformed a voice - generally individuals with little to say who in the real world have little to contribute and rely upon baseless internet conspiracy videos to afford the illusion of relevance to otherwise insignificant lives.
The chemtrails hoax originated in the late 1990s predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. Why do you think that were it ever to become a reality, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection would bear any resemblance to the latter in either appearance, nature or deployment?
2
-
@ThePenquinoS
"That's way more than I can even address."
I am not asking for you to address it, simply to read it, understand your errors and that your conflation of chemtrails and geoengineering is a logical fallacy.
You say that and then produce a rambling post of sprawling proportions due to tangential leaps of logic and containing a farrago of fallacious factoid, a mess of regurgitated online conspiracy theory, claiming legitimacy through poorly appropriated bad science, out of context references poorly sourced confirmation bias and meaningless false authority. Nonetheless, I will address it in its entirety throughout - although this may be the first of several posts in order to achieve that largely pointless aim.
"But the metals yes there are metals. The patents [From John Golete @ LTA CORP in DC] say Silver Iodide, Aluminum Oxide, Strontium, and Barium."
In respect of what? Link me to it and I'll explain the intended purpose to you. Moreover, a patent is not proof of the existence of something. Silver iodide is used for cloud seeding which has nothing whatsoever to do with either the contrails that you are seeing or geoengineering.
"Congressional Research Service Geoengineering Governance and Technology Policy from 2010 and 2013 both state the same things"
Citation necessary.
This paper addresses emergent geoengineering research and potential strategies from a geo-political, technical, logistical, socio-economic and environmental standpoint that's all. From your own source I quote...
"With the possibility that geoengineering technologies may be developed and that climate change will remain an issue of global concern, policymakers may determine whether geoengineering warrants attention at either the federal or international level."
"Geoengineering is an emerging field that, like other areas of scientific innovation, requires careful deliberation by policymakers, and possibly, the development or amendment of international agreements, federal laws, or federal regulations. Currently, many geoengineering technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven."
What's your point?
Aluminium, barium, strontium, ammonium? - all of which are naturally occurring? You realise that these are also all present in domestic fireworks of which America burns 30,000 tons per year at, or in the proximity of ground level? Presumably this is all part of the sinister plot too? Illuminati confirmed.
https://techlagari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/fireworks_colors-techlagari.jpg
"many people have been finding high levels in after they send soil samples and snow/ water samples. "
No, really they haven't. But if you think otherwise do feel free to present these findings and I'll explain why they are flawed. We can start with strontium if you like.
"This is the original proposal of Agenda 21 was the rationing of everything after Global Warming had apparently ravaged the Earth."
Ah Agenda 21, that old chestnut - never takes long. You mean that over a quarter of a century old non-binding toothless action plan that originated at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, tabling a series of recommendations in respect of sustainable development that no country ever bothered adhering to or instituting in law?
"Why the hell is (sic) Aerosols causing ice to blacken?"
Why the hell do you suppose that they are? Do you even understand what an aerosol is and that we are surrounded by them from both anthropogenic and natural origin and ingest them with every breath you take?
"Well people have had samples tested from bits that fell from the sky - or from after a rain they would have things tested and there's websites dedicated to this"
No, there are baseless self referencing pseudoscientific online chemtrail conspiracy sites duping the public.
"always comes back high in Aluminum."
Aluminium is the third most abundant element on earth - you are surrounded by it, again both from natural and manmade sources. It is everywhere in the household. and the upper layer of the crust is even in part named after it. If you capture it in its compound form, then of course it will be present in any analytical test.
"Many other times there will be Arsenic, Titanium, Copper, etc etc..."
Present your independent sources.
"It just amazes me how far some people go to say that chem-trails are not real when chem-trails are simply aerosol injections. A real and proposed method of Geoengineering."
Well firstly as I have shown innumerable times to be the case, SAI only exists in the realm of paper based research and computer modelling. There is not even agreement upon which materials would best replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Moreover, why would SAI resemble a contrail in either appearance, nature or deployment? To remind you, the chemtrail hoax is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails in the upper troposphere. SAI is intended for double the altitude of the contrails that you are seeing. Again, what's your point?
2
-
@ThePenquinoS
"I know what condensation looks like"
Well that could manifest itself in many ways, from the dew on a blade of grass, to the moisture on a window pane to a huge bank of fog.
"I see Passenger jets all day man they leave small condensation. I'm sure you have some way to discredit this in your own way"
Nothing to do with me, your contention is with the known physical laws of meteorology and atmospheric science, which are I'm afraid, not on your side...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The duration of a contrail is governed by the immediate atmospheric conditions in respect of temperature, humidity and pressure. In conditions of high RHi or ice supersaturation which are very common in the regions that commercial aircraft cruise a contrail may not only persist, but can expand and spread owing to the available moisture budget in the atmosphere and the fact that it cannot sublimate back into its invisible gaseous state (water vapour).
"I always wonder about your types lol. You're very quick to defend something that's highly controversial"
Nothing controversial about the science that I defend...although known science is independently verifiable, incontrovertible and being axiomatic has a voice of its own. When chemtrail believers mindlessly parrot that a contrail can only last seconds to minutes because an internet conspiracy site told them so they are not choosing to contend their beliefs with individuals, rather an entire branch of evidence based science, which makes it all the more amusing.
If by "being quick to defend something that's highly controversial" you are referring to SAI, I have not expressed any personal opinion upon such a possibility. In point of fact I would be utterly opposed to such a strategy were it ever to become a reality.
"...& not very transparent to the public. If it was a harmless experiment and it was to save the Earth, more people would know about it. But they don't."
Research into SAI has never been out of the public domain, has never been secretive nor has it been denied...and ironically it is due to this that conspiracy theorists know about it and intentionally conflate it with the chemtrail hoax.
"Also condensation doesn't fall from the position it was in, and lowers to a certain point where it begins to either dissipate or mix with another cloud near it"
Sigh...you mean this?
http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/1991-day-p47-2.jpg
You can see virga and wake vortices in the lower section of a contrail. Contrail pendules also result from the Crow instability. At high relative humidity (RHi about or greater 100%) the exhaust contrails would spread fast and envelope the wake vortices. Having formed inside this envelope, the hybrid contrails would break up in loops and hoops, bulging out as pendules. The blobs that you observe correspond to the places in which the mixing has penetrated into the vortex cores composed of detrained accompanying fluid. Very, very basic meteorology and atmospheric physics which has been studied and understood for decades. You simply don't understand what you are looking at.
Spend some time reading the following In particular, refer to Figure 3:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.2765
"they always leave the same weird spidery - cob webb vein looking shapes - very wispy and the sun becomes foggy on many days."
Precisely what condensed atmospheric water vapour is prone to doing then?
"Congressional 2013 doc says that we may receive less sun light, a less blue sky, o-zone depletion and unpredictable shocks from the Earth or just a loss of control of the weather manipulation."
The environmental ramifications of SRM are as yet unquantified. That is one of the main reasons for the hearing.
"The risk factors are incredible & we can physically see the risks they spoke of (if) they were to do aerosol injections, cloud seeding & cloud albedo etc and we do see the risk factors they spoke of. "
No, you are seeing the increased prevalence of contrails due to the unregulated exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector and routes flown, in addition to existing natural meteorological phenomena that you were previously not conscious of and you deem to be sinister.
"The sky is less blue"
That would entirely depend upon your locality. A pale blue sky is an indicator of high humidity and thus may also be conducive to contrails.
Atmospheric aerosol is most noticeable on humid summer days. Under these conditions, there are billions of aerosol particles and they absorb water and swell up to a size that is quite efficient at scattering sunlight. The atmospheric boundary layer is filled with aerosol that has been well mixed by warm, moist air parcels rising and stirring the boundary layer air into a thick haze - something which often coincides with the formation of contrails at higher altitudes and is frequently attributed to chemtrails by believers in this conspiracy theory.
Most particles originate from emissions from Earth’s surface. Primary aerosols are emitted directly from the source, although the smaller ones start off as hot gases that rapidly condense to form particles even before they leave the smokestack or tailpipe. Secondary aerosols are gaseous emissions that are converted to aerosol particles by chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Some of these become CCNs - typically 0.2 µm, or 1/100th the size of a cloud droplet on which water vapor condenses. This process is often called gas-to-particle conversion. Most CCN are secondary aerosols.
The sources are both natural and anthropogenic. Seaspray, volcanoes, forests, and forest fires, pollen, as well as gas-to-particle conversion of naturally occurring gases such as sulphur dioxide (SO2) and some naturally occurring VOCs, such as α-pinene are important natural particle sources. Industry, power plants, using fires to clear cropland, transportation, and gas-to-particle conversion of anthropogenic SO2 and numerous other gas emissions are important anthropogenic particle sources.
2
-
@ThePenquinoS
"Either way it proposed droughts were a definite possibility and we're seeing crazy weather - forecasted droughts - crop failures happening right now (with high metal content), water pollution (aluminum and metals), respiratory issues"
And the sole explanation can only be, those long white lines in the wake of commercial aircraft cruising predominately in the upper troposphere six miles above your head?
"I've had a wide range of people talk to me about whats going on in the Florida sky, people are noticing and they don't believe the bullshit that's said about how its condensation."
Anecdotal and valueless. Known science is not about "belief". What "people" in Florida elect to believe has no relation to the rational world. The workings of the atmosphere, together with the entire field of meteorological science is neither obliged nor duty bound to conform to the credulous arbitrary demands or expectations of the scientifically illiterate that subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to convince them that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
"My neighbors complain of white shit on their roofs and the stuff is fiber like and white - go figure."
Because the only possible explanation can only be that an supra-national programme of chemical spraying involving global geo-political complicity and the cooperation of the entire aviation sector worldwide including airlines, aircraft manufacturers, ancillary services & contractors, fuelling, ATC, - not to mention the collective coercion of the field of environmental monitoring, atmospheric and meteorological science is responsible?
"People at parks staring at the sky confused and people noticing a trend of - lots of planes back and worth with X's all over the sky for usually a night and a day or 2 of each"
Do you think they are equally perplexed about variation in cloud cover or the revelation that aircraft fly in different directions, at a multitude of altitudes to and originating heading to and from a wide range of varied destinations?
Here - nice X shape when viewed from below.
@71fM
"but usually what follows is an extreme cold front out of nowhere & it happens every single time without fail."
Contrails are very commonly the precursor or approaching frontal systems. Do you think you may be able to venture as to why this is the case?
"Either realize what's happening or stop telling people their wrong because there's quite a bit backing this up"
Actually, no there isn't.
"the technology exists"
No it doesn't.
"the patents exist"
Patents do not prove the existence of something.
"there's papers that have been released from private companies that discussed specifically spraying the skies of Florida in the 70's and Texas in the 80s and 90s. It was called FACE-1 and FACE-2 . Florida Area-wide Cumulus Experiment. They sprayed to try to get precipitation"
Yes it's called weather modification - the legal term for the dubious science of cloud seeding which is quite commonly commercially practiced. Dubious, because there is still not scientific evidence to suggest that it actually works, which is why it tends to be quite unreliable. Cloud seeding typically involves the release of silver iodide from wing mounted flare canisters fitted to modified light aircraft. It aims to introduce additional nucleation into existing clouds that are already conducive to precipitation and thus induce rainfall. Because of this, it is generally conducted at altitudes between two to six thousand feet targeting convective cumulus cloud formations. Cloud seeding has absolutely nothing to do with the persistent contrails that you are seeing at treble the altitude, or geoengineering research in the form of SAI, it does not create clouds nor does it produce a long visible trail. The irony is, that through radiative forcing, the contrails you insist are evidence of SAI bring about diametrically the opposite effect to that which proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blackhat856
"Arrogance and this …whatever high horse little game that you’re getting endorphins from…doesn’t suit"
Said the Dunning Kruger afflicted conspiracy believer - I suggest that you read your posts back and exercise some humility, dignity and self-awareness. The irony, was it intentional?
"Did you not watch Rogan’s show?"
Indeed I did. The difference is, unlike you, I'm not a scientifically illiterate gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy that allows a complete fraud like Sibrel to tell me what to think instead of learning actual science and in the absence of any knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
"Start with shade =-200deg, light=+200deg, the rubber boots will melt."
No, how about you starting by gaining an understanding of the difference between heat and temperature in a vacuum? Those are surface equilibrium temperatures, extremes which take time to reach. At the equator these can reach 250° Fahrenheit whilst at nighttime or in the recesses of some craters in the absence of light, -210° F. However, the length of a day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 Earth days. All of the Apollo missions were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn when the sun remained low in the sky. Because there is no atmosphere, there is no convection and therefore no air temperature. And although there is limited convection, the main source of heat energy is radiant heating from the sun. Why is is that none of you are able to comprehend this?
Rubber? You are absolutely clueless mate. The Overboots were made with a silicone sole, woven stainless steel upper (Chromel-R), and included additional layers of thermal protection and beta felt in the soles as added protection.
"Same with the HASSELBLAD cameras going from -200 to +200 deg the man that designed them said they would explode…..or don’t you understand that?"
Except they didn't experience those temperatures. To reiterate, heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun - and the cameras and film were protected from this. The temperature extremes that you mention are surface temperatures - extremes. Objects take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar day is 29.5 Earth days. This is why, to emphasise again, all of the Apollo moon landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. The temperature ranges that you mention were not relevant. Contrary to your claims, Hasselblad did significantly adapt and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. And no, the "man that designed them" did not say that "they would explode", that is completely false.
...Or don't you understand that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mickstrichow3445
"the world's military deploy chaff ( aluminum)"
Chaff has been used as a radar counter measure since WWII. So what - and what does this have to do with the trails that you are observing?
"the chemtrail conspiracy is the government is spraying aluminum over the population"
False equivalence much? Strikes me your chemtrails are whatever you want them to be.
No, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. The reason believers in this hoax parrot nonsense about 'aluminium is because of the SRM association fallacy. The perpetrators of this conspiracy theory have intentionally conflated it with research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection in a feeble attempt to legitimise their claims, which has proposed aluminium oxide as a possible material amongst many others.
"military chaff makes it fact"
So therefore nothing to do with the trails that you are observing or this video about aircraft contrails then.
All of this, because an online conspiracy theory told you that your chemtrails contain aluminium? Guess what? So do fireworks - aluminium, barium, strontium - sound familiar? literally "chemtrails" and there are an estimated three quarters of a million tonnes detonated on or near ground level worldwide each year. Illuminati confirmed!
"Solar radiation management ( sponsored by kill Bill Gates) is also about spraying aerosol over earth"
Did you not read my response to you? Firstly, it is not "sponsored" by Bill Gates. He has leant vocal support to the concept and contributed funds towards the Harvard research initiative. Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Go research"
I absolutely guarantee I know infinitely more about the origins, history, background and perpetrators of your crap conspiracy theory than yourself. Regarding SRM, want to discuss it further?
Another question for you. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Harvard's went public that they need to spray the sky to bounce solar radiation back into space."
Research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has never been concealed. The publicity surrounding Harvard is a result of the recent $20m research project into this strategy. Geoengineering has never been out of the public domain. SAI does not "spray the sky to bounce solar radiation back into space". The intention is to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols (largely sulphates which are also present in the stratosphere through natural and anthropogenic origin), which limit the amount of incoming insolation. This exists in the realm of paper based proposal and computer modelling and there is as yet no agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose. SAI exists on paper..that's it. The formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address global warming, that it would ever be employed. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed for this purpose - indeed, this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate (that's right, chalk), will take place in the Arizona desert to measure perturbation and dispersal.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex.
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer to to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist at double the altitude of the trails that you are observing. It certainly wouldn't be resemble the long white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic that gullible online scientifically illiterate dullards claim to be "chemtrails".
"Chemtrails are very real and they've been doing spraying us since the 50's."
Incorrect, chemtrails are a baseless scientifically illiterate hoax predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails originating with the late night shows of Art Bell on commercial radio station Coast to Coast AM in the late 1990s. As a popular radio station the manufacture of conspiracy theory (which they still do to order), not only boosted ratings, but in so doing, advertising revenue. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has burgeoned and is now lucrative big business. The perpetrators and believers in this fraud now intentionally or unwittingly conflate it with SRM or weather modification (which is the legal terminology for cloud seeding) in a pathetic attempt to vindicate their claims.
"biological weapons were first used on the general public"
Incorrect - although experiments to measure dispersal have been carried out. They didn't resemble a long white trail in the wake of a commercial aircraft between six to eight miles in altitude though.
"fukushima is still leaking"
Discharge water is still a formidable problem - what does this have to do with a contrail or the subject of this video?
"the government doesnt give a shit about you or I.2
What "government" are you referring to?
"Dont be niave"
https://media.vitkigurman.com/2015/10/irony-alert-ironic.jpg
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"There is no proof Neil Armstrong ever walked on the moon for the first mission to the moon."
On the contrary, there is abundant and demonstrable scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence that both Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon. As there is for those that followed: Conrad, Bean, Shepherd, Mitchell, Scott, Irwin, Young, Duke, Cernan and Schmitt. The fact that you are oblivious to this has no bearing upon reality.
"The suit was made by the same company that made the Playtex bra."
After the Apollo 1 tragedy, NASA dictated the AL7s had to withstand temperatures of over 1,000°F. The solution was a state-of-the-art fabric called Beta cloth, made of Teflon-coated glass microfibers, used for the suit’s outermost layer. For the suit’s creator, the International Latex Corporation in Dover, Delaware, the toughest challenge was to contain the pressure necessary to support life (about 3.75 pounds per square inch of pure oxygen), while maintaining enough flexibility to afford freedom of motion. ALC were a division of the company that manufactured Playtex bras and girdles. The specialist team within this had engineers who completely understood the application and behaviour of rubber. They invented a bellowslike joint called a convolute out of neoprene reinforced with nylon tricot that allowed an astronaut to bend at the shoulders, elbows, knees, hips and ankles with relatively little effort. Steel aircraft cables were used throughout the suit to absorb tension forces and help maintain its shape under pressure. What's your point?
'Bo knows nothing'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No. To reiterate, I am saying that chemtrails are an invented meme...a conspiracy theory and the term was created to perpetrate the erroneous belief that contrails are evidence of chemical spraying. SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with contrails as much as advocates of this conspiracy theory are now desperately attempting to conflate the two. Try as they may, SAI will never resemble a large white plume in the wake of a commercial aircraft cruising in the tropopause/lower stratosphere.
The videos that Wigington circulates are largely of contrails, the rest is a farrago of footage of crop spraying, fire fighting aircraft, cloud seeding, aerodynamc contrails and fuel dumps. Ask yourself why he does this if he has honest intent.
Geoengineering in the form of SAI exists in the realms of paper proposal. Like I said, Harvard who have obtained $16m of funding, hope to simulate the effects of a volcanic eruption in a small scale trial by dispersing firstly water then if successful small quantities of aluminium oxide in the mid stratosphere. If they go ahead, then yes this would be imperceptible to the ground based observer.
"so you're saying chemtrails will (or do) exist, we just can't see them-"
I'm saying chemtrails don't exist they are a baseless online hoax. SAI is unlikely to progress beyond micro deployment and even if it does - no you won't be able to see it.
Are you suggesting that SAI should resemble a contrail then?...if so why have you come to this conclusion?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Settings. If the radar is operating in "clear air mode" it is a highly sensitive mode in which there is no need for anything visible in the air. Note the scale here only goes up to +28 db. Clear air mode can also be used to locate frontal boundaries and mesoscale frontal boundaries such as outflow boundaries, sea breeze fronts and drylines. A sharp moisture and/or temperature gradient in the troposphere sets up an interface of higher reflectivity (an example is to think of skipping rocks on water, the rock is reflective as it hits the boundary between the air and water). In a case where rapid refraction occurs, some of the energy will backscatter. Also, convergence occurs along frontal boundaries. Dust tends to convergence along synoptic and mesoscale frontal boundaries. These increased regions of disturbance allow for a higher return on clear air mode thus allowing for the detection of these boundaries. In Clear air mode, the radar sensitivity is increased and it can detect dust, fog, temperature inversions and other atmospheric disturbances that are not precipitation related. When the radar detects precipitation again, it automatically switches back to PRECIPITATION mode.
Most modern weather radars employ the pulse-Doppler technique to examine the motion of precipitation, but it is only one aspect of their capability in processing of the data. So, while these radars use a highly specialised form of Doppler radar, the term is much broader in its meaning and its applications.Doppler radar has.
Contrails can be remotely analysed via Lidar which they are. You'd think that by now there would be data pouring in relating to your claimed chemtrails - or thousands of independently commissioned in-situ studies using optical array particle sized spectroscopy. Perhaps the question you should be asking yourself instead is why aren't your supposed 'chemtrails' showing up?
2
-
2
-
"It's a grey area"
No, it really isn't.
"did the US government lace clouds for rain in warfare"
Yes - and cloud seeding is also practiced by private civilian organisations that freely advertise their services and contracts online. What's your point?
"dust black neighborhoods in St. Louis with radioactive material"
No - Incorrect. Your misconception is based upon a badly written and researched study by a college professor Lisa Martino-Taylor, from Louis Community College-Meramec, Missourii, who released a paper claiming that the U.S. Army conducted secret Cold War tests by releasing toxic radioactive chemicals on cities like St. Louis and Corpus Christi during the 1950s and 60s. That was later found to be untrue.
Firstly the author of this thesis wrongly implies the Zinc Cadmium sulphide used in these Biological Warfare field trials was radioactive (although she did concede that she had no proof). Astonishingly, this was simply because it was manufactured by the US Radium Corp. Unfortunately she was unaware that the ZnCds used in both the US and UK LAC BW field trials was originally manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co. (codenamed NJ 22660) and not the US Radium Corporation. After a company reshuffle, the New Jersey Zinc Co. later became known as the US Radium Corporation and the ZnCds codename changed to 2267. So simple bad research there. Moreover, ZCS simply is not biologically available as many cadmium compounds, because it is insoluble in water! So we can immediately dispel the 'radioactive material' claim.
Regarding the trials themselves, the military performed some experiments to measure dispersal in an urban environment using a tracer material. People would have been exposed to minute quantities of those substances. But the army were not testing those substances on people. They were just seeing how far the wind carried them, and over what area, and in what proportions. True, the army could have been more judicious with their choice of material (although it was in such negligible quantities that any ill effects wouldn't have registered above levels of urban pollution), and in addition to this they should have been honest about the intent of programme, but obviously feared a backlash.
"and inject airborne biological agents in Canada, yes."
Indeed they did, but again, these weren't tests on the public, rather they were conducted to gain an understanding of how biological or chemical weapons would disperse in the event of an enemy attack.
The most important distinction from the "chemtrails" hoax, is that none of these examples took the form of high altitude persistent visible trails - contrails, that are misidentified by chemtrail believers. Most was from ground level or ground fixtures, others a very low altitude. However, more importantly, they did the exact opposite of what a "chemtrail" is claimed to do - they dispersed quickly and were invisible once dispersed. And that's the main false premise upon which the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated. It'd be most intrigued if these clowns could actually identify these mysterious chemicals that can not only linger when released, but expand and increase in mass just like, well no shit...condensed atmospheric water vapour.
2
-
This is John Lloyd's light-hearted comedy panel quiz show produced by the Talkback Production Company. That's all. I suggest that you defer to the incontrovertible scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the Apollo moon landings instead and that you are completely ignorant of. Known science is not a question of 'belief'.
Because meanwhile, the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself "believe" is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Why is it that you goons are completely incapable of structuring and composing a simple sentence and almost always feel the need to attach a string of puerile emojis?
2
-
@RobFrank22
Such as those in the image I provided?
A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all. It is entirely dependent upon the ambient conditions and the interrelationship between temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail is the result of superheated exhaust encountering very low air temperatures in tandem with high relative humidity at a lower vapour pressure. Combust a hydrocarbon fuel and the chief products are obviously CO2 and H2O. Burning a gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water since oxygen adds to the mass. do this in the tropopause and lower stratosphere, the regions that aircraft cruise and the trail can persist when the combination of high humidity and low temperature prevents it from sublimating back into its gaseous phase (invisible water vapour). However, in conditions of supersaturation in respect to ice, then the trail will not only linger, but expand and increase in mass - just as a cloud is formed - which is essentially all that contrails are. Such contrail cirrus is possible because the trail is almost entirely the result of the available atmospheric moisture budget.
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 hours and at its peak, covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Incidentally, thank you for your civil responses
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dansiwek3593
Ah right.
Yes you are correct. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. So actually, the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what the contrails that you term 'chemtrails' are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Which one? There were hundreds. You mean the official post mission press conference? You only find it 'weird' because online conspiracy theory has told you what to think. You obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with utter dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions? Whilst at it, find footage and images of them beaming after recovery in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer or on the deck of the USS Hornet
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate crap online conspiracy theory.
2
-
2
-
"When I was a child I can remember the greasy black jet exhaust."
Water injected engines and unburnt fuel from older turbojet engines.
"the government made air craft have to clean there exhaust no vapor trail"
Nothing to do with contrails.
"the modern jet engines have a high air by pass no vapor trail"
False. High bypass turbofan engines produce more contrails than their turbojet predecessors. High bypass turbofans have been around since the late 60s and were fitted to military jets like the C5A which I can assure you produced contrails. The water vapour produced is simply a function of the total fuel burnt. While the turbofans allow large engines to be built, the amount of water vapour created has also increased due to the large fuel flows of those engines. The exhaust of the engine is the gasses that come out of the combustion chamber. It's the product of burning kerosene (hydrogen and carbon) with the oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide and H20. It's the water in the exhaust that produces the contrail. This principle is basically the same irrespective of if it's a low-bypass, no-bypass, high-bypass or even an internal combustion engine. What creates a contrail is the mixing of the exhaust with cooler air. It does not matter if it's mixing with the air that passed through the bypass fan, or if it's mixing with the air that passed around the engine. It's still just exhaust gases mixing with the air. As the gasses mix, the temperature falls, and the water condenses out. Exhaust gasses in a high bypass engine are a little less hot (more of the energy has gone into producing thrust from the bypass fan). So they reach the condensation point quicker, and so are actually more likely to form contrails.
"but now we have chem trails found to have radio active barium, radio active stroneum, arsenic and aluminum oxide"
No they haven't. And nope, you have the same persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. The most abundant metals in the jet exhaust itself are Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, and Ti. The sources are kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components. To reiterate, all the elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in road going diesel and petroleum. Incidentally, I think you mean 'strontium'.
"I can remember chem trail starting in the early 90s"
As explained, the persistent spreading contrails that you erroneously term as chemtrails have been around since the early years of powered flight and the best part of a century. They are more prevalent now due to the sustained increase in air traffic.
"I've noticed they will start spraying us and white in 4 days it rains"
Contrails are associated with unstable air and are thus commonly formed on the leading edge of a frontal system.
"there is also harp in Alaska"
Yes, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme which is an HF pump and an ionospheric research tool that is available for hire through its owners the University of Alaska. Incidentally, it's HAARP, not 'harp'.
"and the Russian woodpecker antenna modifying America's weather"
No, the Duga antenna system is an early warning radar network for missile defence. Like HAARP, it has nothing to do with the weather.
"and causing earth quakes with snow"
No, that would be when the movement of fault lines and tectonic plates coincide with the winter.
"digital earth quacks we hade one in edgefield south Carolina"
Earth 'quacks'? What happened, the duck population revolted?
Last month's 4.1 quake in Edgefield was a result of movement on the Eastern Piedmont Fault System (EPFS), an extensive fault system that extends from Alabama-Georgia to North Carolina-Virginia. The young faults remain zones of weakness where movement can occur.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@luis-sophus-8227
"Haha, consume and regurgitate goes for you fellow"
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
I am irrelevant to this exchange. The scientific, technical, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is axiomatic, manifest, and has a voice of its own.
You can observe precisely the same effect here on Earth - that's what uneven terrain can do. And yes, this has been addressed, over and over and over and over and over again, most amusingly when David Percy was exposed for dishonestly cropping pictures.
Do you have anything new or perhaps an original thought that you could share? I'm genuinely interested. Something other than diverging shadows, the Apollo 11 astronauts looked glum in the press conference, the flag moves, NASA forgot to add the stars or there should be a crater under the lunar module?
Go ahead, I'm sure you can muster something relating to your own observations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardsdossatjr935
So you instantly change the subject to something that has been debunked over and over and over again. Seriously, how many times?
You are referring to former astronaut Don Pettit. Here is the full quote from 2004. which you neglected to place in its full context.
"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again. But going to Mars should be one of the next series of steps that humans do."
Since the cancellation of Apollo, the emphasis was placed upon low earth orbit (through the development of the space shuttle and the construction of the ISS) with a specific interest in the duration of missions. NASA has yielded huge amounts of data from this as the focus turns again to manned space exploration. Also, with the ending of Apollo, the technology, tooling, production processes and plants were all closed, whilst the requisite expertise was retired. Boeing, who manufactured the Saturn SI-C have spent years reconfiguring and upgrading their old facility for the production of the SLS core stage. As the old technology of Apollo is now obsolete it has been superseded by modern composites, materials, manufacturing techniques and systems that all have to be validated. This has taken years and the grants from congress have been piecemeal and drip fed. In other words, 'rebuilding' - which has been a 'painful' and protracted process. To remind you, Pettit's quote is almost two decades old. At Cape Canaveral, the Orion capsule was rolled out in November atop of the SLS to the same pad complex that sent Apollo to the moon and performed an unmanned test flight circling the moon in a retrograde orbital perigee of 40,000 miles, further than any capsule constructed for manned spaceflight has ever travelled from earth .
Also, much of the hardware from the cancelled Apollo 18, 19 and 20 missions remains, either in storage or as exhibits.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peachesjackofski8363
"I don’t feel comfortable giving my exact location"
Understandable.
"but it’s around Golspie.
Ah, near the Dornoch Firth - I know that area well.
"I would be super grateful if you could find anything, it really bugs me, seeing all these trails, whatever thy are, but never seeing any planes. "
Yeah, as I said, you are under the North Atlantic tracks. Much of the air traffic that you are observing is long haul outward bound for North America from Europe, and the Middle East and vice versa.
https://youtu.be/6pI77r3oAxw
Use this.
https://planefinder.net/
And remember, contrails may appear closer than they are. You could be looking at something that is many, many miles away.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jskypercussion
"Barium, Strontium, and aluminum can do that."
Really? Fascinating. For the benefit of anyone reading this, could you explain the physical process as to how? Go ahead then.
And what do 'barium aluminium and strontium' have to do with the trails that you are seeing other than the fact that you parroted it off chemtrail conspiracy theorists?
"Also, I used to be skeptical about chemtrails like yourself"
Nothing to do with me. You are simply seeing aircraft contrails. When they persist or spread, you term them chemtrails.
"Until I started seeing them in recent times. I never used to see the long trails back in the 90's in my area like I see them now."
I did. So did the rational world and the entire fields of atmospheric science, aviation and meteorology. The persistent contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"I have been studying and surveying it."
Really? Appreciating that "study" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely have you done this? Judging by the question you asked in your previous post, it hasn't been going very well. I suggest you start with lapse rates, dew points, relative humidity and supersaturation. Very basic atmospheric/meteorological science.
"For you to still be denying this is absolutely ludicrous when it is out all over Bill Gate's sites talking about Operation Solar Shield by spraying the skies to block the sun to cool things down."
I'm not denying anything, the chemtrail conspiracy theory debunks itself. "Operation Solar Shield" is nothing but invented conspiratorial nonsense - and no, it isn't all over "his sites". You are referring to 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' which is an entirely hypothetical branch of geoengineering and has yet to progress beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. It's unlikely that it ever will bar isolated small scale trials involving a balloon and a few kilos of calcium carbonate. SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in a last ditch bid to arrest global temperature rise. There is not even agreement over which materials would best accomplish this goal. Further, it would need to be conducted at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are seeing and wouldn't even be perceptible to the ground based observer - far less leave a long white trail. Bill Gates has nothing to do with this beyond lending vocal support a decade ago and donating to the current Harvard research initiative.
"Also there are a few scientific videos from Saudi Arabia and UAE showing how they seed their skies to create rain in the desert from spraying these metals and chemicals."
More false equivalence. You are referring to cloud seeding which again had nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails you are seeing which are formed in the stratosphere where there are no rain bearing clouds. Cloud seeding does not create clouds, rather, as the name suggests, it introduces additional nuclei into existing stratiform/cumulus masses that are conducive to precipitation to induce rainfall. For this reason, it typically takes place between 2,000 and 6,500 feet - much, much lower than the contrails you are witnessing. What "chemicals"? The aerial application of cloud seeding almost invariably involves silver iodide, released via rack mounted flares on the wings of light aircraft. These are ignited and burn, but do not produce a trail. Moreover, cloud seeding although state sponsored in China and the UAE and practiced by private companies is by no means widespread and it is highly unlikely that you have ever seen it in practice. Your claim is no different to saying crop spraying exists, therefore chemtrails.
"There is too much evidence out there that explains the science."
You asked a question - I explained the science to you. Precisely the same science that is axiomatic, self-evident and therefore independently verifiable, and renders your chemtrail belief a physical impossibility. You have gone off on a tangential non-sequitur talking about SAI and cloud seeding - an association fallacy has nothing to do with each other, the trails you referred to, or the subject of this video which is the misidentification and misunderstanding of aircraft contrails.
So to return to my question, you said this:
"Barium, Strontium, and aluminum can do that."
Could you explain how, when released they can increase in mass and cover the sky, just like....well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Also, do you have any idea how much these persistent trails would weigh vs the MTOW of the aircraft producing them?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ patrick rodgers
You are referring to the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan; and his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous titles of online conspiracy videos that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does Stratospheric Aerosol Injection have to do with persistent contrails which have been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of aviation and the subject of this video?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"There is a military employee who had her life destroyed and her kid taken off her because she worked in auditing and found the chemical purchasing worth alot of money from the budget and she blew the whistle, pilots and leaked photos of the equipment"
Absolute utter nonsense. You are referring to Kristen Meghan who caused a shit storm at the AFB that she was stationed at having been reprimanded on account of her appalling military record. Her supposed whistleblowing related to incorrect storage procedures and had nothing whatsoever to do with alleged 'chemtrails'. However, being the attention whore that she is, following her failed inglorious military stint that ended in shame, she was briefly paraded about by the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax in an appeal to false authority and establish herself as a career conspiracy theorist. She didn't have her child taken off her at all nor did she have her "life destroyed". She now raises a family in staid obscurity in a wealthy Chicago suburb.
"cloud seeding and geo-engineering has been going on since the 50's"
Experiments into cloud seeding date back to the 1950s, "geoengineering" which is totally unrelated is more recent. And what do you mean by 'geoengineering? It is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR/ Negative Emissions technology/BECCS - (involving practices such as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation), or are you are referring to research into Solar Radiation Management which with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical?
What does either have to do with the misidentified contrails associated with the chemtrail conspiracy theory?
"And they aren't trying to control the weather, that's impossible"
Correct.
"they are cooling the earth by reflecting the sun but because of the spraying one part of the country freezes while the other boils, it's changing the charge in the atmosphere and destroying ozone."
Sounds as though you are referring to a branch of research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which aims to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing. SAI has not even reached the early stages of small scale trail. There was a field experiment designated for last year to take place above the Arizona desert and to involve a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere. The intention was to release small quantities of water and later a few kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation and dispersal. However, to date this has yet to take place. This is your SAI as it currently stands...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
You are correct that there are fears that should this ever be deployed it could harm the ozone layer which is one of the reasons that extensive research into the atmospheric chemistry of these proposals is necessary. Incidentally, the ozone layer has recovered by 1 to 3 percent per decade since 2000 and is forecast to recover completely in the Northern Hemisphere and mid-latitude areas in the 2030s, followed by the Southern Hemisphere around mid-century, and Antarctica in the 2060s.
"School children are collecting the material as it falls and have had it tested as part of a project."
What??? Could you present a link to this "project"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@carlton7015
"Not forgetting van Allen belts space ratiation."
What about it? Incidentally, it's 'radiation' and there are different types of it. The belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled scientists to calculate the energies and distribution and understand that whilst subject to some degree of flux, they could be easily traversed, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to between one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO.
"Wet flag"
What?
"Shadows light falloff"
What does this even mean?
"fake back grown"
I think you mean 'background'. No backgrounds were faked and all of the images and footage are consistent with the known topography of the six landing sites.
"tin foil and tape holding the lander together"
Nope. Mylar and kapton used as MLI and nothing to do with the structural integrity of the LM. Does your wallpaper hold your house together?
"10 to the minus 12 tor welds metals together and would probably out gas glass your answer shows how desperate nasa are to defend the obvious lie."
It's nothing to do with me and nothing to do with NASA. Your sentence is utter drivel. As I said, you are simply one of many gullible and scientifically illiterate conspiracy believers that are parroting this nonsense because it is trending on social media or some junk conspiracy video, about a subject you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever.
"There's loads more like lack of testing in a vacuum"
Again, complete rubbish. Allied to which, the LM was tested in space during the unmanned Apollo 5 mission.
"10 to minus 12 is an infinitely higher vacuum your answer is more conspiracy fake science"
What do you mean - 'infinitely higher vacuum?' To reiterate - a vacuum is simply the absence of matter. The closer is gets to a perfect vacuum the closer it gets to nothing. As I have attempted to explain to you, this means that a as your vacuum increases it's could mean that instead of 100 molecules pre cubic centimetre, there are only 25. This does not suck, nor does it create a force. If you place a pressurised container within it, which is then opened that air will rush out as the gas particles fill the empty space. Doesn't matter what the Torr value is, the LM was pressurised to only 4.2psi. That's a minute pressure differential. It's irrelevant what the value of the vacuum is, i's a vacuum, so essentially nothing. The pressure is generated upon the walls from the interior of the vessel.
This is not 'my answer' this is basic high school science for God's sake. The fact that you are utterly unable to comprehend this and regard online conspiracy theory as a substitute and compensation for your lack of even a basic education is as laughable as it is tragic. That you then wear this ignorance and feel the need to proudly display it like a badge of honour is frankly unfathomable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hollywood? Wow...now that's a thought. Was it your own? Be honest, it wasn't was it? In a studio or a basement? Tell me more, because, (at the risk of sounding contrary), I thought that Stanley Kubrick was supposed to have filmed it at Shepperton UK? Wait, some say Pinewood, or was it Elstree?...or maybe Twickenham so as not to arouse suspicion. Hold on, stop right there! - it was definitely Cannon AFB New Mexico, that was it. A converted hangar...or was that at Area 51? No, that was in the desert, Groom Lake. Or was it Arizona? the Utah outback? Death Valley some say. No, without a doubt Devon Island Canada.
You complete goons can't even make your minds up. I guess it depends upon which dumb online grifter/conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some Hollywood Studio to convincingly replicate, uncut, and six times, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Any other rays of insight genius?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This again? Really?...seriously, how many times? Nope, there is one video featuring a NASA engineer Kelly Smith discussing the (then) new Orion Capsule which has been quote mined and deceptively titled by conspiracy theorists and is mindlessly and uncritically consumed and regurgitated by their equally dumb following. Owing to the fact that this is a completely different craft from Apollo, Smith was saying in 2014 that the problems associated with the Van Allen Belts need to be solved before we send a crew into this region of space, (note the plural, since there are two, with a third that is transitory - why is it even necessary to explain that to you?)
The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation resistant. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics.The Apollo Guidance Computer utilised magnetic core rope memory, which is extremely radiation hard. Do you even know that that is? Of course you f*****g don't. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems. This is read-only pre-written memory crafted by roping the needed bits into the circuit logic and its r/w memory was magnetic core, meaning hundreds of tiny ferrite rings were wrapped into fine cables. In the case of modern spacecraft, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the Apollo AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive.
In the same year (2014), Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts to validate its systems which were also tested to overwhelming success as part of last year's Artemis 1 mission.
They are talking about the six "fucking" landings that took place between 1969 and 1972. What are you "fucking" talking about you fool? You haven't got the remotest idea have you? Which is precisely what happens when you mindlessly parrot crap online conspiracy theory about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Certainly. Persistent contrails are primarily governed by three factors - temperature, humidity and pressure. At the altitude that aircraft cruise in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere is is very cold and contrails given the correct balance of humidity and temperature can form. In ambient air which is saturated in respect to ice, contrails may not only persist because they cannot sublimate back into their invisible gaseous state (water vapour), but can expand, spread and cumulatively fanned by high altitude shear agglomerate and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus - most of the moisture drawn from the atmosphere. This phenomena was first observed in the early years of aviation and has been recorded, documented, photographed and researched since. The unprecedented expansion of commercial aviation sector has resulted in the increased prevalence of contrails. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
Aircraft engines are remarkably clean burning in comparison to their road going counterparts. That doesn't mean that they don't, like any combustion engine, emit harmful particulate and aerosols - but most of the by product of jet fuel is in trace quantities.C02 emission is the main worry. Manufacturers are constantly striving to produce cleaner burning engines and like hybrid power sources, electric battery power is a pipe dream due to battery density...I do agree with you, right now aircraft travel is the largest unregulated source of carbon pollution in the US.
The chemtrail conspiracy theory on the other hand originated in the late nineties, largely as a consequence of Coast to Coast AM - a commercial radio station in the US that still to this day manufactures such hoaxes to boos ratings and thereby generate more advertising revenue. It was predicated upon and encouraged the misidentification of regular contrails which were increasing due to the expansion of air traffic, the abundance of high bypass engines (which contrary to the claims of proponents of this theory have a higher contrail factor than regular jet turbine engines) and the tendency for aircraft to fly higher. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has become a lucrative business to some and such hoaxes have burgeoned (particularly in the USA) preying upon the gullible and largely scientifically ignorant. The main perpetrators of this conspiracy theory now tend to intentionally conflate their fraud with localised weather modification (cloud seeding) and research proposals into a branch of geoengineering known as Solar Radiation Management, in a desperate attempt to afford legitimacy to their ludicrous claims. Not that either would bear any resemblance to a contrail in the wake of a commercial airliner in either appearance, nature or deployment.
Hope this helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Geoengineering involves massive spraying of aerosols."
Actually, geoengineering is a very broad term, encompassing a range of strategies from marine cloud brightening to carbon sequestering. Much of the current funding and research is ploughed into ocean fertilisation. I take it that you are referring to albedo modification in the form of Solar Radiation Management...or more specifically, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection?
Only two known experiments have been carried out in the open air to date that could be considered geoengineering-related: University of California, San Diego, researchers sprayed smoke and salt particles off the coast of California as part of the E-PEACE experiment in 2011, and scientists in Russia dispersed aerosols from a helicopter and car in 2009. The so called SPICE experiment in the United Kingdom was abandoned in 2012, following public criticism and conflict of interest accusations after several of the scientists applied for a related patent.
"and they've been doing it for years"
Who are "they" and how have you established this?
As part of the recently launched $16m Harvard research project, this summer a small balloon will release "a fine mist" of initially water and it is anticipated novel aerosols including calcium carbonate or aluminium oxide into the mid stratosphere measuring a few kilograms in total for the purpose of extrapolating data and reflectivity measurements. And therein lies another key point that you people either miss, fail to comprehend or wilfully ignore. Geoengineering strategies concerning albedo modification - or Stratospheric Aerosol Injection are intended to simulate the cooling effects of a large volcanic eruption and are therefore designated for the mid stratosphere. Several things to appreciate about this. Currently there is no aircraft that could deliver this material on the scale or at the altitudes that scientists such as Keith has identified of (65,000 - 70,000ft). Gulfstream aircraft have been suggested but they would require heavy retrofitting and modification and currently it would be prohibitively expensive. Secondly, because the objective is to recreate aerosols typical of a volcanic eruption, combined with empty field myopia - means that it would be completely invisible to ground based observation and certainly wouldn't resemble a large opaque white plume in the wake of a commercial aircraft cruising at half the altitude. Thirdly, and in association with this, such an operation would likely be equatorial in its deployment to utilise the Brewer Dobson Circulatory patterns.
The hilarious irony about this ill conceived conspiracy theory is that through radiative forcing, contrail cirrus results in precisely the reverse that the geoengineers wish to achieve through trapping heat. In addition to this, there is a large body of research in tandem with these SAI proposals assess the environmental and geopolitical ramifications in addition to implications concerning governance. Although some are calling for more research, there is also substantial opposition to the notion of Solar Radiation Management within the scientific community should it ever need to be deployed.
Now could you explain, what do proposals for geoengineering have to do with a contrail in either appearance or nature? (other than the fact that charlatans such as Dane Wigington riding on the coattails of the chemtrail hoax have intentionally conflated the two.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why the anger, hostility and abuse.
You have simply described commercial air traffic and persistent spreading contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. This is a seventy five year old image from the pages of a meteorological textbook:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
You are correct, that the persistent spreading trails you are witnessing are not simply the result of jet engine exhaust. However, if you burn a hydrocarbon fuel one of the main products is obviously H2O. A gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water due to the oxygen adding to the mass. However, the water in the exhaust merely precipitates the trail. Almost all the ice in the persistent spreading contrails that you have described is drawn from available atmospheric moisture in supersaturated conditions. No different to the formation of cirrus clouds, which is all that contrails actually are.
Any idea of the weight of material contained in just one of these trails you are seeing and the typical MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@neilarmstrongsson795
"They are laughable, unless you consider indiscernible black blobs as evidence?"
But they are not black blobs. And not only do they precisely correspond to the known selenic coordinates, the tracks which are clearly visible exactly match the EVAs as documented. Also, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2. Presumably, they are all in on the hoax too?
"The moon is a reflective surface by the way, you don't need reflectors to bounce a laser off of it."
The moon's albedo is actually only 0.12 - meaning that it only reflects back 12% of the radiation that falls on it. This compares to 30% - the Earth, whilst Venus reflects back 70% of the light striking it due to its thick cloudy atmosphere. You can indeed train a laser on the moon and reflect it back, but the deployment of retroreflectors enabled far greater accuracy of measurement.
Again, why are you finding it necessary to desperately troll subjects that you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BlackPrimeMinister
"6.000 people have climbed Everest since so I would be careful with your too-keen dismissal, because it doesn't appear that strong. Six thousand!"
7,000 actually, there are now commercial enterprises that specialise in hauling paying customers up to the summit and it is hardly a "commercial day trip"! It is also a liability for actual climbers and the queues at the Hillary Step become longer each year. Meanwhile in comparison, 700 elite climbers have reached the summit of K2.
"This supports my thesis: no technological endeavour resists commoditisation under capital making it easier, safer and less expensive over time. Sure - not a day trip (I withdraw) but my point is absolutely rock solid and one for which you have no answer."
But I did answer it: To suggest that sending paying customers to the moon is in any way remotely comparable to climbing Everest with the assistance of a tour company is utterly absurd.
To clarify again - sending crewed missions to the moon is not only obscenely expensive, it is fraught with risk, danger and technical challenges. It is likely never to be 'normalised' or routine until the far-flung future and at present, the scramble to return is not in the interest of space tourism, but in terms of exploration and exploitation of natural resources. Currently it is not economically viable to extract these and that will likely remain the case until next century.
The reason that no one has returned to the moon is because Congress withdrew the funding. The goal had been achieved and in the midst of the Vietnam War, the looming OPEC oil crisis and a lack of public appetite and political will the US was not going to continue ploughing 4% of the federal budget into something it has already done. The heavy lift capability necessary to send crewed missions to the moon in the form of the Saturn V was retired and no one built another until the SLS.
"I AM saying Sibrel and the skeptics are logical"
Sibrel, logical? Is this serious? And no, conspiracy theory believers are the diametric opposite of sceptics, which necessitates being critical in both senses of that word—willing to challenge what is widely believed rather than taking it on faith, but also committed to relying on careful analysis. Skepticism and criticism come from Greek words meaning, respectively, to examine or investigate, and to judge or discern. Bart Sibrel is about as far as one can get from this.
"and what we saw in that television clip is a smear: as basic and ugly as it gets."
What "television clip" are you referring to?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"If you want to believe that a country that was about to lose the biggest war in its history to a communist population of farmers didn’t need a distraction or excuse"
What?
"AND were able to send people 240,000 miles to the moon using a computer that had the processing power of a pocket calculator, then you believe that."
Sending crewed missions to the moon requires a huge multi staged rocket, applied mathematics and something called a Hohmann transfer - in addition to Isaac Newton in the drivers seat.
Regarding the necessary calculations, the AGC was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a brilliant piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby.
None of this is a question of, nor requires "belief" - the science and technology speaks for itself and is demonstrable. What you are referring to, is the dumb online conspiracy theory that those with no prior knowledge of the science, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme whatsoever mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Nasa computers had the size of an entire building floor and today you have in your pocket greater processing power, for cheaper price."
Which wouldn't sent you to the moon. Why are you goons unable to comprehend that the AGC was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well? It was a very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a masterful piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem.
IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby.
Why are you making what you assume to be authoritative comments about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever?
"They low orbit"
And no one noticed.
"while passing area 51 kubrick's videos"
Area 51? And what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Nevada? The Utah or Arizona deserts? Devon Island Canada? Shepperton UK? You clowns can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Kubrick? This again? If you had even the remotest knowledge about the man, you'd know that he would rather have been taken out than have compromised his values and artistic integrity. Videos? The transmissions were tracked from the moon.
"Just dropped some mirrors and stuff later to say , see, we were there. But just drop things on moon are easy."
Really? Then account for ALSEP - the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME. The retroreflectors were configured by hand, which is what makes them so precise.
"Go and come back alive across van alen belt isn't."
They are belts since there are two, plus a third that is transitory. And James Van Allen himself stated that the claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is complete nonsense.
"The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable." James Van Allen 2004.
"That's why they put radiation sensors on the last Nasa mission, to see what to expect."
Nope, the radiation sensors were due to the fact that the Artemis 1 mission duration was much longer than Apollo, travelled much further and coincided with a solar maximum, which Apollo did not. Orion is also a new capsule and it was part of the the test flight validation procedure.
You are simply consuming and regurgitating the same obligatory junk conspiracy theory about subjects that you clearly have zero knowledge of whatsoever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"So many people 60 plus might still believe that we landed on the moon because we were so young and were fooled by what we watched on tv."
You mean entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, 10,000 public sector organisations and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet that for over half a century have no issues with the veracity of the Apollo moon landings? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an impressionable, insignificant kid and random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
"I'm one but now I believe it was a hoax by our government."
Right. Because the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself "believe" is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Steveaustin007
Ha! You mean the ludicrous Eugene Akers story which as you would expect is completely unsubstantiated by Sibrel, who offers no supporting evidence as to his identity and is riddled with contradictions and historical inaccuracy. Because after all, nothing says honest, informed, reliable and accurate more than a convicted felon and stalker, ex cab driving religious cult member, former advertisement producer that managed to get himself completely ostracised from the industry and is now consumed by hatred and resentment, and proven liar and fraud with absolutely zero specialist knowledge or relevant expertise whatsoever. Righto then.
Cannon AFB? Really? But what about Area 51 Nevada? No, wait, the Utah or Arizona deserts? Or is it Devon Island Canada? Hang on, I completely forgot about a Hollywood studio or Shepperton UK? You goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Gotta say though, that must be some 'air force hangar' to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@billhair9552
"Let me ask you this- How did Nixon call the Moon from a landline?"
Newsflash...radio transmission, it's a thing!!! Bloke called Marconi, 1895, Landline + existing microwave network + patch + Deep Space Network = giant f**k off antenna dish. Why is it even necessary to explain this to someone in the 2st century?
"They never tell us the truth"
If by "they" you mean governments, then your statement is as absurd as it is demonstrably untrue. Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of a moon landing hoax or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic fallacy.
"Area51"
What about it? What do you expect them to tell you about it given that it's a classified USAF facility? It wouldn't be very secretive if they told you what was underway now would it?
"GulfOfTonkin"
The first attack by the NVA was unquestionably genuine.
"WMD"
If you are referring to Iraq, then it's worth remembering that through the 1998 Halabja massacre, Saddam Hussein was responsible for the largest and most deadly chemical attack on a civilian population in history.
"just to name a few"
A few what?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ReeferMadman
"Of course the ice caps are melting. The ice caps have been melting since we came out of the ice age and guess what? They are going to continue to melt until they are completely melted away. Shocker, I know. And when all the ice finally DOES melt completely away you will see the Sahara turn into a jungle, as it once was. "
Incorrect.. The ice caps receded following the last ice age. The rate of melting over the last decade and a half is unprecedented.
"Currently the Earth is in a solar maximum."
Wrong again. Sunspot maximum is likely to occur in 2024, with most forecasts predicting about half as many sunspots as in Cycle 24. Additionally this is only a 13 year cycle. Global temperature has been exponentially increasing since the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels.
"Meaning temps are gona be slightly warmer compared to a solar minimum. So we could quite possibly see glaciers increasing in size."
Utter nonsense.
"Oh, Im sorry, I was using weather 101 to come up with this statement. I was under the impression that UV rays cause water to evaporate into the air rising up and up until forming a cloud that becomes so saturated that water begins to fall from it, called rain. Thus water falling onto the ground and helping to cool the planet and give water to life sustaining plants. But if the sky is full of persistent jet contrails or chemtrails then the UV light doesnt get through."
The sky is not constantly full of persistent contrails. They occur in conditions of high humidity as a consequence of evaporation. This is the same process that produces clouds through condensation.
"Well I cant find the video. Part 1,2,3 are banned but prt 4 n 5 is on youtube. I did find some transcript so Ill copy and paste some of it. The program is called Dimming The Sun on PBS by NOVA. heres some of the trans"
Thank you. Right, they are referring to global dimming which is a hotly debated topic and far from conclusive. Global dimming interacts with global warming by blocking sunlight that would as you suggest otherwise cause evaporation and the particulates bind to water droplets. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. Conversely though, as I explained, global dimming is affected by evaporation and rain. Rain also has the effect of clearing out polluted skies. The effect of contrails upon evaporation is negligible at best.
"Correct, you in particular have not but chemtrail deniers have and I do apologize but that was more for them than you. But you dont personally KNOW that they PJC's are made up of ice crystals because you have never sampled them."
My background is ground based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range 10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength, and yes I have. Furthermore, as I explained, there are hundreds of analytical studies of the microphysical properties of contrails. Their formation is governed by known physical laws and processes and their composition determined by in-situ multi array spectroscopy. This can also be applied to your supposed 'chemtrails' ...except in the twenty years of this alleged spraying, no one has. Can you venture why that may be?
"So I do apologized at saying you called me a dork when you did not."
No problem at all. Also, I genuinely appreciate your civility and constructive response this time. It certainly differs to online chemtrail believers. Thanks again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MarcusVinicius-xz5to
"Simple.....contrails last the equivalent of 6 times the distance from nose to tail."
Really? Could you explain why, detailing the physical laws that determine this?
"Chemtrails last miles ."
And what of persistent contrails which can be in excess of 100 miles long, that have been observed, recorded, documented, photographed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century? Additionally, such trails contain millions of lbs of material because they are the product of supersaturation and the condensed water in the form of ice crystals that they are composed of is almost entirely drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget. This is precisely why a contrail can not only persist but expand, grow in mass and become indistinguishable from cirrus clouds. Here's the known meteorological science for you...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2?mobileUi=0
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1
"One is water ...."
In the form of ice...significant that.
"the other is a combination of aluminum dioxide , barium and esrontium."
That can also grow in mass and spread across the sky? ...exactly like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Perhaps you could again explain why in addition to detailing the make and models of aircraft with the MTOW to convey millions of lbs of these chemicals.
Esronteum??????? It's bad enough that you insist on parroting these baseless chemtrail conspiracy websites and videos but at least try to get that right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh Jeez. What device are you referring to? Why are you making arrogant statements about something that you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever?
"yet these men didn't cook to death in their tin foil capsule"
Well firstly, it wasn't a "tin foil capsule". The purpose of MLI is to provide a lightweight insulation system with a high thermal resistance in vacuum. MLI blankets are utilised to reduce heat loss from a spacecraft, or to prevent excessive heating through heat dissipation. They provide passive thermal control to a variety of spacecraft, launch vehicles, and instruments in vacuum - which is why you see them on satellites. You also seem to be unaware that in a vacuum, there is no convection and objects take time to reach their equilibrium surface temperature through the radiative heating of the sun. The LM itself was also cooled and thermally regulated by porous plate sublimation. You could have ascertained this for yourself - that is assuming that you had the will, the intelligence, or the capability, which you clearly don't. Personal incredulity and ignorance is not a valid argument.
"please. If anyone still believes this crap"
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
So that'll be entire branches of science such as astrophysics and geology, the associated specialist fields/cognate disciplines such as aerospace engineering, orbital mechanics and rocketry, Nobel Prize winning physicists and Pulitzer awarded investigative journalists, historians, independent nations, private sector enterprise and each of the the other 76 space agencies on the planet? Or should we listen to a random nobody on the internet with absolutely no relevant knowledge of the subject whatsoever that regards junk online conspiracy theory as a substitute for an education? Tough one that.
And no, known science is not about 'belief'. Yours in the meantime have zero bearing on reality.
2
-
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"Or you could address the military's experiment code named "Operation LAC" conducted on unsuspecting residents of St. louis"
This ... again. Sigh. Well it certainly didn't resemble a long white line in the wake of a commercial aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere at six to eight miles in altitude. Again...false equivalence/association fallacy.
The author of the thesis that you are inadvertently referring to wrongly implies the Zinc Cadmium sulphide used in these Biological Warfare field trials was radioactive just because it was manufactured by the US Radium Corp. Unfortunately she seems to be unaware that the ZnCds used in both the US and UK LAC BW field trials was originally manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co. (codenamed NJ 22660) and not the US Radium Corporation. After a company reshuffle, the New Jersey Zinc Co. later became known as the US Radium Corporation and the ZnCds codename changed to 2267. Hilarious how selective your appeals to authority are. You refer to a "a certain professor" when it suits you, whilst rejecting the entire fields of meteorology, atmospheric physics and aerospace engineering which unanimously debunk your comical conspiracy theory through demonstrable and axiomatic science. Moreover, what does any of this have to do with a persistent contrail?
The army performed some experiments to measure wind dispersal using trace quantities - People would have been exposed to negligible amounts of the substances deployed and ultimately this was not a test on the citizens. They were designed to quantify how far the wind blew them, and over what area, and in what proportions in an urban environment. All this boils down to is the fact that the military was perhaps not as cautious or judicious as it could have been in its choice of tracer material. However, when compared to actual ground level industrial and urban pollution, it was utterly insignificant in terms of public health.
"Considering it has gone public, and even US senators have demanded answers"
Years ago - and they got those answers. Again, what does this have to do with the misidentification of large plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic that the rational and informed recognise as the persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of powered flight?
"It's really not the best time to be in the business of disinformation, is it?"
The post truth era and the internet age??? - It's the perfect time for baseless conspiracy theory to thrive and hoodwink gullible and critically impaired dullards such as yourself who have managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
2
-
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"The whole "muh government is just misunderstood, they would never demostrate anything but benevolent intentions." argument is really wearing thin"
Who in particular is making that stance and what precisely do you mean by "the government"? Of course governments and administrations have historically mislead, deceived and have been prone to corruption. Look no further than your current incumbent. However, to afford legitimacy and validity to any arbitrary conspiracy theory of your choice or creation based upon this is a logical fallacy. Online conspiracy theory of course is in contrast entirely agenda free, completely honest, unfailingly factually accurate and utterly non-exploitative.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the it disinfo troll business is booming... It just doesn't seem to have had the desired effect on enough people."
Incorrect. There are millions of people that subscribe to baseless online conspiracy theory such as yourself. All you need is an internet connection, zero in the way of objective critical thinking, gross suggestibility, an inability to recognise false equivalence/cherry picked clickbait confirmation bias, an affliction of Dunning - Kruger effect and a large helping of illusory superiority. Congratulations.
"We wouldn't be seeing such devisive political measures being taken if everyone wasn't basically in agreement that the government is totally corrupt."
I think your government is indeed riddled with corruption. What does this have to do with a persistent contrail and a gullible belief in a crap internet conspiracy theory?
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"Look, I could go back and forth with you for days."
Or you could simply answer the question. What does any of this have to do with a persistent contrail?
"Literally, since it takes you at least a day to find the data you want"
Oddly enough, I do have a life beyond your beck and call and outside the comments section of You Tube.
"..to copy and paste before you reply"
Squawked the online conspiracy parrot.
"but it seems rather futile. Anyone who has been paying attention, even slightly, can see that not only have governments historically been corrupt, but they continue to be."
And that'll be precisely what I agreed wth you in my last response.
"Trust is earned, and the government's actions continually do more to destroy public trust than they've ever done to restore it. Upwards of 3/4 of all government documents are labled (sic) classified today."
Your government employs three levels of classification. I'd be fascinated to see the breakdown of this. Do you have a source?
"There is nothing objective about displaying blind trust or obediance (sic) to any group that withholds so many of it's actions (as a matter of policy) from the very people who are supposedly it's master."
Agree. And similarly, there's nothing objective in placing blind faith in the perpetrators of baseless, unsubstantiated junk online conspiracy theory - which is precisely what I was referring to.
"I haven't seen anyone here mention anything about commerical (sic) airliners being used in any aerial experiments either."
And special thanks to Nick Wilson for sending in this week's winning logical fallacy.
Then perhaps ask yourself why chemtrails conspiracy believers insist in posting footage of the latter as supposed "evidence" then?
The entire chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails produced by predominately civil airliners which they attribute to anything from military drones, specially adapted aircraft to holograms. This ridiculous hoax is based upon flawed anecdotal observations, gross scientific ignorance and illiteracy, false equivalence, arguments from incredulity and as I said, a large helping of illusory superiority. Just add an internet connection.
"But I understand that latching on to the more fringe elements of certain stories is a useful tactic when attempting to discredit something."
Could you present some footage that you regard a legitimate capture of a "chemtrail" ? Thanks ever so much.
"Like you said, the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation."
Precisely. It is not incumbent upon another to attempt to prove an absent. Perhaps you could start by presenting just one in-situ analytical study of one o your chemtrails at source using multi-optical ground based spectrometry. There must be hundreds to choose from.
Or perhaps you would prefer to post another Rosalind Peterson' video instead?
"Any person who has engaged in critical thought comes to understand that it is wiser to ascert (sic) that anyone who has proven to be a pathalogical (sic) liar at some point loses the liberty of being given the benfit (sic) of the doubt."
Again, you appear to be suggesting that because any government or administration has lied or mislead in the past - or is currently corrupt, that this then affords legitimacy and validity to any arbitrarily discovered random online conspiracy theory of your choice or creation? A syllogistic logical fallacy -undistributed middle.
Prehaps (sic) especially, when their own CIA director is documented as saying "we will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the american public believes is false".
Which has been appropriated by practically every conspiracy page and theory on the net to legitimise their claims. "Documented as saying"? Could you present your source then, together with William Casey's full quote in its full and intended context? When you fail to do so, come back to me and we'll discuss it in more detail.
To reiterate, this video is discussing the belief that long white trails in the wake of aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere are evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying.
May I ask again, what precisely is your point?
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"Well, here is a short video of a pilot discussing his company's process for dispersing silver iodide into the atmosphere by aerial spraying, if you would like to comment on how it isn't being done."
Again - how many times do
you think that I've seen this Nick? Oh Jesus wept. This a dipshit chemtrail believer that strode into the reception of Weather Modification Inc. and started interrogating staff about chemtrailing. This is cloud seeding and it doesn't involve aerial spraying. Cloud seeding does not produce a trail or create clouds. It is intended to introduce additional nucleation typically via silver iodide flares rack mounted to the wings of light aircraft to be released into an existing cumulus/stratiform mass - those already conducive to precipitation - and thereby induce rainfall. Because of this it is typically conducted at altitudes between 2- 6,500 feet.
Cloud seeding organisations such as Weather Modification Inc. freely advertise their contracts and services across the internet - despite this, the practice is not widespread and the results dubious. What does this have to do with a persistent contrail?
Potassium Iodide, dry ice and even liquid propane have also occasionally been used in very small quantities - we're talking mere kilograms of materials. The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver constitutes the seeding material, the claims of environmental impact have been found to be insignificant by peer-reviewed research. And no, cloud seeding does not leave a lasting "trail" nor is it "sprayed"- but call it "chemtrails" if you insist and if it makes you feel better.
Weather modification - the legal and technical terminology for cloud seeding is not denied and is freely advertised chemtrails appear to be whatever you want them to be - crop spraying, fireworks, sounding rockets - even paint spraying...where do you stop? To clarify, the chemtrail conspiracy theory was predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. If you wish to term cloud seeding as "chemtrails" don't expect to be afforded any credence within scientific circles, amongst the rational and informed and in the real world.
Want to discuss fireworks too? Aluminium, barium strontium?
They produce smoke and dust that contains residues of heavy metals, sulphur-coal compounds and some low concentration toxic chemicals. These by-products of fireworks combustion will vary depending on the mix of ingredients of a particular firework. (The colour green, for instance, may be produced by adding the various compounds and salts of barium, some of which are toxic, and some of which are not.) Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryillium, strontium and radium. Literally chemtrails!!! - and there are an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of fireworks detonated every year. Illuminati confirmed...
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.417292070.4641/flat,1000x1000,075,f.u5.jpg
That's how ridiculous your false equivalence has become. Here, this might help...
https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/association-fallacy/
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickwilson8429
"Show me in this video where they claim to only be discussing the potential for "persistent contrails"... and not the possibility of atmosphere manipulation through aerial spraying in general?"
The video is entitled "Joe Rogan on Chemtrails". You yourself have used the term "chemtrails" on several occasions referring me to several chemtrail conspiracy videos yourself whilst also alleging the following:
"I see yass-ass-in has been shilling on several different videos claiming to debunk chemtrails."
Once again, to remind you, the chemtrail conspiracy theory claims that persistent contrails are evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying conducted from jet aircraft. We can discuss Stratospheric Aerosol Injection or cloud seeding as much as you like - If you elect to refer to either of these as "chemtrails" or think that they resemble a long white trail in the wake of an aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere, then don't expect to be taken seriously outside your walled garden of internet conspiracy theory or afforded any credence in genuine scientific circles.
"You can't, because you're still just trying to condense the claims down to something you feel you can disprove."
The burden of proof does not lie with me. You are the one making these claims - the onus therefore lies with you to substantiate them. So far the thrust of your posts appear to be that because a government operates in secrecy then chemtrails must be real, followed by a series of logically fallacious non-sequiturs and false equivalence culminating in several links confirming precisely what I have been patiently telling you, that SAI is a hypothetical concept.
"You're attempting to falsly equate the idea to fucking bigfoot and lizard people and every other stupid fringe theory."
To clarify for the third time. Simply because a government has lied in the past, or is currently corrupt, it lends no more weight to your chemtrails theory than it does the notion of Bigfoot or shape shifting lizardmen.
"Meanwhile, respected scientists are obviousoy discussing it as a logical possibility to combat climate change... "
No, once again as your links confirm, they are discussing the hypothetical notion of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which has nothing to do with the trails that you are seeing from aircraft or the chemtrails conspiracy theory bar the ludicrous attempts of its proponents to conflate the two.
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
"Just as the CIA director did."
You are referring to the ex Director of the CIA John Brennan as a guest speaker at the Council on Foreign Nations (a thinktank). His theme was 'Transitional Threats to Global Security'.
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
During which he also addressed possible future novel technologies that don't even exist yet. One of these Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, in the unlikely event that it would ever be deployed as a last ditch solution to combat climate change, it would have geo-political ramifications and pose significant implications for governance. Brennan also broached anti-ageing technology. It is the remit of the CIA to monitor emergent technologies that may present a threat to global security.
At no point does he advocate the use of SAI rather, his entire speech is a caveat concerning its misuse. He doesn't mention aluminium or barium and does not state that anything resembling this is in progress. Here's the full transcript to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Simply because these ridiculous chemtrail videos are now using research into SAI to legitmise their claims you have mindlessly and uncritically accommodated this. If you wish to discuss Stratospheric Aerosol Injection or cloud seeding in detail, then as my replies are ample demonstration to, I would be more than happy to do so.
"That's the problem with classifying everthing under the sun as secret. Disinfo shills can work tirelessly to discredit what the government is actually doing, and it can take decades before the truth is finally released to the public."
????? SAI is not "classified" as "secret" - which is precisely the reason that you and the goons that perpetrate this nonsense that you parrot know about it in the first place genius. SAI is not a state sponsored initiative. The majority of funding into this research comes from the private sector and its advocates have long been keen to increase visibility and transparency of their work to generate more support.
"Gulf of Tonkin is a good example of governent lying to further an agenda, with the truth only being made avalible to the public years later. "
For the sixth time, because you are really struggling to comprehend this...simply because a government has concealed information in the past, that does not afford legitimacy to any arbitrary claim or cry of conspiracy.
"Now go sell your shit to "antifa" or the "proud boys"...they are more inclined to buy the bullshit."
What "bullshit" would that be? What in particular would you like to dispute about my replies to you?
The William Casey quote - you referred to documentary evidence. For the third time of asking, can you present it?
Also, to remind you, earlier you stated the following...
"I say they're spraying particulates into the atmosphere"
You need to understand that simply claiming something over the internet, that you clearly have no understanding of, does not make it true. May I ask how you have established this and who precisely are "they"?
2
-
@nickwilson8429
“For the seventh time... Just because they (corrupt government entities who have consistently proven to be dishonest ) haven't spoon fed the information to the public on the nightly news, doesn't mean they haven't already experimented with the technologies they, as well as harvard and yale scuentists, have discussed.”
No it doesn’t. Again, what evidence do you have to support that claim? Do please present it. And for the eight time, simply because a novel technology is currently being researched it doesn’t mean that it is secretly underway. My question again – what does the hypothetical concept of SAI have to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory. Are you claiming to have seen some trails in association with this? despite the fact that, y’know, despite what online frauds such as Dane Wigington tell you, it wouldn’t form a trail or be visible to the ground based observer.
“You may think it naive or foolish to discuss what the government may be lying about now when they claim to only be speaking in hypotheticals.”
By all means discuss it and speculate. Why would the “government” wish to institute a programme of SAI? – and again, do please present your evidence.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/no-scientists-didn-t-just-suggest-we-dim-the-sun-to-1830663461
“I think it is infinitely more naive to assume that pathalogical liars can be taken at their word.”
Thereby giving licence to believe any speculative theory on the internet or unsubstantiated claim?
“The government said it wasn't storing everyones metadata when Michael Hastings was still with us, that was proven to be a lie. The government said they weren't digitally cataloging ffl customer's records against federal law... that was also proven to be a lie.”
So therefore your irrational belief in “chemtrails” or any conspiracy theory of your choice must be true? Like I said - a syllogistic logical fallacy. What evidence do you have to support this, (beyond links to articles that tell you it isn’t happening).? Genius.
“I'm confident that the lie you're helping to perpetuate will also be proven beyond a doubt with time as well.”
What lie am I helping to perpetuate? You maintain that SAI is in progress, I have consistently welcomed and invited any evidence in support of this. So far you have produced a bunch of crap You Tube conspiracy theory videos – one of which hilariously featuring Rosalind Peterson who you naively believed to be a UN delegate; referred to a test in St.Louis six decades ago designed to evaluate the dispersal of tracer material and posted footage of a chemtrail clown that marched into the reception of a private sector cloud seeding organisation.
“A government that is proven to lie more often than not does not afford legitimacy in any sense... no matter how much they claim to be. But go aheqd and keep spouting off about how their testimony supports your case.”
I’d rather you presented your evidence and substantiated your claim that “they” - whoever you may be referring to - are "spraying particulates into the atmosphere".
- Are you suggesting that you have observed this? Please answer the question.
Another question for you – do you drive? Do you live in a city?
The William Casey quote - you referred to “documentary evidence”. For the fourth time of asking, can you present it? – only you keep forgetting.
2
-
2
-
@neverlostforwords I'd also like to refer you to the following recent comment on You Tube:
"Totally 100% chem trails are real ! UN playing god they feel the need to depopulate to 500million with few of to be smart people to run world and bread and some to be dumbed down to make workers and they have been tirelessly trying to get a form of autism dialed in to be very smart to program and fix Ai “ artificial intelligence “ meaning the computerized robots that will take at least 40% of jobs in next 15 years. Yes 15 years this revolution is going fast it’s a fact PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH ! So you think why, autism has increased to ridicules percentages in past 10 years the children are very smart but are lacking some social skills this being dialed in will make very smart people to do a job better then most and eliminate over population autism people tend to not breed like people without. Also autism people tend to be very dedicated and precise making them very suitable at performing delicate work such as keeping robotic AI up and running. Right now chemtrails have been proven and tested by many many people the labs are tired of testing. Fast food , driving , flight, will be first also these 3 jobs make up 40% of workforce out the gate. This is going fast also these programs to depopulate are going faster. Many reading this can notice probably they don’t seem physically the same as few years back. Like a steady tone in ear, depression, many different things, this is likely to be a attack in the way of frequencies to disrupt your health. Billions of black money has gone into these frequency test. Why? Scientists have known for many years that everything is made of frequencies. These weapons are used somewhat openly in the Mid East and USA to make aggressive groups and individuals a bit less likely to cause a problem. Experimentation has been done where they can send thoughts /voices into people’s heads no one around can hear it. Many other things can be done to control health and behavior. This now is easier then ever with cell phones ,LED bulbs ,A lot of people don’t know that just like your old land line phone had steady voltage that you could talk and listen through also your house voltage is now the government land line to your house with a microphone in every room in the form of a LED bulbs or tv. Why you think everything is changing to led , thought was to save energy well also can be listed and send info. So much is changing it’s not all good. To much for a comment however if any doubt research for your self good luck."
To which you replied, "Great info. Thanks for sharing. :)". Why do you regard this nonsense as "great info" and how have you established the veracity of these claims?
So you evidently believe that your supposed chemtrails are not actually a method of SRM, rather, a means to cull global population? You have been sucked deeper into this dark rabbit hole than I had previously suspected.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Seriously. Why are you attempting to make authoritative statements from ignorance and incredulity and in the complete absence of knowledge about the science, technology and history of the Apollo Programme? Why are you under the illusion that you, a random, insignificant gullible conspiracy theory believer on the comments section of You Tube know better than entire branches of science and specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering, computer science and rocketry worldwide?
"SpaceX's self-landing rockets are exceptional in the 2020's."
This is much harder to accomplish than in 1/6thg and in the absence of an atmosphere.
"Yet, we believe "The Eagle" pulled it off in '69 using a computer with >0.00001% of the compute with >0.00001% of the processing."
What does this even mean? Nothing to do with what anyone 'believes'. Learn about it. The AGC was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a brilliant piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby.
Retro-landing The Eagle was suicidal; never done before"
What do you mean, "retro landing the Eagle? The approach radar antenna was mounted on the lower exterior surface of the Lunar Module. The signal from the antenna was fed to a continuous wave doppler radar set that controlled the powered landing. This instrument provided velocity, slant and altitude measurement data to the guidance computer used to manage the retrorockets that slowed the descent of the LM. The LM’s descent to the lunar surface was broken up into three phases: braking, approach, and landing. Each phase was handled by a separate program in the computer: P63, P64, and P66. The Commander took over “manual” control during the landing phase, however, this was a misnomer. The “manual” mode during the landing phase was actually known as “attitude hold” because the computer was still responsible for the highly challenging task of maintaining the LM’s attitude. The Commander’s job was to tell the computer how fast to descend and which direction to move via stick inputs. The computer adjusted the engine throttle and fired the maneuvering thrusters to make it happen, all while balancing the LM on its engine output and making adjustments for the changing mass/weight of the LM as it burned fuel. Both Commander and computer were instrumental in the final landing phase.
"impossible to train"
Absolutely false. The LLRV and the LLTV were built precisely for this purpose, whilst the crews racked up hundreds of hours in the lander simulator at Johnson Space Centre. Also the LM was tested during Apollo 5, a manned test as part of Apollo 9 and flown to within 47,000 feet of the lunar surface by Apollo 10's Eugene Cernan and Tom Stafford. You simply haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about.
"NASA may claim Armstrong did it first-time and was able to take off again without any checks/maintenance to the mechanism."
Of course they ran checks before the ascent engine was primed. Specifically, what maintenance are you referring to?
Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself. Why do you feel the need to comment?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnnyreality
You only need to reply the once.
"If you believe that over 50 years ago in a span of 4 years they went 9 times to the moon, landing 12 men on 6 of those ocassions"
Known demonstrable science and technology is not a question of "belief", whist the correct spelling is 'occasions'.
"and that they took 3 cars"
Three lunar rovers, folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage.
" played golf"
Why are you goons so fixated on this? One astronaut, Alan Shepherd used a modified six iron head to affix to the shaft on his sampling tool to fashion a makeshift club which he then used to hit two golf balls. He scuffed the first shot, and connected with the second launching it an estimated 40 yards. This took all of around 3 minutes of the total 9 hours and 23 minutes that he and Ed Mitchell spent on the lunar surface during the two Apollo 14 EVAs performed on the lunar surface out of a total of 16. Hardly "playing golf".
"emitted live television"
Yes, slow scan images sent via unified S-Band. What is it that you don't understand this time?
"and spoke to Tricky Dick on the phone"
Indeed they did. Radio transmission. It's a thing! Newsflash...a bloke called Marconi 1895. Radio stations had been broadcasting landline calls for decades before Apollo.
Whitehouse landline places call to Houston + Existing microwave telephone exchange network + patch to DSN = Giant f**k off radio dish directed at the moon.
Why is it even necessary to explain this to someone in the 21st century...again?
"nevermind that since then not a single astronaut has gone farther than 250 miles while the moon is at 384,855 miles away"
Absolute nonsense. As far back as September 1966 Gemini 11 used the rocket on its Agena target vehicle to raise its apogee to 853 miles (1,373 km).
"while the moon is at 384,855 miles away"
No it isn't. The Moon is an average of 238,855 miles away from Earth.
"I have a bridge for you"
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@67nextday
"I hate when people talking nonsense."
Said the believer in junk online conspiracy theory.
"Proximity to airports means I see a lot of flying planes and I am able to recognize where are condensation trails from an unusual trails,left by planes."
Aircraft arriving and departing from airports do not deposit contrails. Contrails tend to be formed at cruise altitudes. And your point about people talking nonsense was?
"Normal trail of condensation is visible approximately a few meters behind the plane ( if you are looking from the ground)"
Correct, due to the phase gap. This is hard to discern though as a gound based observer.
"and dissolved asap"
Contrails don't 'dissolve', they sublimate. And why should this be "asap"? Demonstrate why supported by known physical laws and atmospheric chemistry. Go ahead.
"Chemtrails are hanging over for hours and spreading across the sky"
You mean persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and the best part of a century.
"Lines,left behind the plane are connected at the end,if it is done in the squares."
To remind you, this is what you said - ""I hate when people talking nonsense."
"Usually commercial planes doesnt make squares."
As patiently explained f course commercial aircraft can make grid patterns since as explained, they are flying at differing altitudes, headings and to a range of destinations. You can easily verify this for yourself.
"Why do you think that people are absolutely daft only you alone cleaver one?"
Several responses to this.
1/ Firstly, I am irrelevant to this exchange, everything that I type is independently verifiable. The known science that you are demonstrably ignorant of has a voice of its own.
2/ I am pressed for an answer, then perhaps the fact that I am not the one that has allowed myself to gullibly be duped by an online conspiracy theory that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
3/ I can at least compose a coherent sentence and spell the word 'clever'.
"P.S: If your explanation would be true, we would be able to see 'sky in the squares' every single day,because plaines flies by the same traffic management, especially on weekends, when they are flying one after another nonstop in all directions. But it never works like that"
By the same logic, why then do you not see clouds every day? Are you similarly perplexed by variations in cloud cover? A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Do you really require me to explain why? Why are you doing this to yourself?
"This chemtrail thing happens from time to time,never a few days in a row or on the same week."
So do atmospheric conditions and changes in humidity, vapour pressure and ambient air temperature genius. It's called weather.
"I grew up in Lithuania and my uncle back then used to work with planes,who was spraying herbicides and plant food on the farmland so,I can remember well how it looks like :)"
You actually think that crop dusting is analogous to the contrails that you are misidentifying? Jeez. Question for you. Why do you think that corp spraying is conducted at around 100 feet or lower as opposed to 6 - 8 miles high? Think hard now.
"Later on it was banned,because of the damage it does to the nature,but who was worried about that in 60- 70s?"
Crop dusting is not banned. Why are you changing the subject? This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that you have been conned into believing are 'chemtrails'.
2
-
@67nextday
Your comment appears to be shadow banned. I will summarise it here.
"You talking nonsense, 'filibustering ' boy and not answering my simple question"
Again, the irony, was it intentional? To clarify once more, everything that I type is independently verifiable. Nothing to to with me. Regarding your question -
"why it's not happens every single day,if it is normal to aircraft? There is nothing to do with air conditions,if days are the same sunny and nice with the similar humidity and preassure,the same temperature"
Jesus Christ, this is like pulling teeth. Firstly, surely you are aware that the atmosphere is not homogeneous or isotropic. Conditions on the ground can be very different to those at 40,000ft - which in turn can be very different to those at 35,0000ft 30,000ft, 25,000ft, 20,000ft and 15,000ft. Like I said, contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or they may not form at all. Whether they do along with their length and duration is determined by the interaction between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure.
"I do believe my own eyes"
No one doubts the trials that you are seeing, you simply don't understand what they are.
"not stupid theories and presumptions someone makes."
Said the online conspiracy believer.
"You took a lot of effort and time to pick my message into pieces and argue every word."
It was neither and it was very easy to do.
"Im too lazy to do the same,sorry"
Just as you are too lazy to learn about aviation, atmospheric science, meteorology and the physical laws that govern them. It's much easier for you people to become an armchair authority squandering an evening watching junk online conspiracy video.
"but every argument is misleading and nonsense,called bla bla,bla"
Yes, so you keep saying, without being able to address or refute a word of it.
"Only young and passionate believers in sience does that :)"
Known science is not a question of 'belief'.
"Look above your head sometimes and believe your own eyes, not in that rubbish you have been told in school, by media or by purposely educated people. I believe my own eyes,boy. Dont need to be scientist to recognize clean sky from polluted one."
Are you also perplexed by the appearance of a cloud or variation in cloud cover?
"Your speech is a twaddle,like a pouring watter from one empty bucket into another : sound exists but no point to do so :)"
Like I said, no use saying it, demonstrate why.
"You want by sience? Ok!"
Given that you have shown throughout that you can't even spell the word, this should at the very least be entertaining. Go ahead then.
"What is contrail? A frozen water vapour, which is needed cold weater to be formed. By sience -1°C is when water freezes."
The ambient air temperature will be much lower that this, but temperature alone does not form a contrail. It is also a function of relative humidity and vapour pressure. Although water vapour is produced by jet engines for this to condense into a cloud of ice crystals, the surrounding air must be conducive to it. I suggest that you take a look at the Appleman equations/chart.
"There are nearest airports: Leeds 37km away, Manchester 35km, Liverpool approx 50km away. Flightradar24 helps to check speed,altitude, route,so,we can clearly see how many planes overhead,who is landing,who is passing to Dublin,Glasgow,etc. Altitude of landing / take off planes 8-12 thousand feets above our town (3-4 km )."
Correct. And aircraft in proximity to those airports that are either approaching or departing will nor produce a trail.
WNext we are using temperature at altitude calculator. For an example, +20° C at altitude of 4km gives us -6°C. More than enough contrails to be formed."
Incorrect.
"Yes, we see it as a few meters white trail behind the plane,which very fast diapers ( dissolved).This is normal way of watching any plane flying in the sky,whatever altitude it might be ( I mean higher than 4km,because planes normally flies approx 10 kms)"
As explained, contrails do not "dissolve", they sublimate.
"So,why on Earth,according this explanation,a plane ( usualy it works two of them to form squares),who flies low altitude, can leave trails behind on a hot summer day,which cannot be dissolved in a few hours?"
Because, they are not as you claim flying low. You are simply seeing cruise altitude traffic intersecting.
"Visually they are not flying higher than 3-4kms,compare to commercial planes,who flies visibly very high ( even then their contrails dissolved as normally and no white-stay forever- tails left behind, which would be very logical in their altitude and cold air). If it is 20-25°C on the ground,they vapour must be dissolved in the counted minutes,never mind hours to stay and hang over us.Any LOGICAL explanation,please?"
Yes. Your claims of altitude are either erroneous or you are deceiving yourself. I'll ask you again, are you similarly perplexed by the duration of a cloud?
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. It is important to note that simply because the temperature is below freezing, this does not mean that a contrail will be formed particularly if the air is very dry. Otherwise, airports would be blinded by contrails at ground level during winter every time there were sub zero temperatures.
As explained, A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. The water vapour in the exhaust gasses simply acted as the trigger event. As I indicated - this is the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are and all that your supposed 'chemtrails' are. If it were solely a function of temperature as you claim, then an aircraft would produce a contrail at full thrust for take off or near the ground every time it dropped below zero.
Why are you struggling to comprehend this?
2
-
2
-
"Also, while a lot of people are completely ignorant to the fact that a) cloud seeding has been going on for many decades"
To clarify, the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and in excess of eighty years. This has nothing whatsoever to do with cloud seeding bar the the intentional conflation on behalf of the perpetrators of this hoax in a lame attempt to add legitimacy to their claims. It strikes me that your chemtrails can be whatever you want them to bet hen? How about fireworks? They produce smoke and dust that may contain residues of heavy metals, sulphur-coal compounds and some low concentration toxic chemicals. These by-products of fireworks combustion will vary depending on the mix of ingredients of a particular firework. (The colour green, for instance, may be produced by adding the various compounds and salts of barium, some of which are toxic, and some of which are not.) Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryillium, strontium and radium. Literally chemtrails!!! - and there are an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of fireworks detonated every year. ...Illuminati confirmed!!
Cloud seeding aims to induce rainfall by introducing additional nucleate into existing cumulus/stratiform masses (those conducive to precipitation). For this reason it is conducted at comparatively low altitudes 2,000-6,500ft typically through flares retro-fitted to light aircraft. Although there are organisations online that advertise and offer their 'weather modification' services' online, (the technical terminology for cloud seeding), and despite high profile state schemes such as China and UAE, cloud seeding is really not that widespread, its results erratic and the very efficacy of the practice highly questionable. By all means refer to cloud seeding as 'chemtrails' if you insist, but don't expect to be taken seriously in the real world or amongst the rational and informed outside your internet echo-chambers that aimlessly circulate and bat this nonsense about.
Given that cloud seeding is conducted at a fraction of the altitude of the trails that you are observing, would not even leave a discernible trail, has nothing to do with large commercial jet aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, does not create clouds and has nothing remotely to do with the misidentified contrails discussed in this video, could I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"2) that water vapor is a by-product of burning hydrocarbons"
It is, but water vapour is an invisible gas. The visible trails that you see are a product of condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals and in the case of persistent or expanding/spreading trails the ice is almost entirely drawn from the existing atmospheric moisture budget due to high RHi/supersaturation.
"it's very easy to find documented instances of gov'ts spraying shit in the air without telling people, just to see what would happen."
Dispersal experiments on or near ground level that have nothing remotely to do with condensation trails in the wake of jet aircraft cruising in the tropopause and lower stratosphere. Gullible chemtrail conspiracy believers uncritically lap up such false equivalence and regurgitate it over the internet without knowing the first thing about the subjects that they claim authority over - far less aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science. Odd don't you think that these entire relevant fields and specialisms and environmental monitoring the world over remain oblivious to these supposed chemtrails, or have supposedly been collectively coerced and coopted by the mysterious 'they' - yet a community of online armchair conspiracy theorists and self-appointed overnight 'experts' think that they know better because the internet told them so?
"Do some research."
One of the most tiresome tropes parroted by online conspiracy theorists is "do some research". Appreciating that this does not involve self-proclaimed overnight 'expertise' after a squandered evening in front of baseless You Tube videos, consuming cherry picked, click-bait confirmation bias, quote mining or reliance upon self-referencing pseudoscientific junk chemtrail conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how did you do yours?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rlupara
"Let me guess, you call "conspiracy theory" all opinions which have oposite expression from "official " mass media, isn't it?"
And you would be spectacularly wrong again. Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'opposite'.
"Unfortunately , as the history in the past shows, the most "conspiracy BS" creates fat paid mass media and fat paid "scientists " .The key word is fat paid."
Does it? Name one. Incidentally, that's two words. You're not particularly bright are you.
And meanwhile the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself "trust" is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
The key words are fat Alex Jones.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Yeah that"s why Harvard U has admitted to there spraying program"
You mean 'there' (sic) "spraying programme" right here?...y'know the one that actually isn't happening?...
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is one strategy proposed in association with a branch of geoengineering called Solar Radiation Management. With the exception of ground based albedo modification this is entirely hypothetical. Research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has never been secretive or out of the public domain. In fact the proponents of this research are very keen to raise awareness of their work to attract support and funding - and how precisely do you "admit" to something which has never been denied?
SAI which Harvard's David Keith is the main proponent of would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. This year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI as it stands and this is what it looks like...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Nothing like the persistent contrails under discussion in this video then. But let's instead humour you and assume for the sake of argument that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was currently, as you seem to think, being deployed, What you fail to appreciate is that you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
In order to achieve SAI, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing and under discussion in this video occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower. Additionally, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing contrails can actually trap heat which is precisely the opposite effect that the proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
Conflation with SAI is yet more intentional false equivalence by the proponents of this hoax and unintentional association fallacy by its followers.
So given that SAI has not graduated beyond hypothetical research proposal or even reached the early stages of small scale trial, would take place at double the altitude of the contrails that you are observing and are discussed in this video and wouldn't even be visible from the ground - far less result in a long white plume....may I ask, precisely what is your point?
"and soil samples around the world show high levels of barium strontium and aluminium."
All of which are naturally present. And what do any of these materials have to do with SAI? High levels? What precisely do you deem to be high? There has no sudden increase or spike of these elements in the environment. Aluminium is already the third most common natural element on earths land surface. Soil is about 8% aluminium by mass. Most common rocks like the feldspars are Aluminosilicates. it is also widely used in industry and has anthropogenic pathways into nature. If you hand over a pile of pond sludge to an analytical laboratory as was exactly the case at Basic Laboratories, Redding CA, as the main perpetrator of this hoax, Dane Wigington did, they will simply perform the test that they are paid to do which is ICP-MS. Can you tell me why this is significant in terms of your claimed 'aluminium'? Take your time.
When you're ready, do feel free to produce these soil tests, we can commence with your claimed high levels of strontium. Go ahead.
"That must be why the multiple videos I have taken With multiple Jets in the air some leaving thick chemtrails behind them and some not"
No, that is because you don't understand the process of contrail formation and the physical laws which govern phase transition in the atmosphere. Are you equally perplexed by variations in cloud cover?
"Because You ostriches with your heads buried in the sand never look up and actually see the Jets doing it"
Which is precisely what this video is about. So that'll be the entire branches of meteorology and environmental monitoring that "never looks up" whereas some random gullible scientifically illiterate conspiracy believer with an internet connection knows better?
This is a scientific video about the physical laws governing contrail formation and the chemistry of their composition. You can continue to mindlessly parrot your junk conspiracy theory or you can humbly take it back to the vacuous echochamber that you inhabit. Either way, you'll get short shrift here and should you be foolish and arrogant enough to continue this exchange, further humiliation.
"Enjoy Your Cognitive Dissonance."
Any other clichés in the locker that you don't actually understand? If you wish, we can discuss Leon Festinger too, I'm more than familiar with his work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"But the press wasn’t allowed inside the feed room and had to record the screen of the “live feed,” in another room. Which wasn’t done in previous nasa missions."
Yes it was. As had been the case with the Mercury and Gemini Programmes before Apollo, the press were seated in a glass-walled area in Mission Control at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, overlooking the personnel and where they could watch the control room teams in action so were completely privy to the proceedings in real time. Other visitors to the control room included: The astronauts' families, Other members of the astronaut corps, and VIPs.
"Why and how could they lose the “original tapes,” of histories most impt event as well?"
They didn't, although at some point some were re-used. So what? Magnetic tapes were employed to back up raw data at source. This consisted of telemetry and broadcast signals sent by Unified S-Band. Once this had been converted and transcribed they were no longer required. Magnetic tape decays and is not intended for archival use. It is also very expensive and was designed to be reused. For this reason, some of the tapes pertaining to the Apollo 11 EVA were erased, however having served their purpose, the contents was not longer required. With the tapes now defunct and the machinery for playing them obsolete, some from Apollo 11 and preceding/subsequent missions have been sold via auction to private collectors. What's your point?
"Why has no other nation sent someone on the moon?"
Because only the Soviet Union committed to a moon landing programme. However, this was doomed to failure due to the untimely death of Sergei Korolev, the consistent failure of the N1 and a budget a fraction that of Apollo. No other nation has been willing to devote the huge funding necessary to develop a manned lunar landing programme, particularly when unmanned probes can be sent at a much lower cost.
Why has no other nation other than the UK/France developed a supersonic passenger aircraft? Cost and sustainability. It has been over 20 years since Concorde flew commercially and it is unlikely to be much before well into the next decade until we see another supersonic civil airliner again.
"Why did the directors of NASA consistently say things like, “we’ll finally be able to get past our atmosphere or once we solve the filament issue, we’ll finally be able to land on the moon?”
They didn't. That would be the dumb online conspiracy theory that tells you what to think. Also, I think you meant 'firmament' - you can't even parrot that correctly.
"And when a reporter asked about the first moon landing, the NASA director tried to back peddle and say that in 2024 with tech at our disposal, NASA lost the tech they had in 68 and they don’t know how to replicate it?"
Again, no one has ever said any such thing. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kentslocum
There appears to be huge confusion over this, no doubt perpetuated by online conspiracy theorists and grifters.
The 'original' recordings that you are referring to are simply back up tapes comprising raw analogue video transmitted via unified S Band during the Apollo 11 mission which was at some point erased. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording equipment in order to capture the raw transmissions at source in case anything should go wrong with the process used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal which would have needed to be done anyway. Once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not relayed live, to Houston and fed live to the world. During the search for the magnetic tapes, the team came across broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen. There were tapes recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. They also found kinescopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives they further uncovered tapes that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived.
2
-
Firstly, the main objective of the dummy was to equip it with the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. It was fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration in order that engineers could compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion yielded data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluated the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 was 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reached an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. The mannequin was also testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincided with peak solar activity which was a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
Secondly, the Russians did have a moon programme which actually continued after the cancellation of Apollo. Their aspirations to reach the moon were confounded by the continued failure of the N1 rocket, the untimely death of Sergei Korolev and a fraction of the funding of the Apollo Programme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CoreySkurray
"in the vietnam war they sprayed these chemicals from planes"
"These chemicals"? What "chemicals"? what spraying? To clarify, Operation Popeye was a cloud seeding initiative - this is still practiced today, although not in military conflict. The objective is to provide additional nucleation into clouds that are already conducive to precipitation (cumulus or stratiform masses) in an attempt to either prematurely induce precipitation or intensify it in one place. Because it needs to infuse rain bearing clouds, it is typically practiced at comparatively low altitudes between 2.000 and 6.500ft. Also, it does not generally involve "spraying", (although saline solutions and liquid propane have been used). Rather, it employs light aircraft retrofitted with silver iodide flare racks although artillery shells, rockets and dispersal pylons/towers are also utilised. Cloud seeding does not result in any lasting visible trail. Worth also mentioning, that the science of cloud seeding is very dubious - the results inconclusive and its very efficacy questionable.
"and what people are saying is that planes today are spraying chemicals so how can you say it has nothing to do with it, it is the same thing"
That's no different to saying crop dusting exists, therefore chemtrails.
To clarify, what "people are saying" is based upon the chemtrail hoax which is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. The contrails that you are observing are formed in the tropopause and stratosphere between six to eight miles above your head. Any "spraying" at such altitudes would be completely pointless.
Contrails have nothing whatsoever to do with cloud seeding operations, which although practiced by private sector organisations that freely advertise their services online, in addition to state sponsored schemes in countries such as the UAE and China, is not at all widespread. It is highly unlikely that you have ever seen it in progress.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes you are missing a great deal and yes your assumptions are incorrect.
Firstly, astronauts on the lunar surface absorbed a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. So, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). The Alpha and Beta particles within are easy to shield against. Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems. the main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere comes from CMEs and solar particle events. 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. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
No, the Japanese did not contact NASA about using their spacesuits to shield against the radiation of the Fukushima plant - this is complete conspiratorial nonsense. Radiation is a catch-all term that for historical reasons includes both electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, X-rays, gamma rays) and energetic particles (beta rays - electrons, alpha rays - helium nuclei, neutrons, positrons, “cosmic rays” - another catch-all). No space suit will protect from the levels of penetrating radiation within Fukushima or Chernobyl which as explained, astronauts during the Apollo missions were not exposed to.
You are also very confused about the differences between heat and temperature. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited and temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun. The temperature extremes that you mention are surface temperatures - extremes. Objects take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar daytime is 15 earth days. This is why all of the Apollo moon landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. The temperatures that you mention were never experienced.
The main issue with the PLSS was indeed as you correctly say, shedding heat. Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb.
Finally, the spacesuits maintained an internal pressure of 4.2 psi. I have no idea where you are getting 15 psi from? The International Space Station is pressurised to 14.7psi, the same average pressure on Earth at sea level.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertminks7100
"No the radiation belt would kill. How do I know this?"
Because you allowed some dumb online conspiracy theorist to tell you what to think about a subject that you clearly know absolutely nothing about whatsoever. You don't even know that they are 'belts' in the plural since there are two, plus a third that is transitory.
"the Van Allen radiation belt can and will deliver several rads per hour. To an unshielded mammal passing through it."
Fortunate then that the Apollo missions traversed the sparsest regions at high velocity and in a short space of time. Meanwhile, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the details of last year's Polaris Dawn mission. Presumably that was "fake" too?
"When I worked a reactor"
Of course you did. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing?
"I had to wear a device on my belt and log it daily for radiation levels."
Are you sure that you're not confusing that with your curfew tag?
"We would be literally fired and hospitalized if the total rads exceeded around 3-5 per YEAR."
What a load of horseshit. Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem (TEDE) set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. The annual LD 50/30 is in the range from 400 to 450 rem (4 to 5 sieverts) - received over a very short period. "3 Rads" is 30 mSv, and no, that will not get you hospitalised when spread over a year. You are making a complete fool out of yourself.
"Don't listen to these fools"
Absolutely. Let's ignore actual branches of science such as astrophysics, nuclear physics and radiobiology and listen instead to a random, insignificant, conspiracy believing nobody, fantasising on the comments section of You Tube. Righto then!
Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them and you're attempting to sound informed and clever on the comments section of You Tube. If you have a shred of integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ Why do I think that I know better than them?
7/ Compared to the 68 minute transit of the Apollo missions, how long did last year's Polaris Dawn mission spend in the more dangerous inner belt and how long was the hatch open for?
8/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is either nothing, or I don't know, then obtaining them will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such ignorant and uninformed statements on on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"So if these items are still on the Moon, why hasn't there been any new footage in all these years"
What do you mean footage? Why should there be? The purpose of space exploration, which is obscenely expensive, is not to visit the same regions. The emphasis upon future manned missions is to land on the South Pole where they is believed to be large reserves of water ice and the far side of the moon. NASA, private sector enterprise or any of the 76 other space agencies are neither duty bound or obliged to satisfy the inane protestations and insistence from incredulity of a cretinous community of scientifically illiterate gullible believers in dumb online conspiracy theory. Even if a lander was to return to the any of the six Apollo landing sites and photograph them, you goons would simply brand that as faked too.
The Apollo landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2. The best of those are LRO and Chandrayaan-2. Chandrayaan’s camera has a resolution of 0.25 m per pixel. LRO is at about 0.5 m per pixel.
"nothing tangible has been produced to verify the landing...its all here say"
Yet another conspiracy believer that doesn't know that there were six landings. And I'd suggest that the third of a ton of moon rock which was returned by them, examined by an entire branch of science called geology, mineralogists, independent analytical laboratories and petrological techniques the world over certainly is tangible.
Incidentally, I think you meant "hearsay".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@roberthak3695
Why would anyone do that? Why not independently learn about the subject first instead of relying a junk conspiracy video to tell you what to think about something you have zero prior knowledge of whatsoever?
So if you have no understanding the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
No surprises that t's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist, grifter and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fascinating. But which one and how have you determined this? - and what about the fact that Kubrick's whereabouts and projects were fully accountable during all six of the Apollo landings. Was he also commissioned to film the aborted Apollo 13 mission? A soundstage in London? Righto then. Surely it was Shepperton? That's what they say...no wait, some suggest it was Pinewood or Elstree. Actually, can't we agree on Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I'm sure it was supposed to have been Hollywood. No, no, what about the hangar at Cannon AFB, New Mexico? Nope, it was definitely Area 51, Groom Lake Nevada. Hang on, wasn't it supposed to have been shot in the Utah outback? No, no, it was without doubt the Arizona desert...or was that Death Valley California? And what of Devon Island?
You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Soundstage in London" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"What a cheap fraud..."
That's dumb online conspiracy theory for you.
"Shot at Cannon airforce Base."
Because an ex-cab driving stalker, convicted felon and fraud and former advertisement maker turned conspiracy theorist that managed to get himself ostracised from the industry, with zero relevant expertise told you so? Righto then.
A converted hangar wasn't it?...or was that at Area 51? No, that was in the desert, Groom Lake. Or was it Arizona? the Utah outback? Death Valley some say. No, without a doubt Devon Island Canada. No wait, it was without doubt Hollywood, but then, I thought that Stanley Kubrick was supposed to have filmed it at Shepperton UK? Wait, some say Pinewood, or was it Elstree?...or maybe Twickenham so as not to arouse suspicion? You complete goons can't even make your minds up. I guess it depends upon which dumb online grifter/conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some converted aircraft hangar to convincingly replicate, uncut, and six times, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moon rock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process. Any other rays of insight genius?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@keithjohnson1830
? None of those were conspiracy theories though. MK Ultra was kept completely secret as was Operation Paperclip. There was no conspiracy theory about any of it. The claim of the "Rockerfeller Foundation testing experimental drugs on inmates" - in fact it was the Rockerfeller Commission that independently investigated unethical testing. The same with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. No one specifically theoreticized about any of it so therefore they are not "conspiracy theories coming true" at all. Fluoridation of water isn't secretive, it isn't a conspiracy. There have been ludicrous baseless conspiracy theories surrounding the reasons for it - but these have never been substantiated. We know that social media sells data on so that advertising agencies understand your preferences. It was also known that Government security agencies like the NSA can also have access to your devices through in-built backdoors well before Snowden blew the whistle. Epstein trafficked underage individuals for sex, yes, but no conspiracy theorist foresaw that - just simply broad claims about pedophilia and "the elite". The tragedy is, that children are trafficked as sex slaves all across the world in every echelon of society. And what about Bohemian Grove? Again, it was no secret - all it was that conspiracy theorists claimed that it involved sordid practises and rituals without any substantiation. The only scandal associated with it is that the rich and the privileged that comprise the club have failed to pay their employees minimum wage or acknowledge working time regulations.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that "chemtrails" (misidentified aircraft contrails), or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
And meanwhile then, online conspiracy theory is naturally entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Contrails and chemtrails are two different things."
How many times do chemtrail believers parrot this because they don't understand basic atmospheric science? A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all.
"The ice crystals will melt and disappear in contrails"
Incorrect. They sublimate. Whether they do is governed by the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. If the latter is low, the air is very cold and humidity is high then the ice crystals that comprise a contrail are unable to sublimate back into their invisible gaseous phase - water vapour....so they persist.
"In chemtrails, the cloud will not disappear, but instead slowly start falling to earth and spreading outward with the wind"
In conditions of supersaturation the water in the exhaust has merely precipitated the trail. Its expansion and increase in mass is because 99% of ice budget and the observable trail is drawn from available atmospheric moisture. No different to a cloud, which is all a contrail is. These then become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. They also spread laterally and vertically due to lateral and horizontal windshear. They do not "fall to earth", these are ice crystals which remain suspended due to their small size around 0.001 millimeters to 0.1 millimeters.
"Not just alluminum but nickel, barium, magnesium, and so on?"
You mean elements already present in our soils. (Incidentally, aluminium is the most abundant metal on the planet, and the third most common element in the earth's crust. Also, it only has one 'l')
If you were to allege that this has anything to do with aerial spraying then in addition to detailing your methodology to differentiate between any samples and existing sources of both natural and anthropogenic origin, you would need to demonstrate causality - which of course no chemtrail conspiracy theorist is capable of doing. Furthermore, you would need to explain how such vast quantities in our skies that supposedly fall and settle to earth have no detrimental effect upon air traffic/jet engines. You would also need to explain precisely how when sprayed "aluminum, nickel, barium, magnesium, and so on" can not only linger, but increase in mass, just like - well no shit - condensed atmospheric water vapour forming clouds.
"wake up people!!"
Never ceases to amuse that those still insisting upon using such a predictable and mindless conspiratorial cliché are the ones that slept through science classes.
2
-
This piece from the BBC is discussing nascent research into a range of geoengineering strategies. Although this is a dated article, it clearly states "could be deployed soon, but at an unknown risk to the environment". SRM technologies exist solely in the realm of paper based proposal and computer modelling. Next year, this will progress to a small scale trial in the Philippines involving mere kilograms of Calcium Carbonate - yeah, chalk - to measure dispersal (look up SCoPEx). Not only is there no agreement yet on the materials that could best be used to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, but as the article stated, the environmental impact needs to be properly equated, and in addition to the formidable problems of governance, geopolitics and logistics, it is most unlikely that such a programme would be deployed any time in the near future. Even if it were to become a reality, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with a contrail in either appearance or nature and would be released in the form of a fine mist at double the altitude of the commercial aircraft traffic that conspiracy believers identify as their "chemtrais"
The misidentification of persistent contrails is precisely what this video is about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nonsense. His job was done. He didn't need to be present in mission control. There is a very famous photo of him relaxing at the launch control centre, Cape Kennedy, after the launch of Apollo 11. He was not muzzled or hidden from view at all.
March 1, 1970, von Braun and his family relocated to Washington, DC, when he was assigned the post of NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning at NASA Headquarters. After a series of conflicts associated with the truncation of the Apollo program, and facing severe budget constraints, von Braun retired from NASA on May 26, 1972. Not only had it become evident by this time that NASA and his visions for future U.S. space flight projects were incompatible, but also it was perhaps even more frustrating for him to see popular support for a continued presence of man in space wane dramatically once the goal to reach the Moon had been accomplished.
Walter Cronkite interviewed him on national TV just before the launch of Apollo 17. He had left NASA a few months before that and was working for Fairchild Republic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shelleyhowell6678
"So what "genuine" environmental concern would you suggest?"
Oh I dunno, perhaps one that is backed by evidence based science, measurable analytical findings and demonstrates causality - as opposed to being the product of an online hoax originating in the late 1990s that has managed to dupe the gullible and grossly scientifically illiterate into the belief that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
"Am I to begin fighting climate change by paying a carbon tax to fund more chemicals for the geoengineering program?"
What geoengineering programme would that be? GGR attracts reasonable funding, but mainly into ocean fertilisation strategies. SRM meanwhile which with the exception of some albedo modification is in solely in the province of research proposal/computer modelling and in the case of SAI hasn't yet even reached the stages of small scale trial. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to invest money into understanding the economic, environmental and practical challenges of SRM before such measures could ever take place.
"Shall I write a check to psychopath David Keith so he can poison me more?"
How precisely does David Keith "poison you" when there isn't even any agreement upon the materials that would be employed by SAI to best replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols? Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. As I said, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - yeah, that's right, chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
"Please explain the aluminum, barium, desiccated red blood cells, fungi and the plethora of other chemicals that are found in the soil?"
Aluminium and barium are naturally available - and the former is the the most common metal on the planet whilst being the third most abundant element in the earth's crust. We can indeed address that - but first, let's commence with your claims of "desiccated blood cells" whatever that is supposed to mean. Analytical samples please - as opposed to some bullshit link to charlatan and one of the perpetrators of this fraud, Clifford E Carnicom. Go ahead, present your data together with the methodology.
"Explain the change in soil pH."
What "change in soil pH? Acidic soils have always been problematic for farmers occurring due to an increase in concentration of hydrogen ions. There are many reasons for this...none of which pertain to large white plumes in the wake of commercial aircraft cruising at 30,000ft. The main cause of soil acidification is inefficient use of nitrogen, followed by the export of alkalinity in produce. Ammonium based fertilisers are also major contributors to soil acidification.
"Please explain the insane flight paths and the unmarked fuselages of these aircraft."
Why do you suppose that any livery or markings should be visible on an aircraft cruising in the tropopause or lower stratosphere captured in the form of amateur shaky cell phone footage that you clowns post as supposed evidence? If you are in possession of the necessary equipment - this is what you will see...
https://youtu.be/IiEj267kcmo
"Yes, I see them up close and personal because they take off right over my house! I can tell the difference between a chemtrail tanker and a commercial aircraft."
Which is? Don't say it, demonstrate this.
"I've been watching this crime for two decades now, and I know these are not normal aircraft contrails."
Splendid, then you could become the very first of your ilk to actually define both your precise qualitative and quantitative methodology to allow the differentiation between a contrail and a chemtrail and provide statistics as to the reliability and error margins of your method. Your alternative is to admit that you have no such methodology. Go ahead.
"Your pseudo-intellectual nonsense...."
...Look what you did, you broke it -
https://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://izenmeme.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/i_meter5.gif&key=e8afe5c7f0f6f609f441e3f3a5a92d9cdf393094dde3927c39e0a43b0ec88fa6
To remind you, you said this...
"Please explain the aluminum, barium, desiccated red blood cells, fungi and the plethora of other chemicals that are found in the soil?"
...and your point was? Oh, hang on...
"does not convince those of us who have actually watched the sky for many years and remember what a real sky is supposed to look like."
To whom to afford credence? A journal published paper into the microphysical properties of contrail cirrus on behalf of a team of renowned atmospheric physicists and meteorological specialists supported by applied mathematics and known physical laws?....
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
....Or a cretinous community of credulous gullible scientifically illiterate buffoons trolling on the comments section of a video entertainment platform that subscribes to an online hoax that had managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? Hmmm., tough choice that.
Incidentally, do feel free to falsify and refute the "pseudo intellectual nonsense" contained in the above paper - perhaps commencing with the applied mathematics in the form of binomial equations used to express the mixing densities/ratios associated with the contrail factor. You'll find them in section 4. When you've done that, by all means refer me to your comparable in - situ analytical studies of one of your supposed chemtrails at source. Given the supposed two decades of this alleged spraying, and in view of the hundreds of analyses into the microphysical properties of contrails, in view of the sophistication and availability of remote sensing and atmospheric monitoring technology, you must have similarly volumes of hard data to be able to present.
"You people are not fooling anyone except for the typical dumb-downed, hopeless sheeple who will never connect the dots."
Again, a coal shovel to clear up that metric ton of unintentional irony?
"Sheeple" - Are you imbeciles capable of generating a scintilla or originality or the vaguest suggestion of any independent thought process?
Try again.
2
-
@shelleyhowell6678
"Oh congratulations, you're such a scientist."
Well I've worked in atmospheric and environmental science for the best part of two decades - so I guess you may be right. And yourself?
However, I am of no relevance to you - it's the established and known physical laws associated with my field that you appear to be contending here. By the way, how are you getting on with that? Only - you forgot to say.
"I have a memory, and I have the ability to observe the environment."
On the contrary, you clearly have serious and demonstrable deficiencies associated with both. However, I can help you there too since my specialism was ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) - so not only do I understand what I am looking at, I can measure it too. And the analytical data of your chemtrails at source that I requested? Looks like you forgot to present that too.
"I'm not buying your bullshit gaslighting technique."
The physical laws of the atmosphere are not obliged nor duty bound to conform to the arbitrary, ignorant and arrogant expectations of an online scientifically challenged conspiracy theorist. "You're not buying"??? So what? - unlike your internet conspiracy charlatans, I have nothing to sell. Moreover, science and the rational world doesn't give two shits nor a rats arse about the subjective opinions of a gullible dullard, trolling credulous anecdotal bullshit over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
Incidentally, given that David Keith's proposed Stratospheric Aerosol Injection doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
2
-
2
-
"This title implies that there already was a previous moon mission?"
There were nine, with six landings and a total of 12 astronauts that walked on the surface of the moon. It would have potentially been 20, were it not for the aborted Apollo 13 mission (for some inexplicable reason, NASA faked a failure?), and the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme in 1972.
"The footage in this video was done in a movie studio!"
A "movie studio"? Fascinating. Which one? I'm sure it was supposed to have been Hollywood, but what about the "basement"? No, hold on, it was definitely Shepperton UK...or was that Elstree?, no, without doubt Twickenham. No wait, I though it was alleged to have been shot in a converted hangar?...Cannon AFB, New Mexico, that was it. Hold on, what about Area 51? - but then, most maintain that was out in the Nevada Desert!. Hang on, what about Death Valley California, the Utah outback, or Arizona? You complete goons can't even make your minds up or get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist you allow yourselves to be duped by?
Got to say though, that must be some 'movie studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
"Seriously, what's the matter with you people?"
And by that, you mean entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists. some 10,000 private sector initiatives and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet! In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
"We don't have the technology today to put a human being on the moon and bring him back alive, let alone 55 years ago!"
Precisely what technology was lacking then, and now? Incidentally, the last manned lunar landing was 52 years ago.
"You just don't want to dismiss this science fiction fantasy for some reason, do you?! Sad..."
Said the impressionable believer in junk online conspiracy theorists in the absence of any knowledge of the science, technology or history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme at all.
2
-
@growlkitty
"The shielding required to safely allow the LM modules to pass through the Van Allen Belts for one. There is no way a human being could withstand the concentrated radiation from the photons that the Van Allen Belts circulate within the spheres. Unless some sort of artificial shielding was invented to protect the humans inside the spacecraft as it passes through the Van Allen Belts, nobody within the craft would survive."
Said no physicist, astrophysicist, radiobiologist, aerospace engineer...not to mention the late James Van Allen himself, ever. But you, an insignificant, random, gullible conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube claim to know better? Righto.
"The only alternative would be to make the Luna Craft out of led, not aluminum, and make it nine inches thick."
That is absolutely the last thing that you want to do. Come back when you understand Bremsstrahlung.
Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them. if you have anything vaguely approaching a shred of integrity or humility (and your arrogant posts are suggesting that you don't), then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such a dumb and ignorant statements on on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
2
-
@growlkitty
"The radiation levels on the moon is another problem."
In terms of prolonged habitation, yes.
"The earth is protected from lethal radiation by its atmosphere and the Van Allen Belts."
Partially by its atmosphere, but predominately by its magnetic field of which the VABs are a result of.
"The moon has no atmosphere or magnetic field to protect it from the constant bombardment of photons from the sun. Those space suits wouldn't be able to protect the occupants, at least not for an extended amount of time."
Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface received a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight. Charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by faraway supernova explosions, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but as I said any prolonged habitation would necessitate new methods of shielding. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once, around 50 percent of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care. The main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere comes from CMEs and solar particle events. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar maximum, and mission planners took a calculated risk. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant, or having a headache.
Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself? - you haven't got the remotest idea what you are on about.
2
-
@growlkitty
So you completely ignore and disregard my recommendation to actually learn about the VABs and arrogantly/brazenly plough on regardless of your demonstrable ignorance and scientific illiteracy.
"But if the astronots of the Apollo adventures actually did try and pass through the Van Allen Belts, it would be akin to being in a microwave oven. It might not kill them right away, but it wouldn't be pleasant eventually."
Again, said no physicist, astrophysicist, radiobiologist or aerospace engineer ever. Specifically, here is what James Van Allen himself had to say about the transit of Apollo.
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable."
So who to listen to? Entire branches of science and the physicist that the belts are named after? - or a random gullible online conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube with absolutely zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever? Tough one that.
"In one of the space shuttle missions, the craft went to the highest orbit ever achieved by the craft and it's crew."
STS-31 which deployed the HST during which Discovery briefly reached an orbital apogee of 621 km (386 mi), the highest altitude ever reached by a Shuttle orbiter.
"As the spacecraft approached the first VA belt, the entire crew reported seeing what seemed to be falling stars when they closed their eyes. These were high frequency protons that passed through the ships hull, through the crews space helmets, through their skulls, and out the other end. These are the photons that cardboard has no influence on."
You are referring to cosmic ray visual phenomena, or light flashes (LF), also known as Astronaut's Eye, which are spontaneous flashes of light visually perceived by some astronauts and observed outside of the Earth's magnetosphere. They were first witnessed by the Mercury astronauts in the early 1960s. It is posited that these are caused by charged particles traveling through the eye, and, possibly, some other visual cortical areas. Research suggests that the particles are not a serious hazard for short trips to the moon or Earth-orbital missions such as the shuttle. They are also observed by the crews of the ISS.
"The craft was ordered to immediately discontinue it's course and to turn around."
No it wasn't...why are you lying?
"No such attempt to approach the magnetic field was ever done again as far as I know."
The apogee of STS 31 was necessary for the mission objectives and near the operational limit of the shuttle. The heavy lift capability was abandoned in 1972 following the cancellation of Apollo, and with the advent of Artemis and the SLS, manned crews will be traversing the belts once again. In September 1966, the crew of Gemini 11 utilised the rocket on its Agena target vehicle to raise its apogee to 853 miles which remains the highest Earth orbit ever reached by a crewed spacecraft discounting the Hohmann transfer TLIs of the Apollo crews.
Why do you think that a spacecraft traversing the VABs should be fashioned from nine inches of lead when they are composed of highly charged alpha and beta particles?
2
-
@growlkitty
All of your comments are visible - so that completely invalidates your irrational paranoia. Seriously, if you don't even understand shadow banning, a flawed algorithm that even a child can get their head around, then commenting on the physics of the VABs may be a tad premature to you. It's astonishing the amount of conspiracy believers that think that their dumb comments are valid because a broken spam filter has removed them.
"My mind is made up on this matter."
Of course it is. As I said at the start of this thread, as an emotionally invested conspiracy believer you are amongst the most closed minded communities on the entire internet next to political extremists, religious fundamentalists and cult members. Your "mind is made up" over a matter that you demonstrably have absolutely zero knowledge of whatsoever. Have you any idea how dangerous that is?
"don't want people to start thinking for themselves, to ask questions, to acquire the ability to think critically."
You don't think for yourself at all - you are a believer in junk online conspiracy theory and that is the diametric opposite of critical thinking.
"Asking questions that have no answers isn't something that is encouraged in this day and age."
Read this thread ffs. Every claim you have made has been specifically addressed. You have simply ignored all of it. The problem is, in this day and age, you people ask questions but aren't remotely interested in listening to the answers.
"Elon Musk has the money and resources to send up a moon probe. Send him a letter and maybe he will fund the Legacy of Apollo history gathering project?! If I was a multi-billionaire I would definitely fund the project."
When are you goons going to comprehend that space exploration isn't about revisiting the same places. The emphasis is upon the far side of the moon and the south pole region in the search for water ice. Moreover, NASA, nor any other private initiative is neither obliged nor duty bound to satisfy the protestations and insistence of a cretinous community of conspiracy believing scientific illiterates on the internet that will simply declare that to be faked too.
"I did this research well over twenty years ago and don't remember verbatim where I got it or what was said about the VA Belts, but I remember that it was made clear that no human being would survive going through it."
Research? You don't even know the meaning of the word. Research and confirmation bias are two completely different things. Watching crap conspiracy theory videos on the internet is not "research". You are adamant that no human being can survive passage through the belts, but you can't remember where you got that from. Are you aware of how ludicrous that sounds? Why don't you find out what James Van Allen himself had to say about that? I have even furnished you with a quote that you completely ignored too.
I have two questions for you:
1/ Using known physics to support your answer, why do you think that nine inches of lead shielding would be necessary to traverse the VABs?
2/ Why did you find it necessary to lie about STS 31? I'm referring to your ludicrous claim that "the craft was ordered to immediately discontinue it's course and to turn around."
All that you have accomplished in this thread is your own complete humiliation. Earlier, when it became apparent that you hadn't got the remotest idea what you are on about I urged you to have some humility and integrity - but you just bludgeon on, impervious to the responses to you, making more of a fool of yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You mean entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
No use simply saying it - demonstrate why. And why do you goons think that a string of puerile emojis substitute for evidence.
Presumably then you'll have no problem whatsoever presenting your singular most compelling and irrefutable piece of evidence then that Apollo 12 and the other Apollo missions were "total BS". Naturally you'll be keen to avoid the same old obligatory, predictable dumb online conspiracy theory that is consumed and regurgitated ad nauseum by those with zero knowledge of the science, technology and the history Apollo and has been debunked over and over and over again. So do you have anything vaguely resembling your own thoughts or observations based upon informed understanding that objectively proves that the Apollo moon landings were "faked"? Or do you simply have personal incredulity and ignorance like all the rest.
Go ahead genius.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I think they used puppets with strings to make it look like real astronauts :-D"
Because of course puppets with strings would naturally look like real astronauts.
"Or stop/motion technique?"
Filmed live in real time? Ok then.
"Many who has scrutinized the footage states it is the same scenery as they use when they are making puppetmovies:-D"
Many? Name just one together with their full credentials.
"As lunar module,they used a big washingmachine or two modules such connected,and used"
Ok then.
"thinfoil and ducked tape to reel around the feet."
No, MLI - mylar and kapton. What's 'thinfoil' and 'ducked' tape?
"Other evidence"
Other evidence? What evidence? You haven't presented any. You've said that you think that the Apollo astronauts were puppets, using 'puppetmovies scenery' (whatever that is) and that the lunar module was fashioned out of a washing machine.
"was a rock with a c on"
Nope, contamination of a later reproduction which under magnification reveals itself to be a fibre. How do we know this? Because your supposed 'C' isn't present on the original image, negatives or prints. And why in God's name would NASA inscribe the letter 'C' on a fake moon rock? You realise that the Apollo missions returned over a third of a ton of moon rocks - samples from which were subsequently analysed by a field of science called geology? Of course you didn't.
"and no stars in the footage:-D"
Do you possibly have the vaguest semblance of an original thought or observation even occasionally enter your vacuous cranium?
Why should you see stars during the lunar day and why should the aperture settings detect them? You seriously believe that NASA conceived and coordinated the byzantine levels of detail necessary to stage this hoax but forgot to place stars in the photos and footage? And now, over half a century later a random nobody parrots this over the comments section of You Tube and expects to be taken seriously, when of course, no dumb conspiracy believer has ever regurgitated this before.
"The reason:-Just to investigate how gullible people are :-D2
We have online conspiracy theory that serves precisely that purpose - and congratulations, you are the poster child and personification of that stupidity.
God bless the internet - exposing idiots since 1993.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@raffisekzenian2746
"It’s the scientists that.deliver the science, so if a scientist can be compromised, so can the science and therefore the narrative around that science."
By 'delivering the science' it must be independently testable,verifiable and reproducible. Of course scientists can be sponsored or bought off - fortunately though, we no longer inhabit and age in which medics can be by paid off by Philip Morris to endorse the health benefits of smoking. I am highly sceptical of private sector involvement in the peer review process - particularly in respect of the proliferation of low quality journals and the institutional pressure to publish marginal or trivial findings, but it is easy to exaggerate the extent to which this impedes discovery. Scrutiny through peer review is still rigorous and although far from flawless, this independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee. Moreover, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or a institutional interest.
"Think of all the crap that had happened globally in the last 3 years."
Yes, that's what nature does. We live in a chaotic world. The fields of epidemiology, immunology and virology had been warning about the the prospect of a pandemic for years.
"The truth was hidden"
What truth was hidden precisely?
"and all we got was “trust the science” by the government and scientists."
We define trust in science as one's willingness to rely on science and scientists (as representatives of the system) despite having a bounded understanding of science and the risk of not getting to the “truth” (that is, they accept dependency despite vulnerability and risk). Known science on the other hand must be demonstrable.
"Science has to be debated freely and possibly disproven without any threats or personal repercussions - publicly."
It is and as I said, the ultimate arbiter is the science itself not 'government and scientists' as you seem to suppose.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Onda-v1t
So the usual gullibility, personal incredulity and string of puerile dumb emojis. As explained to you genius, the LM didn't have air conditioning. The ECS used a fan to circulate air within the cabin. This helped It maintain a uniform temperature and prevent the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other contaminants. It was equipped with a thermal control system that utilised a combination of insulation and active cooling. The insulation minimised external radiative heat transfer from the sun, while active cooling was achieved through a refrigeration system that used a phase-change mechanism involving freon as a coolant. The system included desiccant materials to absorb moisture from the air, which helped to control humidity levels and prevent condensation inside the cabin. The cabin environment was monitored using sensors that provided data on temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels. The astronauts could manually adjust the system as needed. Heat from various the electrical systems was rejected by the sublimation of water (ice) into the vacuum of space. The function, specifications and full schematics of the ECS has been forensically scrutinised worldwide and is understood by entire branches of science and the specialist field of aerospace engineering for in excess of half a century.. Yet you, a random, insignificant gobshite on the comments section of You Tube claim to know better because crap online conspiracy theory told you what to think.
No Alan Bean said nothing of the sort. Moreover his comments regarding the Van Allen Belts related to his command of Skylab 3. This was deceptively edited by Bart Sibrel because he knows none of you goons have the critical capability or the inclination to independently verify for yourselves. Al Bean was capcom to Gemini 11 which in September 1966 used the rocket on its Agena target vehicle to raise its apogee to 853 miles, the highest Earth orbit ever reached by a crewed spacecraft (until Polaris Daw earlier this year). Both entered the inner Van Allen Belt and Bean can be heard discussing this with astronauts Pete Conrad and Dick Gordon. You could have established this for yourself were it not for the fact that you have absolutely zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever and you are under the deluded impression that consuming and regurgitating dumb online conspiracy theory makes you sound informed and clever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Why should we believe assurances that all aircraft trails are merely traditional contrails, and that the patterns and clouds we observe are formed from contrails, when top scientists in the field don’t yet fully understand contrails?"
Because "top scientists" aren't casting aspersions upon their existence, like any specialist field, they identify that there is still much more to be understood about the science that governs their formation.
Marine biologists don't fully understand the process of coral bleaching and die off; seismologists don't yet have a predictive methodology for earthquakes, cetologists have yet to account for the observed supergroups formed by humpback whales, geneticists are continually refining their understanding of the human genome,
Anyone questioning that plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic are anything other than contrails is perfectly at liberty to obtain analytical data in order to prove otherwise. There are no such legitimate studies, no data gathered and no credible scientists that claim that aircraft trails are anything other than contrails.Why? because we understand what contrails are. - That they are formed by the process of burning a hydrocarbon fuel in cold humid air is not in question, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more to be understood about their microphysical and optical properties. Thats precisely what the scientific method aims to do.
"However, according to top atmospheric scientists such as Chauvigne et al (2018), contrails are not well understood."
You have cherry picked from and abstract which identifies a lacuna in the research and understanding of precise optical, microphysical and macrophysical variables that influence the lifetime behaviour of the contrail life cycle. This is what science does - continually pushes the frontiers of our understanding. Did you read the entire paper? Of course you didn't. The paper finds that adapting the statistical method based on the in situ optical measurements performed during the Contrail and Cirrus Experiments (CONCERT) campaigns and through the application of Principal Component Analysis demonstrates that studying contrail optical properties is an apposite model and approach by which to identify and discriminate between the different contrail growth stages and to better characterise the evolution of contrail properties.
Really - you're trying too hard.
Again, what's your point?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Yes they are spraying themselves because they need to make a living and many do not realize how dangerous it really is."
No one is spraying - you are simply seeing aircraft contrails like the rest of us.
"The pilots are not chemist and are nieve. yet some of them suffered bad health from having the toxins so close to them."
You are referring to aerotoxic syndrome in which pilots and sometimes PAX are exposed to dangerous fumes. The culprit is tri-cresyl phosphate, a compound in synthetic oil that is pyrolised in hot engine bleed air, usually admitted into the system by faulty labyrinth seals.
"There was a air force pilot on the news whom admitted they were spraying the skys."
No there wasn't.
"My cousin worked for the Hazemat team that had to change out the old barrels for the big white planes they use."
No he didn't, please stop lying.
"A women whom worked her entire life in enviromental safty in California has a website with the stock market proof, the patents and the min meetings on her fight to stop them from poisoning our enviroment. One of her storys is that every time they reached the toxic level overload she would have to attend a meeting which is suppose to stop anything that goes past a toxic level. Instead these people who are suppose to stop the toxic levels would change what is allowed before calling it toxic. You have those minute meeting and documents of how they kept upping the exceptable levels. Instead of stopping it when it reached the toxic levels."
Name? Link? I guarantee what you'll come back with.
"You are talking to someone whom is paid to help put the blinders on to people."
No, he's talking to Mick West who debunks conspiracy theory using independently verifiable data. He actively encourages civil debate and rational discourse.
"Research California Sky Watch"
The conspiracy theorist Russ Tanner? Is this serious?
"Watch and look for anything Rosline Peterson has on there"
You mean Rosalind Peterson. Righto -
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft." Rosalind Peterson 2012.
"from her career in our government."
Rosalind Peterson didn't work for Government, she was a crops loss adjuster - a sort of agricultural insurance agent.
Stop listening to silly online conspiracy theory.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NeilPeelParanormalPeepShow
So you have no further questions regarding the glass used in the CM windows? Good. We can at least move on from that one and hopefully you won't be questioning it again.
As explained, Bean was demonstrably aware of the VABs due to his role as capcom to Gemini 11 in 1966 - so we can disregard any suggestion that he wasn't as I often see made by conspiracy believers. Regarding as to whether he went through them as I recall his response was along the lines of I'm not sure that we went high enough - because he was quite clearly in that context referring to his command of Skylab 3. In terms of "travelling right through them", yes of course he is referring to Apollo 12.
Please understand that the VABs are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour through the trajectories flown. The belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes of alpha and beta radiation around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii (620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth.The VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. The highly technical reports of Apollo give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Without this, the doseage would obviously have been much higher.
Further, as explained, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
The main concern was SPEs/CMEs since Apollo missions occurred during a solar maximum. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events were directed towards them during those missions. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). As mentioned, Alpha and Beta particles within are easy to shield against. Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hollywood? Fascinating. Not Shepperton, Elstree or Pinewood UK? And what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? No wait, Area 51 Nevada? Hold on, shouldn't that be the Utah or Arizona deserts? No, no, Devon Island Canada surely? You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood backdrop" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Clever lad!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yomommaahotoo264
Your cut and pastes simply demonstrate like any other scientifically illiterate conspiracy believer you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about whilst your utterly predictable and cringeworthy use of the term "shill" shows that you simply cannot handle your emotional investment in conspiracy theory being challenged. As I mentioned, this nonsense is obviously currently trending which is why you goons have all suddenly started bringing this up - just as was the case with Torr units and the inverse square law of light. You people deny science, by attempting to use science without ever studying science. Why? because you think that parroting some dumb online conspiracy theorist can substitute for the education you never had under the illusion that it makes you sound informed and clever. It really doesn't - all that you succeed in doing it humiliating yourself. Such is the inevitable consequence of internet access for halfwits that don't know how to use it responsibly. And yet you stubbornly bludgeon on regardless and impervious to reason. The only person that you are fooling is yourself.
In the case of HAPE, lower oxygen intake at high altitudes causes your blood vessels to narrow, leading to this fluid buildup. this can happen because the atmospheric pressure is still in the region of 0.3 bar (approximately 5.1 psi).
To reiterate, the reason that Apollo and Gemini astronauts avoided oxygen toxicity is because the pressure was low. Oxygen makes about 20% of our atmosphere, which means that 0.2 bar of our atmospheric pressure is from oxygen, the other 0.8 bar is from inert nitrogen. This means that breathing pure oxygen at 0.2 bar is exactly the same for our bodies as breathing normal air at normal pressure. As long as the partial pressure of oxygen doesn’t stray too far above 20 kPa, then that is sustainable. In other words, you could theoretically survive in a 100% oxygen atmosphere, as long as the overall pressure of said atmosphere was only about 20% of Earth’s sea-level pressure which the Apollo missions maintained.Conspiracy theorists tell you otherwise and that appears to be sufficient for you people lacking either the will or the capability to verify their claims.
Here on Earth, for intensive underwater work; there are rebreathers that are designed mostly for use by special forces because they don't leave a bubble trail. Also, people being treated in hyperbaric chambers for the bends or for acute carbon monoxide poisoning will breathe 100 percent oxygen, and will be carefully monitored during their treatment. The reason that they can't sustain HBOT for more than three hours is because the pressure exceeds 0.2bar. Seriously, how many times?
2
-
@yomommaahotoo264
"Just because 0.2 bar partial pressure of O2 equals the AMOUNT of O2 a lung would absorb, doesn't mean the lung WILL absorb that amount of O2 without the remaining pressure of sea level Nitrogen that we all evolved to breath."
Explain why - then direct me to your sources.Or was that because a conspiracy theorist told you so?
Once again, because you are clearly struggling here. At 4 psi, pure oxygen is no more toxic than the 21% in the air around me right now (at 14.7 psi). Apollo astronauts actually breathed a somewhat elevated partial pressure of oxygen compared to the atmosphere (0.34, 34%, versus 21%, 0.21) in addition to the fact that they were breathing it at a reduced total pressure (0.34 bar versus 1 bar). At least in the mid-term (the Apollo 11 mission to the moon took a bit over 8 days), what counts is the partial pressure of oxygen (used by our metabolism), and this value slightly above the physiological normal is quite safe for humans for the short sprints to the moon and back.
"You can't even show us that a fly could live in 5psi and under of pure 02, let alone a human."
Who are "us"? Don't project your ignorance onto others. Your comparison is utterly absurd since fruit flies have been shown to survive for up to 12 hours without any oxygen. Would you like to venture why the respiratory requirements are totally different?
"STILL WAITING FOR ANY INDEPENDENT EXAMPLES OF HUMANS BREATHING LOW PRESSURE PURE O2....."
Why would they? Pure oxygen was used by Apollo because of a range of advantages. It meant that instead of building a pressure vessel that could handle 15 PSI (1,000 millibars) they could get away with 3 PSI (200 millibars), since that is the partial pressure of oxygen at sea level. That is, that is all humans need to breath normally. It simplified EVAs (going outside), since on Gemini and Apollo there were no airlocks, and the whole cabin had to be depressurised. (There was no provision for EVA on Mercury.) Also, even today spacesuits operate at 3 PSI, which means that before going outside one has to pre-breath pure oxygen for two hours to avoid the “bends" (nitrogen narcosis) from the depressurisation. In Gemini and Apollo that was unnecessary, since they were already breathing pure oxygen. However, using pure O2 as the cabin gas at the low pressures used puts limits on how long astronauts can breath it. Basically, pure O2 becomes poisonous and deadly when used for longer than about two weeks. This is a major reason that pure O2 could not be used for systems such as Skylab, Shuttle or ISS and why the planned longer duration Project Artemis missions will not use it.
Could you now provide a scenario in which it would be similarly advantageous to do so on Earth for a two-week duration?
"For all you non shills"
Seriously, how old are you? Grow up mate.
"think of an animal's respiratory system (no matter what type) as a valve. Until a pressure for which they evolved to breath and exchange gasses is approached, they will not exchange gasses effectively."
So why do you think it is that your supposed "gotcha" that you mindlessly parroted off some dumb online conspiracy video has eluded the attention of entire branches of life science, specialist fields such as respiratory physiology and medicine the world over for in excess of half century, yet you, a random nobody on the comments section of You Tube claims to know better?
Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.
2
-
2
-
@TrevorCrook-c1s
"I am interested in your explanations"
Are you though? Let's see.
Firstly you listed "Operation Himmler , the burning down of the Reichstag , the sinking of the Lusitania, MK Ultra , Bohemian Grove, the Reichstag fire , Operation Northwoods" - None of these were conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
"NASA claims that they destroyed the technology used in the Apollo missions . That makes no sense . Why would they do that ?"
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to when he said "destroyed". The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"NASA sending alleged moon rock to Holland which turned out to be petrified wood “ from Earth “
This again? Seriously? the supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been briefly exhibited was kept in storage for two decades until it was later discovered to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. The actual Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts.
"Astronauts asked to swear on the bible that they had been on the moon and their response was to run away"
No they didn't. And why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel? Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.” However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
"Stanley Kubricks film showing many many anomalies"
What film? What anomalies?
"So you admit we did not see the moon landing live. All animation"
Surely, you are able to comprehend that it was not possible to film the moon landings, Apollo 11 or any of the other missions, live? Although there was a camera mounted in the window of the LM, it was not broadcast live and for obvious reasons, was not filmed externally. What people saw were animations created by TV networks for illustrative and continuity purposes. Why is it even necessary to explain this...again?
"What about film surviving such harsh temp on the moon or the radiation passing through the Van Halen radiation belt"
The surface of the moon is essentially a vacuum. Therefore in the absence of air there is no convection and heat takes time to transfer to devices that are not in direct contact with it through the radiative warmth from the sun. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. Moreover, the high temperature that you refer to is the equilibrium surface temperature not and air temperature - again, due to the fact that there is essentially no atmosphere on the moon. It takes time to reach this. All of the Apollo missions were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. A day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 days on Earth.
"Van Halen" was a pioneering American rock guitarist. You mean 'Van Allen'
Seriously - why are you doing this to yourself?
2
-
@SwitchedDreams
Sometimes they don't - they may not form at all.
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water vapour in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail - you can see the phase gap behind the engines. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of what is known as supersaturation, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture - where the jet engine itself is merely the trigger event. Exactly the same process as cloud formation which is why when often subsequently fanned out by high altitude wind shear, contrails can become indistinguishable from regular cirrus cloud.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trendynow1369
Your comment is shadow banned, which is a shame because such stupidity on show may actually deter others from similarly entertaining such nonsense. I will summarise here:
"Yet there's no real photo of the earth from space. All the ones that were claimed to be real are obviously fraudulent."
Because again, you are the self-proclaimed expert, you know better? There are something in the region of 18,000 pictures taken of the earth by the Apollo missions alone that you would have had to sift through. 'Earthrise' captured by Apollo 8 and 'The Blue Marble' taken by the crew of Apollo 17 are not simply famous photos, but are amongst the most widely distributed pictures of all time. And since then, while some of the autonomous spacecraft destined for other worlds turned their sensors around for a parting shot, their cameras weren’t designed for the job, producing inferior images. In contrast, as the Apollo astronauts travelled out towards the Moon, they reached the perfect distances for planetary portraiture and were provided with some of the world’s best equipment for photographing Earth: Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, Zeiss lenses and 70mm Kodak Ektachrome film. They were thus able to faithfully record Earth’s true colours as they appeared to the human eye.
The last image of the whole Earth taken by a human being, during Apollo 17, on the 17th December 1972. However, sitting in geosynchronous oribit, 22,000 miles from out planet Himawari-8 captures a full-disk image of Earth every 10 minutes.
"Keep believing the lies instead of trusting your own eyes"
As I said,, I am irrelevant to this exchange and at no stage have I mentioned any 'belief' - far less my own The known science that you detest is not about that. That would be the junk online conspiracy theory that you gullibly consume and regurgitate in a lame attempt to sound informed, discerning and clever.
2
-
2
-
Unfortunately, your comment was shadow banned, and so only visible in my notifications, so I have duly summarised it below
"So you are saying my digging was watching a crap online conspiracy video?"
No, you have probably squandered a large portion of your life watching multiple crap conspiracy videos. "Digging" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' frittering away your evenings consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours? Do you have anything new? Oh hang on...
"What about if I watched hundreds of videos and read 10+ books?"
Books? I'd say why don't you try it instead. Naturally, you'll ensure that the literature is objective, well researched and don't have the names Kaysing or Sibrel on the spine and cover. Why don't you start by reading up on the actual science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theorists tell you what to think?
"You assuming someone else’s intellect, ability, and determination to dig is ignorantly laughable. Why?"
Because clearly, you equate "intellect, ability and determination to dig" with junk conspiracy theory.
"Can I show you some areas to look into? Or do you trust the government agencies over your brothers?"
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims that the moon landing was faked, or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
The government is irrelevant. The science is demonstrable and the mathematics axiomatic thereby having a voice of their own. Meanwhile the independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is incontrovertible.
Areas to look into? What I'd like you to do instead is to present your singular most compelling piece of evidence that the six Apollo moon landings were faked. What do you regard as irrefutable evidence? I absolutely guarantee that I have heard it before over and over and over again, and I can tell you where it came from...that is of course unless you have your own original thoughts and observations, which I would welcome. I have invited this from countless conspiracy believers, but as yet, it has never happened. You could be the first.
2
-
@LiamR90
"Waving flag"
It moved when disturbed or by PLSS venting.
"Operation Paperclip hired propaganda experts."
Such as?
"Astronauts fall and move like they're on ropes."
No they don't - their movements are entirely consistent with 1/6th g and the near vacuum of the lunar surface.
"Inconsistencies in the astronauts accounts. Saying they saw no stars in their interview 2 weeks later, then writing in their biographies that there were stars everywhere"
There are no inconsistencies whatsoever if you are capable of contextualisation. Some are answering questions on whether stars were visible in the lunar corona, others recounting passage around the far side of the moon.
"No movement in the moons surface when the lander lands or takes off."
Yes there is, that is blatantly false as evidenced by footage and the radial disturbance subsequently imaged by satellites.
"They were in a space race against Russia and needed to be first."
Indeed, which is precisely the reason why such an obscene budget was allocated to the programme.
"They have lied about worse in the past"
Of course governments lie and conspire - no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of faked moon landings any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
"Operation Northwoods"
Which had nothing to do with Apollo either in terms of motivation or circumstances.
"Gulf of Tonkin incident"
The first attack was indisputably genuine.
"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"
No stockpiles were found but the invasion was predicated upon intelligence that indicated that they were being manufactured. Not to mention of course that through the Halabja massacre, Saddam Hussein executed the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.
"9/11 pentagon hit by plane"
Which it was.
"and tower 7 fell due to fire."
Which it was - raging out of control on ten floors, causing the steel support structure to weaken and collapse.
So you simply state more unsubstantiated conspiracy theory as fact in support of your belief in a conspiracy theory?
"Moon rock gifted to other countries was actually discovered to be petrified wood years later."
Incorrect. the supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been briefly exhibited was kept in storage for two decades until it was later discovered to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. The Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts. You could have established this for yourself.
"Pictures of Mars in recent years have proven to be actually taken on Earth and filtered. Just Google Mars Rat or Mars Mouse to see what I mean."
Is this actually serious? How gullible?
"Just looking at the lander, common sense tell you that thing wouldn't make it."
And the entire specialist field of aerospace engineering tells you that it would.
"Stanley Kubrick made a space movie the year before the landing which had sets looking similar to the Apollo 11 mission. Then in The Shining he left a lot of clues to suggest he might have been proud of directing the landings."
No it didn't, it didn't even remotely resemble the lunar surface or 1/6th g. And no he didn't, stop allowing dumb conspiracy theorists to tell you what to think.
"The body language and nervousness of the astronauts in their interview 2 weeks after returning."
Almost a month actually, and following over three and a half weeks of quarantine. Did you see their 'body language' in the rest of the interview that wasn't deceptively edited - the part in which they are laughing and joking - or their elation upon recovery on the deck of the USS Hornet? Or have you bothered to watch the post mission press conferences from the other five crews that landed on the moon? Of course you haven't.
"NASA have lost all of the Apollo 11 tapes."
No they haven't. They reused some of the raw data magnetic back up tapes from the EVA, that were never intended for archival use anyway. And what of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17?
"Radiation belt around Earth"
Wrong again, they are belts, (two with a third that is transitory) consisting of charged particles (alpha and beta radiation) in differing concentrations and intensities. Apollo passed through the sparsest outer regions at high velocity and a short space of time.
"Space X can't get there still."
Historically, Space X have not had the objective of going to the moon. Their main preoccupation will be the completion of the HLS for Artemis 3.
"NASA have given up and just support others trying to do it."
Artemis 1 sends its regards.
"Shall I go on."
Mindlessly consuming and regurgitating dumb online conspiracy theory? You can if you like, but you only achieve your own humiliation. Instead, do you have any original ideas or observations of your own as opposed to blindly parroting the same old predictable online conspiracy videos and falsities about subjects that you clearly have no understanding or knowledge of whatsoever?
2
-
"Perfect, now explain to me..."
Are you even remotely interested in listening to the answer?
"how a Kodak film can survive radiation exposure like the one in the moon and temperature changes from 180 Celsius at the sun and minus 160 Celsius in the shadows without going blank or Crumbing to dust?"
Firstly, astronauts on the lunar surface absorbed a measured average of 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour - so it wasn't an issue. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon the figures that you mention are surface extremes. In the absence of convection, the main process of heat transfer is radiative and objects take time to absorb this heat and build up to their equilibrium temperature. Also, the all the Apollo landings were timed to arrive at the lunar dawn which meant none of these temperature extremes are relevant.
"The Hasselblad cameras did not have any protection."
That is entirely false. Absolute nonsense. Hasselblad adapted their 500EL camera for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective bare metal, and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures Moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that was used was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, as explained, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection.
"So what do you want to tell me? The trip happened, but the pictures were staged? It's all bullshit."
That before declaring something fake, you should learn the very basic objective facts and avoid presupposition and your own internal bias. Also, I'd urge you to critically appraise junk online conspiracy theory before you consume and regurgitate it online.
Hope this helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sigh.
"People testify infront of congress"
What people? No one has testified about 'chemtrails' "in front of congress".
"Nano particles"
What about them? A Nano particle is simply matter that is between 1 and 100 nanometres in diameter. The atmosphere and the air that you breath is full of such particulate matter.
"Documents"
What "documents"? Present your best example and I'll explain precisely what it refers to.
"The trails never used to hang around for hours like they do now etc...i remember im 33 now it wasn't like that when i was a kid"
Persistent contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of eighty years. The following image is taken from the pages of a seventy five year old meteorology text book:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
A contrail is merely a form of cirrus cloud. It may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Its length and duration is entirely governed by the prevailing atmospheric conditions in respect of the interaction of temperature, humidity and vapour pressure. The reason for their increased prevalence is entirely due to the exponential expansion of commercial aviation and in association with this, the introduction of new routes flown and more aircraft flying them. To clarify, this video is debunking the chemtrail hoax which is predicated upon the misidentification of the latter.
The chemtrails conspiracy theory largely endures through contrived/intentional association fallacy and conflation with such topics as research into geoengineering or cloud seeding. The perpetrators of this nonsense know that the believers in their hoax are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' on the back of a squandered evening in front of a succession of You Tube conspiracy videos/junk websites and uncritically lap up and regurgitate such false equivalence and parrot fallacious statements about subjects that they are otherwise wholly ignorant about.
By all means do feel free to prove me wrong. Let's begin with your statement that "they never used to hang around like they do now".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
American Moon'??? Is this serious?
Assuming that you have absolutely no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam. Clearly you lack the will or the capability to independently verify what you are told. You only have to look at the fact that it's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Contrails dissipate. Why is it that some do not?"
A contrail is merely a form of artificially induced cirrus. The governing factors are temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour).
"And they expand and create a haze over the sky?"
Can do. In cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of tonnes. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
"Also, it was recently mentioned that the US would be doing weather modification to prevent global warming......."
Weather modification is the technical term for cloud seeding which is commercially practiced. I think that you are likely referring to SAI which is a hypothetical form of goengineering in the research proposal stage. Neither would have anything to do with a contrail in either appearance, nature or deployment.
"we’ve been doing this for years."
Doing what for years?
"Who can we trust?"
Objectivity and independently verifiable sources in addition to known science which is axiomatic and has a voice of its own.
"Independent chemical analysis confirms aluminum and other chemical agents present in chemtrails."
No - I assure you it really doesn't.
"Go figure and do your research...not on YouTube, use Duck Duck Go!!! "
Understandable, because it conceptually avoids the filter bubble - however, no search engine is immune to confirmation bias and will return whatever you instruct it to do or wish to see. Such filters are also preconceived, implanted and internal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Is this serious? So "I don't understand something so it must therefore be fake"
"How did the rocket return to earth?"
The moon has one sixth of the gravity of the earth, to lift off from the moon, the ascent stage of the lunar module still needed to overcome this. The force you exert on a surface due to gravity pulling you down is measured in Newtons (N) - this depends on the strength of gravity at a given location - in this case 0.17g. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. With no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation tells us that the 2 tons of fuel in the LM ascent stage could propel the ~2 tons of empty mass to a speed of more than 2000 m/s, when they only needed 1600 m/s to get into lunar orbit and dock with the CM. In 100 sec, the ascent stage was travelling over 600 mph. In under seven minutes, they had reached orbital velocity. The LM ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and had a 3500 lbf engine, so it had easily enough thrust.
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock. The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. The SPS performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon, take it out of orbit and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth.
"Was there a launch pad?"
The lunar module was a two-stage craft. The ascent stage was launched from the descent stage.
"How can we have the ability to send a rock to the moon without a map?"
I assume you mean a 'rocket'?
Newtonian physics and mathematics. Angular momentum.
"How was it able to steer the rocket with precision when our gps signals aren’t so accurate?"
Cislunar navigation requires data about current position and velocity with respect to an external frame of reference from Earth. The AGC provided computation and electronic interfaces for guidance, navigation, and control of the spacecraft. The Apollo primary guidance, navigation, and control system was a self-contained inertial guidance system that allowed Apollo spacecraft to carry out their missions when communications with Earth were interrupted, either as expected, when the spacecraft were behind the Moon, or in case of a communications failure. The Apollo command module (CM) and lunar module (LM), were each equipped with a version of this and specifically its computer, were also the command center for all system inputs from the LM, including the alignment optical telescope, the radar system, the manual translation and rotation device inputs by the astronauts as well as other inputs from the LM systems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Micro Farming
"UK government have been caught spraying millions with poison and viruses"
Caught? This is declassified information detailing a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.
Many of these tests involved releasing chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population usually in very small quantities, but without the public's consent, not to experiment on the population, but to evaluate dispersal to gain more understanding of vulnerability in the event of a Soviet biological attack.
In most cases, the trials did not actually use biological weapons but alternatives intended to replicate germ warfare
'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', for example released zinc cadmium sulphide - its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored.
On the other hand, the DICE trials in south Dorset between 1971 and 1975 involved the release of serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.
However, independent enquiries have shown in all cases that there was no danger to public health from these releases - rather, the concern is, that the tests were carried out without the knowledge and consent of the British public.
None of this is denied and is public knowledge. What does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails upon which the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon, that are the subject of this video? The same phenomenon that has been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years?
Also, why the need for unnecessary and unwarranted abuse?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrismatthews768
"Contrails are crystallized vapor correct?"
Incorrect. Water vapour is an invisible gas. If it is crystalised, then it is a solid, and no longer a vapour.
"So you're telling me that if I were to take a long walk, say two miles, on a cold day where I could see my breath. At the end of my two mile walk I could look back and see my breath all the way from the start of my trip?"
Perhaps you could, assuming that the exhalation from your lungs were equivalent or analogous to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C and 4 litres per second, emitting a stream of 600°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst 'walking' at speeds up to and occasionally in excess of 500 knots.
"It's normal for planes flying in criss cross overlapping circular patterns at 80,000 feet while turning the engines off and on to finally just glide on home"
This is hilarious.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamiethibodeau1
"look, you’re just wrong."
That settles it then.
"There is peer reviewed information on this."
Present it then.
"Haarp and DARPA with U.S. naval academy using cloud seeding/geo engineering."
What????
"This is now Public knowledge, nothing conspiracy based."
What do you mean now? HAARP has never at any stage been classified and has nothing to do do with cloud seeding which has been around since the 1940s, whilst neither have anything to do with geoengineering which is a very broad umbrella encompassing GGR (aforestation, biochar, BECCS, ocean fertilisation; and SRM (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, marine cloud brightening, space reflectors) and again, has never been secretive. The latter (Solar Radiation Management) is entirely hypothetical with the exception of ground based albedo modification. What's your point? - and what does any of this have to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers term 'chemtrails'?
"The chemicals do alter weather, as well as assist with technology."
What chemicals? How? What technology are you referring to?
"The compounds act as miniature satellites- for global communication assistance."
🤣
"Just because technology has outsmarted you, does not mean it has outsmarted the person you are debating."
Jamie Nadeau, meet David Dunning and Justin Kruger, Dunning, Kruger? - meet Jamie Nadeau.
"You are just absolutely wrong."
About what precisely?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheCarnivoreDigital
"Making it rain is not controlling the weather… you sure about that?"
That's not what I said is it. To reiterate, I said that cloud seeding is not as you claim, "controlling the weather" which is technically impossible. So, yes, I'm sure about that thanks.
Cloud seeding is not necessarily "making it rain". Any idea how erratic and hit and miss it is? To clarify, cloud seeding is the introduction of additional nucleation into existing stratiform/cumulus cloud masses which are already conducive to precipitation in an attempt to prematurely induce rainfall or to intensify it. Hardly "controlling the weather".
Control in this context, implies that we could make it rain whenever and wherever we wish which we cannot. Moreover, cloud seeding is a minor intervention on the micro scale and as an unreliable practice, its very efficacy is questionable. "Controlling the weather" meanwhile, would require manipulation of synoptic/global systems and air masses, as I said, a technical impossibility.
We are however, influencing and changing weather patterns through anthropogenic climate change, but again, nothing to do with 'control'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I used to believe that we have been to the moon, I was young, naive and thought the government would never lie to us, right? Lol Now I’m older."
...You got an internet connection and fell for junk online dumb conspiracy theory instead. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that ludicrous claims of a moon landing hoax or any other ridiculous random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
"With so much technology available to us nowadays and with the advancements push us to advance more, why then, has the single most significant technological feat accomplished by us - never been duplicated!!!????"
Cost. Apollo was cancelled in 1972 due to its lack of sustainability and political and public will. It is insanely expensive to sent crewed missions to the moon. Meanwhile, Project Artemis was only approved in 2017 and has a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme.
Despite technological advancement in aviation, there has been no supersonic passenger service for over two decades. Concorde must have been a hoax.
"You would think, that since we went there in the 60’s, we should have been there a dozen times by now - but we haven’t. That alone should make you wonder…."
Apollo went there in the 1970s too - until the programme was prematurely cancelled by Congress.
"My grandfather believed we never went, and I used to laugh at him - now I blv he might have been right all along…."
Nope, your Grandfather was an idiot.
"Heck, how did we get that moon buggy out to the moon from the rocket ship?"
You mean the lunar module? There were three taken as part of the later J Class missions - Apollos 15, 16 and 17. It was folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the descent stage equipment bay. You could have ascertained this for yourself as there are ample schematics that you can find in seconds, and footage of its loading and deployment on the moon. Why are you claiming that something is fake that you demonstrably have absolutely no understanding of whatsoever?
"How did the lunar module make it on its first attempt? Where was it practiced? Where are those videos?"
It was tested by Apollo 5 and Apollo 9 in Earth orbit then taken within 47,000 feet of the lunar surface during Apollo 10 by Tom Stafford and Eugene Cernan. This almost ended in disaster. Was that faked too? Again, footage is readily accessible.
"What did the lunar buggy run on? Batteries?"
Two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries developed by Eagle-Picher with a charge capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).
"What was its ignition source?"
Wait - you're being serious. You actually think that an internal combustion engine would be used on the moon?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Firstly, you are referring to Apollo 17. The actual time spent on the surface was divided between three EVAs lasting a total of 22 hours, four minutes on the lunar surface. The first was 7 hours, 11 minutes and 53 seconds, the second, 7 hours and 36 minutes and 56 seconds and the final one lasted 7 hours, 15 minutes, 8 seconds. Maintaining temperatures in the suits wasn't the issue - it was shedding heat. Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb. Oxygen and water were rechargeable for multiple EVAs and power was provided by a lithium 279 watt-hour battery. For the J-Class missions, Apollo 15, 16 and 17, battery capacity was increased to 390 watt-hours.
The suits were only pressurised to 3.8 psi. This created only minor resistance, but the AL7 space suits were equipped with special joints or tapers in the fabric to help the astronauts bend and flex.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"We didn't go to the moon."
Fascinating, do tell...
"the van alden radiation belt"
It's the Van Allen radiation belts. In the plural, since there are two, with a third that is transitory.
"can not"
Cannot is one word.
"be passed thru by a human being, one time going through would make you sick with radiation coming back 2nd time death"
if you have a shred of integrity the I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions.
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you form humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such dumb and ignorant claims on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject.
"Nasa has a video Saying they lost the technology to go "back" to the moon. lol"
No they really don't. You don't "lose" the technology, rather the capability. With the cancellation of Apollo, the tooling, plants, hardware and crucially, the heavy lift requirement was all abandoned. Much of Apollo was had built and the expertise was retired. The expertise is long gone as are the production processes. The technology has become obsolete, not lost, but superseded by modern tech.
2
-
2
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
Seriously? How many times? It's the same things over and over and over and over and over again with you people in spite of how many times this has been explained to you. if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, intellectual honesty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, it's very clear what he is referring to. But no, instead, you fools moronically succumb to subjective confirmation bias and feeble minded quote mining.
You are referring to a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which an engineer called Kelly Smith discussed the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced high density electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor - can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems/life support systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success.
Why is it even necessary to explain all this again? What's wrong with you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The laughing is characteristic of those who try to ridicule people who have brains and question things in life"
Conspiracy believers such as yourself don't have brains and you aren't remotely interested in the answers to the dumb questions that you parrot.
"From the BBC, I only expect lies."
This isn't made by the BBC, rather the production company Talkback. They merely screen it. The BBC are fully answerable to the legal process and are regulated by OFCOM.
And meanwhile, the crap online conspiracy theory that you place your faith in is fully accountable, entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This again? Seriously? How many times?
Press conference three and a half weeks after returning from the moon landing to be more precise. Maybe you should watch it in its entirety, in which you see the same "happy enthusiastic" astronauts laughing and joking.
So you obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have this. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology then.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However astronauts such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Ron Evans and Eugene Cernan in particular were far more ebullient and outgoing in their nature. Perhaps you should find and watch the post mission pressers for the other five moon landings that you freaks never mention and are doubtless unaware of.
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
Can I suggest that you find pictures and footage of them beaming in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer immediately after recovery and when you've done that, as I suggested, find the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh Christ alive, where do you start with all this?
"I agree about the press conference. I tell that to people. You wanna question the moon landing(s)? Start there."
Then you obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology. Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions. Whilst at it, find footage and images of them beaming after recovery in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer.
"Watch the promo video for the Orion project where the guy says "First we need to figure-out how to safely send human beings through the radiation belts". I guess he didn't get the memo that not only did we "do" that but human beings were allegedly hitting golf balls, dropping feathers & hammers and driving around in dune buggies like it was nothing - every couple of months!"
You are referring to a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which Kelly Smith discusses the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced high density electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again?
"You talk about having better technology now - what was wrong with that old technology? Essentially untested and performed nearly flawlessly, losing not 1 human life in "Man's Greatest Achievement"!"
It didn't perform flawlessly though. All nine voyages to the moon were dogged by glitches and potentially mission aborting challenges. The success of six out of seven landings is testament to the redundancies engineered into the programme and the ingenuity of the astronauts, engineers and technical staff on the ground.
The Apollo technology was retired together with the tooling and manufacturing processes. All of this are obsolete. Are you suggesting that if we return to supersonic passenger services it's simply a matter of rolling Concorde out of the hangar/museum again?
*_"Look up the clip of "NASA astronaut and engineer" Don Pettit telling us that NASA "destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back.."
Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase, "destroyed". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"Look-up the clip of Gene Krantz admitting that they lost ALL of the telemetry tapes. What?"
Do you even know what telemetry is? None of the telemetry from the Apollo missions has been lost - but it's all pretty much irrelevant. Some magnetic back up tapes of the Apollo 11 EVA that were never intended for archival use were erased. These are all defunct now and some from other missions have been sold in auction to collectors. There are real-time recordings and transcriptions of all the missions and the data/confirmation can be found in the post flight mission reports. These are available in PDf format for download
You have done nothing but parrot the same old obligatory junk conspiracy theory based upon your own personal incredulity and a complete lack of knowledge of the science, technology and history of the Apollo Programme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Charger R/T 1969
"You are a liar"
For the benefit of those reading this, do feel free to demonstrate why highlighting the inaccuracies in my responses supported by independently verifiable sources. You'll find that your contention does not lie with me, rather demonstrable physical laws that inform the science of aviation and meteorology.
"you obviously are an imbecile"
Again, no use saying it - demonstrate why.
"or are devoid of any logical thinking"
Would you like a shovel to clear up that metric ton of unintentional irony?
"and/or of course purposeful disinformation."
Which is?
"Chemtrails have also been studied by honest scientists."
Finally. Could you name them, together with their full credentials, specialist fields of expertise and link me to their publications in relation to chemtrails? There are hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails. Given the supposed two decades of this alleged spraying and the availability and technical sophistication of environmental monitoring and remote sensing the world over there must similarly be hundreds of in-situ analytical studies of your claimed "chemtrails" at source. If it's not too much trouble,would you mind linking me to one? Thanks ever so much.
"Also, contrails dissappear within seconds, or minutes"
Please do explain why - in particular why they can't persist for longer and also, why a claimed legal practitioner has the spelling ability of a seven year old?
"chem-trails last for hours."
Much like condensed atmospheric water vapour also can?....oh wait.
"You should be embarrassed by your coments."
Coming from an anonymous online keyboard warrior on the comments section of You Tube that thinks that "contrails disappear within seconds or minutes", offers little beyond simple minded incredulity and ad-hominem abuse and is unable to spell "disappear" and "comments"? - Not really.
How's that "legal career" coming along?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What does that have to do with the contrails under discussion in this video?
The $20 million launch of the recent Harvard Research programme is a drop in the ocean. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to understand the economic, environmental and practical challenges of geoengineering. The systematic dominance of physical science and engineering perspectives in geoengineering research encourages a neglect of social and environmental impacts. This negligence is characteristic of an approach that addresses symptoms but aims to leave the underlying conditions that spawned the problem in place. Yet the socio-political and socio-economic implications of large-scale technological schemes to “fix” the climate are profound: under existing global power relations, geoengineering is bound to be exploited for corporate and strategic interest.
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involves such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors.
I'll wager, (given the desperate attempts by the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory to conflate geoengineering with this online hoax), that you are referring Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. It does not designed to, as you say, block out the sun - rather reduce incoming insolation. Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Computer simulations have predicted other possible impacts of geoengineering schemes on the natural world. Injecting aerosols in the stratosphere could suppress rainfall and potentially interfere with monsoon patterns. Carbon farm monocultures could conceivably destroy natural ecosystems at a massive scale. Given that natural processes and systems are complex, non-linear, and in some measure chaotic and unpredictable, the overwhelming majority of effects that will ripple through our global ecosystems might only become apparent after geoengineering technologies are actually deployed.
Regarding SAI - even if it were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilitse the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
2
-
2
-
2
-
"No rain in the forecast and we have clear blue skies outside Atlanta, planes leaving the normal trail that disappears. When rain is coming like today I can literally see checkerboard designs in the sky basically as they cross cross and the vapor stays for 24 hours or more."
The duration of a contrail is determined by the immediate atmospheric conditions in respect to temperature, pressure and humidity. Persistent contrails can often be precursors of approaching frontal systems conducive to rainfall.
"I notice today while they are doing it I can see some rainbow effects in the mist they spray."
Why wouldn't you expect condensed atmospheric water vapour to scatter light? No different to a lawn sprinkler on a sunny day.
"Even the CIA director says they have been spraying for climate change calling it stratospheric injection."
I think you meant the former Director of the CIA, John Brennan - and no, he said nothing of the sort. Whilst appearing as a guest speaker for the Council on Foreign Relations, the theme of the talk was "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program for example, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications, including technological and science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a PESTLE framework. He broached a range of research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talked about anti -ageing technologies.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan says that "they have been spraying for climate change". Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Chemtrails are an online hoax based upon the misidentification of contrails and in an attempt to vindicate their claims, perpetrators and believers in this conspiracy theory are increasingly intentionally conflating it with research into Solar Radiation Management. In the unlikely event that SAI was ever deployed, you would know about it because it would be publicised, just as you know about the research because it has never been hidden. You would not however know about it because of a large white plume in the wake or a civil airliner, as in the footage contained in this video. SAI would take place at double the altitudes of the aircraft you are witnessing taking the form of a fine mist and very probably in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns. Currently, one of the major problems that it confronts is the fact that there is no aircraft in existence that could convey the necessary payload to the designated altitudes. This would require a heavily modified fleet, or entirely new designs, which would be prohibitively expensive.
What do research proposals into SAI have to do with the misidentification of contrails? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection exists solely in the province paper based hypotheticals and although a small scale trail is designated for next year involving a ballon and a few kilograms of calcium carbonate to measure dispersal, there is not even agreement upon the material to be used to simulate the cooling effects of a volcanic aerosols. As I said, it is very unlikely that this would ever become a reality due to appreciable logistical barriers, geopolitical ramifications, governance and opposition both within and outside the scientific community, were it ever to be deployed in a last ditch attempt to mitigate global warming, it would be imperceptible to the ground based observer and certainly wouldn't resemble condensed atmospheric water vapour that you are seeing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Go and have a little chat with BART SIBREL"
Yes, why not? Because after all, nothing says informed, honest and accurate like a former cab driver and convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry and a proven liar and fraud with absolutely no specialist knowledge of scientific expertise whatsoever.
"Nasa has had 50 yrs to think up excuses and questionable MODERN, scientific 'explanation's. YET STILL, huge and import factors are never lodgically explained."
No one, including NASA "thinks up" scientific explanations. In order for something to have explanative scientific power and logical reasoning it needs to be substantive, demonstrable, axiomatic and independently verifiable. Incidentally, it's 'logically' - and why have you apostrophised 'explanations'?
"MY favourite?"
Do tell.
"WHATCHA DO WITH ALL THE MILLIONS OF RECORDED STATS GUYS ? ere ere, OH YEAH WE LOST EM'---NO, WE BURNT 'EM; yeah, that was it. DAM, now we can't go to the moon, again.?"
Said no NASA representative ever. It's possible that you are referring to some raw archival magnetic back up data tapes pertaining to Apollo 11 that was never needed or intended for archival use and so were subsequently erased. Surely you can't be that confused?
"Don't mention Van Allens Radiation Belt"
Why? They posed no barrier to the manned Apollo flights that traversed them. Incidentally, they are belts, since there are two, with a third that is transitory. Perhaps you should listen to what James Van Allen himself had to say about the subject as opposed to Bart Sibrel?
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable."
James Van Allen (2003).
"OH, A NASA TV PROG for schools said as much, Confirming that ''one day we will be able to go through the radiation belt. ???????????"
Er no, they said nothing of the sort. Speaking in a 2014 video called 'Orion: Trail by Fire" NASA engineer Kelly Smith was commenting purely on the (then) new Orion capsule. Because the computers onboard Orion are much more powerful than those of the Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. Core rope memory is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the Apollo AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive and this has obvious ramifications for the electronics on board and life support systems. Later that year, Orion was sent into the densest regions of the VABs where it performed flawlessly and following last year's unmanned Artemis 1 test it is now scheduled for a crewed mission to the moon and transit through the VABs for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Can we go to the moon today?"
Yes, Artemis 1 returned last month.
"No, so htf did we go in 1969"
The Apollo Programme.
"anyone who believes this rubbish, is either stupid, deluded or in denial"
So that'll be entire branches of scientific disciplines such as mathematics, physics and geology, associated branches including astrophysics, orbital mechanics and petrology and such related specialist fields as aerospace engineering, rocketry and computing that collectively verify the authenticity and validity of the moon landings. All comprising acute expertise, knowledge and individuals far more informed and clever than yourself, a random nobody on the comments section of You Tube.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JJ-kz7sm
Firstly, the air is full of harmful particulate due to ground level and urban pollution. PM2.5 present the greatest health risk. These fine particles can get deep into lungs and may even enter into the bloodstream. Prolonged exposure to these particles can affect a person's lungs and heart. Coarse particles (PM10-2.5) are of less concern, although they may irritate a person's eyes, nose, and throat. Commercial air traffic has very little to do with this - unless you are in proximity to an airport where aircraft are taxiing, taking off and landing.
The trails that you are seeing are not "water vapour" - water vapour is an invisible gas. A contrail is condensed atmospheric moisture in the form of ice crystals. 3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? What about all those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions?
2
-
@JJ-kz7sm
"Are there metals that can be used as lubrant in fuel?"
I think you meant 'lubricant'.
All combustion engines produce metallic elements in the exhaust. These are present in the fuel and exhaust in trace quantities and also to a much lesser extent are the product of wear and tear. The total emission of metals will be less than 0.3 percent of total fuel particulate matter mass. Particles emitted from aircraft turbine engines are generally ultrafine, i.e. smaller than 100 nm. approximately 99.5-99.9% of the molar content of typical commercial engine
The most abundant metals in jet exhaust are Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, and Ti. The sources are kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components. To reiterate, all the elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in road going diesel and petroleum.
"you don't understand the word if."
An you don't the basis of my response. All hydrocarbon fuels produce harmful effects from combustion at close quarters. There are hundreds of parallel studies into the effects of exhaust from petrol and diesel exhaust. Why are you not similarly concerned about traffic pollution? Also, the effects of PM2.5 are far more acute at ground level - as is the formation and trapping of N0X in our towns and cities.
The relative amount of exhaust emissions depends upon combustion temperature and pressure, fuel to air ratio and the extent to which fuel is atomised and mixed with inlet air. 3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted.
"I also ask what happens when they dump fuel in flight? Where does that go?"
It vaporises and disperses harmlessly. However, there have been very rare isolated emergencies in which fuel dumps have been necessary at low altitude over populated areas, which is obviously not good. The practice of fuel dumping in general is not at all commonplace and extremely expensive for airlines operating on very tight margins.
https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-fuel-dumping/
https://www.businessinsider.com/planes-dump-jet-fuel-aircraft-landing-emergency-2019-12?r=US&IR=T
2
-
2
-
@JJ-kz7sm
"so what stops them from putting and additive into the mix?"
Putting what into the mix? And who precisely are they?
Jet fuel is independently sampled post refining and randomly at airports. So you are suggesting that the entire petroleum industry and aviation sector worldwide has been collectively coerced and coopted...and if so, for what purpose? Have you any idea of the litigation if jet fuel was compromised. Additives such as PRIST are in minute quantities and carefully controlled and regulated. Any nefarious addition to jet fuel would have to be in such minute quantities to render any effects negligible.
"The whole chem trail theory is plausible."
No it isn't. To clarify, the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, measured and studied in excess of 80 years.
"I don't prescribe to it but I also don't like people who take the stand that you are."
I am irrelevant. The chemtrail conspiracy theory debunks itself by being a physical and mathematical impossibility.
"People who day they have the answer when all you have is science supporting the plausibility of a different outcome than what you say."
Again, I am irrelevant. Contrails are governed by known physical laws underpinned by mathematical axioms that are therefore demonstrable and have a voice of their own.
"From outside of your own anus it is easy see."
What a strange comment. You simply don't like the fact that I questioned the content of your posts, asked you some questions and challenged your inaccuracies when you are attempting to sound clever online. Strikes me, that you are quite accustomed to talking out of yours.As I said, I am irrelevant, and utterly impervious to your irrational ad-hominem abuse.
"Take a step back and review the English language a little more in depth. If, is a condition as you know from math."
"If" does not mean scientifically illiterate word salad.
"Verbiage means something in this language."
Verbiage is excessively, overly and unnecessary complex speech or writing - as your own posts are testimony to, minus the technical knowledge.
"All you have proven so far is that a plane can distribute and the clouds can deliver."
I haven't really talked about either. I challenged your initial post and responded to your subsequent questions about metal in fuels.
"It's plausible."
No it isn't.
"This is one of those grey areas, not so white and black."
I assure you that the science behind the formation of contrails is definitive and unequivocal.
"This is nothing new. This is a 30 year old theory and it's plausible over and over."
Incorrect. This is a 30 year old conspiracy theory that is parroted over and over - and a particularly dumb one to boot. To reiterate, your chemtrail hoax involves the misidentification of persistent contrails. You can fantasise all you like, but your conjecture is ill-informed and worthless.
2
-
@davidbros849
"You just found info that is relevant to push your point."
On the contrary, confirmation bias and false equivalence are the preserve of the chemtrails conspiracy theory. I can assure you that I'm very knowledgeable about the origins, perpetrators and background of the latter in addition to actually understanding what geoengineering is.
"Look up white papers from the UN and others that outline the goeneneering project going on."
Better still, why don't you simply post them here? - and what "project"?
There are multiple projects into geoengineering both in terms of research and application. There are many GGR strategies such as aforestation, Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS carbon sequestering), biochar and studies into ocean fertilisation. Solar Radiation management, barring ground based albedo modification and the isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening, is entirely hypothetical. The largest research initiative is Harvard's 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' project, exploring the replication of the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and the potential to combat global temperature rise. This has not even graduated beyond paper based proposal and mathematical modelling.
Do feel free to produce these "white papers". You'll find that they are nothing more than feasibility studies examining, method, cost, logistics environmental impact and in the case of SAI, the huge insurmountable problem of international governance.
What does any of this have to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails under discussion in this thread?
2
-
@lizardfirefighter110
"Your funny"
So are you - you can't differentiate between 'your' and you're'.
"Once again my comments bug you enough to try and debunk me."
Your comments don't "bug me" in the slightest - I find them highly amusing. As I explained, I am not "trying" anything. Your daft conspiracy theory debunks itself.
"You speak like a lawyer, maybe in training! Lawyers are payed according to how well they can obstinate the truth to persuade the jury."
The legal process requires evidence and your own insistence, personal incredulity and mindless parroting of online nonsense indicts no one but yourself. Incidentally, I think you meant 'paid'.
"My final comment: “I know my blue sky turns white by mid-afternoon after seeing white streaks from horizon to horizon against a blue sky in the morning” This is a rock solid observation. You have explained eloquently everything that is not what I have seen and have told me condescendingly that I am ignorant for not understanding what you are telling me"
I am irrelevant - as suggested, follow the known atmospheric science.
"The bottom line I am typing out on my phone what I have observed and what I have learned."
No, you are arrogantly making a series of unsubstantiated claims and conclusions based upon your own ignorance and gullibility. That is the diametric opposite. You people refuse to "learn".
"But for some reason you find it necessary to sit at a computer, no doubt with a playbook with BS verbiage and distraction paragraphs, to set me straight."
This is a comments section, I am at liberty to reply and challenge your claims - and don't you and your ilk just despise that. No use simply saying it - what "bullshit" are you referring to? Everything that I typed in reply to you is independently verifiable.
"I know that my observations and understanding on this issue are closer to gettin at the truth than your official explanations"
They are not "my" explanations, As explained, your dispute lies with the known science of the atmosphere and aviation, which is governed by physical laws and is thus axiomatic with a voice of its own. Nothing to do with me.
Ypur "understanding on this issue" ?? - and you have the audacity to call me "funny"?
"Furthermore, given how fucked up our government is, it is perfectly with in my preview to have a conspiracy theory"
Another logical fallacy. Simply because governments lie, deceive and are in your view "fucked up", that does not then afford legitimacy to any random conspiracy theory of our arbitrary choice of or devising. - As syllogistic fallacy. Also, there are 127 'governments' in the world, many of them in opposition. This is a global phenomena - your trails are witnessed wherever there is air traffic.
"Example: If I say that there was more than fire that initiated the collapse sequence of WTC 7, you reach for your 9/11 playbook with every known official argument against such an assertion."
Incorrect again - I'd tell you to stay on topic.
Now did you read the science I provided you with? Of course you didn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TCM215
"ok cool so how have contrails in the last 25 years gone from trails we can observe for around 5 min at most to trails that prevail in the sky for 12 hours"
Utterly incorrect. Persistent contrails have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation.
In Flight to Arras. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942).
the following paper is almost five decades old.
" Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"these compounds along with which Aluminum oxide destroys our vegetation and human life as we speak, these chemtrails they are being sprayed into our skies for the last twenty years"
No one is spraying. The chemtrails conspiracy theory is simply predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails.
"con trails usually do not last that long, at best they melt with couple of minutes"
A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. The governing factors are temperature, relative humidity, pressure and the interrelationship between them. Also, contrails do not "melt", they sublimate back into their gaseous phase, invisible water vapour.
"and are not that long of a trail, it’s usually couple of hundred yards at best"
A contrail could be a couple of hundred kilometers. At the altitude that commercial aircraft cruise, the cold air may also be humid and at a suitably low vapour pressure a contrail will endure because it is unable to sublimate into its gaseous phase - as I explained, water vapour. In conditions of supersaturation in respect to ice, then the trail will not only linger, but will expand and increase in mass where the aircraft has merely precipitated it, 99% of the ice budget is drawn from the available moisture in the atmosphere. Now think about it - even in the case of your few hundred yard contrail, do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in such a trail and the MTOW of the aircraft depositing it? Contrails can be over 100 miles long and can expand and spread becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus (which is ultimately what they are). What chemical can do that, and what aircraft has the capacity to deposit them? To question the science of contrail formation is to question the science of a cloud.
"with multiple lines of white color smoke"
You are referring to irisation caused by refraction and very common with aerodynamic contrails.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Check Dane Wigington"
Con artist, and career conspiracy theorist.
"Dane has a background in solar energy. He is a former employee of Bechtel Power Corp. and was a licensed contractor in California and Arizona."
He was a fitter. So what?
"Geoengineering is the artificial modification of Earths climate systems through two primary ideologies, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)"
Correct. It is a very broad term divided into two branches, GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists on paper and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be employed. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
To be clear, the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. It originated in the late 1990s on the late night radio shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM a sensationalist commercial radio station that to this day manufactures conspiracy theory and gossip because it boosts ratings and thereby advertising revenue. The internet now works in the same way and entertainment platforms/social media has seen the burgeoning proliferation in conspiracy theory which is lucrative for all concerned. The perpetrators of this fraud such as Wigington have simply conflated their hoax with research into geoengineering in an attempt to gain credence and legitimacy to their claims. Let's be clear, if the believers in this bullshit are stupid enough to subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to convince them that a cloud is a conspiracy theory then they are unlikely to be able to understand the technicalities and differences when it comes to SIA or cloud seeding.
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer to to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the contrails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimbojimbob6363
"Take chemtrails for ie, we see them they don't go away like they did 30 years ago after a min. or so,....so what's different why do they stay for hours sometimes 8 hours instead of 1 min."
Firstly, contrails are far more prevalent than they were 30 years ago due to the huge expansion of commercial aviation and associated routes flown. Secondly, as I have already explained to you that is simply untrue. The persistent contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. This is independently verifiable.
"How about the 1947 roswell crash....they said weather balloon ...why don't they have armed military and guards over every weather balloon why just that one? Epstein suicide ..... all cameras and guards on watch happened to be down or away at that moment etc....goes on and on... yeah all conspiracy theories LMAO"
Yeah, all baseless conspiracy theories designed to mislead and dupe the gullible, the impressionable and the critically impaired.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"But for some reason, nobody go back to moon."
Given that no one was paying for it, no, they didn't.
"Everybody who worked in the project completely forget how to go back there."
No one 'forgot how to go back there'. The plants, processes, tooling, specialist expertise was all retired or moved on, whilst the technology was left to lie fallow and become obsolete.
"Accidently nobody care enough to write down all the step to go to the moon."
What on Earth are you going on about now? The Apollo programme was fully documented. All of the technical details, the schematics, the mission planning, the technology is recorded and can be detailed in full. We fully understand how Apollo landed men on the moon.
"Also nobody know who actually work on the project that brought human to the moon, except some specific famous person."
What? NASA is a civilian organisation. The personnel involved in the Apollo programme was huge, but fully transparent. There have been books written and documentaries made about the astronauts, the engineers, the management, the computer scientists, the contractors, the consultants - right from the top tier upper echelons of the project down to those that stitched the flags or ran the catering. Where are you getting this nonsense from?
"50 years later, with all the technology advantage, yet nobody able to copy the technology that bring human to the moon, including the people that claim "We went to the moon"
That technology is largely defunct. You don't copy technology. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. To reiterate, it is fully understood how to send crewed missions to the moon. Project Artemis was only finally approved as recently as 2018.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"Really? It's so well recorded to the point that the Soviets at their peak fail to understand and un-able to re-create in their space race?"
What? Firstly, clearly there was a degree of secrecy during the 1960s and the development of Apollo. However, it wasn't military grade and although the Soviets had information about this they were committed to their own moon landing programme and the N1 rocket/Zond which was very different to the Saturn V. What you need to understand it that the Soviet bid to land man on the moon was doomed to failure for the start. This was in part due to intrinsic, irreversible design flaws in the N1. Its clustered engine design. At the root of this was the deep personal conflict between Valentin Glushko chief rocket engine designer, and Sergei Korolev who originally lead Soviet Lunar program before his death.Glushko refused to work on powerful LOX/PR engines for lunar rocket. To avoid the spinning detonation or combustion instability associated with a larger more powerful engine (that the Apollo scientists solved with the F1s), clustered configurations of smaller engines were favoured. In spite of this, the Soviets couldn't solve the flow separation problem for large nozzle sizes. The Soviets never trusted themselves to build a thrust chamber beyond 500,000 lbf. That’s the rumor, at least. So trusting only smaller engines, meant clustering and that it a completely different paradigm. The complex plumbing necessary to feed fuel and oxidizer into the clustered arrangement of rocket engines was fragile and a major factor in its continual failure in addition to unsophisticated flight computers and software. The untimely death of Korolev in addition to the fact that the Soviet moon programme was operating on a fraction of the budget of Apollo meant that it was never going to be successful.
"The first step of learning is by copying. If you fail to copy a "well document" program, how can you take any lesson from it?"
Of course there are lessons taken from it. There is a huge amount of information and data yielded from the Apollo programme, but that does not mean duplicating the technology. Why should we build a vehicle that used 1960s technology when we could build far more capable, safer spacecraft today? Many principles remain the same and the J2X engines used for Project Artemis are essentially a derivation of the Apollo J2s. The SLS itself utilises much of the technology from the shuttle programme such as upgraded SRBs whilst Artemis 1 reused three of the Atlantis RS-25 engines.
"How can you be sure that the old program was even really worked or not?"
Because scientific, independent and third party evidence tells us so, in addition to the huge quantity of data and experimentation yielded from the nine missions to the moon.
"Copy => Study => Modify" is the key process for engineering as a whole. Unless you are a super genius who creates everything from zero."
Not when the technology is outmoded, together with the processed, plants, tooling and manufacturing all purposed for the 1960s it isn't. When we eventually resume a supersonic passenger service, (and it's approaching a quarter of a century now), they aren't about to dust off Concorde, or a duplicate and roll it out of retirement from a museum or hangar.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"Which exactly "third party evidence" told you so?"
By the time of The Apollo missions, and actually, by Shepherd's first Mercury flight, NASA had already established at least 30 ground stations on five continents; several islands; and aboard ships sailing the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. This required the complicity of foreign nations and governments. However, countries such as Australia were eager to directly participate and the U.S. encouraged them to take the helm of the DSN communications stations. NASA selected the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to receive the remote Apollo 11 moonwalk readings, or telemetry, whilst the 85-foot antenna at Honeysuckle Creek to the south tracked the LEM and the moonwalks. If the USA was going to fake the videos, it would take the cooperation of those other countries to do it. Spain for example, offered Robledo and Fresnedillas. There were also independent institutions and facilities most famously Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, which was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time as Apollo 11, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings that Sir Bernard Lovell's team had made. But there are also many, many others, such as Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees), The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy and the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies. This in addition to thousands of amateur radio operators/technicians and astronomers across the globe. NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories. The TLI burn was visible in the sky from the Apollo 15 mission. There was even a group at Kettering Grammar School who using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits. In addition to this, academics in the Soviet Union published a paper in 1978 measuring coordinates with the various sectors of the RATAN-600 telescope. The selenographic coordinates of the ALSEP transmitters deployed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 12 and 14-17 crews were measured to an accuracy of 1.0 to 1.5 deg of arc (or 12-15 arcsec in alpha and delta) with a 1.5-arcmin x 1-deg beam. ALSEP was designed to be assembled and configured by hand and could only have been placed there by manned landings. Also, independent geologists and mineralogists worldwide have examined the Apollo moon rocks using petrological analysis. Planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are spearheading a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions. BRGM in France were one of the first independent laboratories to analyse a moon rock from Apollo 11,. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
These are just some of the examples of the top of my head.
"All I have seen so far are "trace of Apollo", not anything solid yet."
Then stop looking solely at dumb online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
"People can discover water on the mood, collect moon dusk, scan the surface. But sending 1 robot to a specific location for high res pictures is too complicated?"
Three rovers have been sent to the moon. Future missions plan to explore the far side, whilst two are destined for the lunar polar regions.
Do you actually think that missions to the moon are predicated upon satisfying the demands of, and at the insistence and behest of a community of credulous cretins and scientifically illiterate conspiracy believers that can't be arsed to actually learn about the Apollo Programme, as opposed to science and exploration? NASA are neither obliged nor duty bound to respond to arrant stupidity.
2
-
@hoanglinhle4468
"So NASA claimed they were on the moon and confirmed it with their own station? Do you have any idea what "Third Party" mean?"
Did you not read my reply to you? You seem to ignore 99% of content of responses and just blithely plough on. No, these stations were provided by different governments and countries and staffed by their own nationals. Have you any idea what Independent Nations means?
"Do you have any idea what "Third Party" mean?"
Yep. Read my reply again in which I have provided multiple examples that you chose to disregard.
"Also copying Wiki doesn't help man."
No copying from Wiki, but you'll no doubt find that the same information is available since it is independently verifiable.
"They always "We confirm this and that" but fail to give evidence."
There is a an abundance of verifiable objective scientific and independent evidence that the moon landings are real. You requested the third party proof, I gave it to you and you chose to ignore most of it.
"If you think NASA can't lie just because it requires some high authority, remember Iraq's bottle of salt."
NASA are fully accountable. Regarding your Iraq non-sequitur, although no WMD production was discovered, in the Halabja massacre, Saddam Hussein orchestrated the biggest chemical attack on a civilian population in history - even exceeding the crimes of Assad.
And meanwhile, the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly defer to is of course is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. The words metric, ton and salt immediately spring to mind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@calotcha108
"So, you're saying that we can know their location of departure and destination?"
By accessing MLAT, yes, very inexpensively.
"And yet no one has tracked the origin and destination of these chemtrail planes to debunk the theory behind them?"
Why would they given that "Chemtrail Planes" don't exist? You are the one alleging that they do. The onus does not lie with the rational world or the commercial aviation sector to mitigate for the incredulity of a small bunch of online conspiracy theorists that don't understand civil air traffic. Moreover, as the ones making these claims the burden of truth lies with you to provide evidence. Don't expect others to prove an absent.
"Yet i've seen photos of the chemical containers inside these planes"
No, you've seen images dishonestly appropriated by You Tube conspiracy videos.
Odd don't you think that they bear an uncanny resemblance to these...
https://youtu.be/IxMSoxzYhG8
https://youtu.be/Oz1RH6gqQ8s?t=19
https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/washington/737max-flight-test-prepare-02-12-18.page
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/peek-inside-boeing-747-8/
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/5636164/24
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6188301
"and much, much more that lead me to believe that there is something "
going on"
Science is not about belief. Instead of seeking explanations on You Tube, why not read up on some objective and independently verifiable sources and learn about aviation and meteorology instead?
"whether it's weather modification or whatever else anyone wants to think."
Weather modification is the legal terminology for cloud seeding which is a commercial enterprise, doesn't leave a trail, involves light aircraft, does not involve spraying and is conducted at a fraction of the altitude of the contrails under discussion in this video.
2
-
@calotcha108
"Yet what you forget is that science can blind us."
The rudiments of the principles governing the formation of a contrail are not hard to grasp. Granted, the applied mathematics expressing the contrail factor, less so.
"Well, how many times has science been wrong?"
The entire rationale of the scientific method is to a falsify and attempt to disprove its precepts...which is why conspiracy theorists run a mile from it.
"I choose to believe in my senses, in what i see and experience regardless of what science says."
No, you choose to believe online charlatans and deceptive You Tube conspiracy theory videos, which is precisely the reason that you think that ballast barrels involved in prototype testing of aircraft are "chemtrail interiors".
"If you ask me, science is like religion (not many see this, you bet)."
Known science obeys ineluctable physical laws and must be tested, reproduced and empirically validated. Religion is an unfalsifiable system based upon belief.
"Evidence is always based on what we choose to believe and accept as real"
Absolute arrant nonsense. Scientific evidence relies on data, and it is crucial for researchers to ensure that the data they collect is representative of the “true” situation. This means using proved or appropriate ways of collecting and analysing the data and ensuring the research is conducted ethically and safely. Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested and reproducible.
"Yet from my own personal experiences, i've touched and discovered what science had not touched and will not touch for a long time all because science has to wait for what is evidence to it."
You are "touched" by the classical universe, and the core of your existence can be reduced to the realm of quantum physics; you experience, electromagnetism and the force of gravity - but we as of yet lack a grand unified theory. The science of contrails however is understood, demonstrable and supported by applied mathematics and self evident physical laws.
"Did you know that most everything science discovers was at one point already discovered by regular people with no science background?"
Examples?
Let's commence with an MRI scanner.
"Yeah, science can be a drag, i tell you."
Indeed - curse that device that enables you to type this, or damn that infernal stem cell technology that regenerates damaged tissue and saves lives.
"So, i just move on"
No you don't - you are happy to live off the spoils of technical advancement and expertise, you just refuse to acknowledge it and understand it. Precisely the reason that you subscribe to a baseless online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
"without having to wait for science or some politicians, doctors, and so on"
Physical laws are not set by any of the latter. They are axiomatic and thereby have a voice of their own.
2
-
@calotcha108
"Exactly! Except that we think we know what the laws are."
As I explained, the physical laws governing the formation of contrails are axiomatic and thereby self evident. They are also expressed by applied mathematics. Simply because this eludes your understanding, that does not invalidate them.
"Btw, just because i use and enjoy many of our technology doesn't mean i am to blindly accept and embrace every single bs technology that is out there, do i?"
What you choose to accept or reject has no bearing upon reality.
Also, odd that you said this...
"Yeah, science can be a drag, i tell you. So, i just move on without having to wait for science or some politicians, doctors, and so on. ;)"
Then on another thread - posted this.
https://youtu.be/0NCI8xYnJtE
Sounds as though so long as "science" selectively says what you want to hear, that's fine - (even though there are no "Doctors Pilots or Scientists" in this video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jimmy-tq8dk
"No, allow me to translate since English apparently isn't your forte"
Coming from someone that can't even punctuate a sentence properly.
"He believed in fairy tales as a kid, though as an adult, knows better"
Right. So that'll be those entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, private enterprise contractors and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
As an adult, knows better because Bart Sibrel told him so? Righto then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Windbend3r
"Instead of attacking this guy why don’t you attack what he’s saying."
All of Sibrel's fraudulent and fallacious claims have been comprehensively addressed and debunked. Why are you incapable of doing that for yourself instead of accusing others of confirmation bias?
"Of course you would think that I haven’t done my research but I definitely have looked at both sides because I would like to know the truth I’m not attached one way or the other"
No you haven't done any research at all. If you had even the remotest knowledge about the science, technology and the history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme, then you'd immediately dismiss Sibrel's lies in the same way that those that do.
"Sabril‘s documentary isn’t the only one out there exposing this."
It's Sibrel, how do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even get his name right. No one has exposed anything other than the shocking gullibility of those that believe this nonsense. Of course there are other hucksters and grifters out there - if you hadn't noticed, conspiracy theory has proved to be very lucrative for some. Most know exactly what they are doing - as does Sibrel. They harvest stupidity for profit and exploit the dim and impressionable. As such, you are the target market.
"there are very valid red flags but I don’t wanna write a book right now on all the arguments that’s what the docs are for."
Such as? Provide your singular best example. There are no valid "red flags", just the same old predictable naively consumed and regurgitated dumb conspiracy theory badly parroted by individuals such as yourself, with demonstrably zero knowledge of the subject concerned. Quick tip, a crap online conspiracy video is not a 'documentary'.
"it’s not gonna come out on the news we didn’t go to the moon"
I can assure you that if the moon landings were faked it would have been broken over half a century ago - it would have been the biggest news scoop in history. There are investigative reporters worldwide clamouring for such stories.
"you’re gonna have to look into it yourself."
And your point about confirmation bias was precisely what.
To ask you again; at what stage have you actually objectively read up on and learnt about the science, the technology and the history of the Apollo Programme. Why do you rely upon charlatans like Sibrel to tell you what to think?
"Some people aren’t that smart and then they projected onto other people because they can’t think critically."
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory. Think critically? Belief in conspiracy theory is the diametric opposite of critical thinking. You goons and a genuine critical faculty were separated at birth ffs.
"I can share with you the other documentary I’m talking about that’s longer and arguably better than sabrils."
Jeez, please don't tell me that you're talking about Massimo Mazucco's ludicrous 'American Moon'. Surely even you can't be that dim?
"But also, why would you not be skeptical like you heard all of those red flags and thats not even all of the inconsistencies. If something actually happened, then there would be no red flags around it. You wouldn’t be able to poke any holes in it. Why are you so attached to believe in we went?"
Known science is not a question of belief. The scientific, independent, technical and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is incontrovertible and has a voice of its own. If you genuinely understood any of this, you would realise that there are no "red flags" or "inconsistencies" - simply baseless claims, scientific illiteracy, incredulity and outright lies perpetuated by the conspiracy theorists that you mindlessly trust. Literally all of their claims can be refuted with objective and independently verifiable evidence that people like yourself are completely ignorant of or incapable of finding. Also, belief and faith in exploitative conspiracy theorists is not scepticism.
You embody everything that is wrong with internet access.
2
-
It varied from mission to mission. On Apollo 8, the first mission to fly to the Moon in December of 1968, the S-IVB was put on a trajectory that had it fly by the moon before entering solar orbit. The S-IVB stages from the Saturn Vs that launched Apollo 10, the second mission that flew to the moon in May of 1969, and Apollo 11, the first lunar landing two months later in July, also were sent into a heliocentric orbit. Apollo 12's, as is now known, is currently orbiting the Earth. Look up J002E3. Apollo 13's became the first to be intentionally crashed into the moon - followed by Apollo 14. By Apollo 15, two ALSEPs (Apollo Lunar Surface Experimental Package) were on the surface of the moon to record the seismic impact. Apollo 15 also left an ALSEP on the Moon so when Apollo 16's S-IVB impacted on April 19, 1972 it was recorded by three seismometers. That crew also left an ALSEP on the surface, so when Apollo 17's S-IVB impacted on Dec. 10, 1972, the associated ground movements were recorded by four separate seismometers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why have you felt the need to post this twice? This again? Really? Actually, U suggest that you watch it yourself because you clearly haven't.
This is a voluntary address to the CFN (a think tank) in which the then director of the CIA John Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing. SAI is purely hypothetical and has not even graduated beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. It will never be employed - primarily due to the impossibility of international governance. Also, it would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the contrails that chemtrail believers term chemtrails, would not form a trail in the first place and there is not even agreement upon which materials would best replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. I suggest you look up SCoPeX, which is a planned small-scale trail involving a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress.I can provide you with a full transcription of his speech if you wish. At no point does he "admit spraying". What you said was blatantly false.
You have simply linked to one of the many sensationalist chemtrail conspiracy videos that have appropriated the footage and inserted the word 'chemtrail' in the title.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Cloud seeding is one thing, making it rain. It’s been happening since the 60’s."
Actually, cloud seeding experimentation can be traced back to the 1940s.
"Chemtrails is the act of putting metals into the air to block the sun and cool the planet. It’s completely true. And I suspect it was only done on a small level to test the effectiveness but they don’t seem to spray much anymore"
Incorrect. Chemtrails are simply a dumb conspiracy theory based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails, which have nothing whatsoever to do with Solar Radiation Management.
No one informed or in the real world would refer to geoengineering as 'chemtrails', it's merely a way for the perpetrators of this hoax and unscrupulous grifters such as Dane Wigington to add supposed legitimacy to their claims.
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation and ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification. SRM is a series of strategies aimed at reducing rising global temperatures and combating anthropogenic climate change. The main initiative under proposal is called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would attempt to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Currently there is no agreement upon the materials that could be employed to achieve this, but sulphates, (which also form heterogeneously in the Junge layer) may be a possibility. Early research suggests that clacium carbonate has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulphate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. However, calcium carbonate does not exist naturally in the stratosphere even though it is non-toxic and earth abundant. Therefore, though we can almost certainly expect that calcium carbonate will not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate, the actual stratospheric reactivity needs to be established, which means laboratory and small scale trials are needed.
This was proposed through an experiment involving a steerable balloon launched 20kms into the stratosphere at first releasing a few kilos of water, followed by small quantities of CaCO3 to test perturbation, reflectivity and dispersal. This experiment was denied ethical approval. SAI will never become a reality. Not just because of the logistical problems, cost and opposition but very simply due to the impossibility of international governance. At the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi, Kenya, last week Switzerland pushed UN member states to set up an expert panel to examine solar radiation modification (SRM) technologies. The original Swiss draft had called for the setting up of an advisory panel of specialists appointed by governments and representatives of international scientific bodies to gather information and produce a report on SRM’s possible applications, risks and ethical considerations. Countries were unable to reach consensus in Nairobi. Consequently, Switzerland withdrew a resolution it had tabled to examine the technology.
To reiterate, none of this has nothing whatsoever to do with misidentified aircraft contrails that dumb conspiracy believers term as 'chemtrails'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nodarkthings
It's ok, dumb online conspiracy theory just told you that.
There were actually nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six nation's space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions.
the Apollo landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2. The best of those are LRO and Chandrayaan-2. Chandrayaan’s camera has a resolution of 0.25 m per pixel. LRO is at about 0.5 m per pixel.
Hope this helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That'll be the same technology that you can see in multiple museums and exhibitions across the world then. Actually, the problem here appears to be that you are "taking the word" of quote mining conspiracy theorists. This again? Seriously, how many times? One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
Regarding the Van Allen Belts, conspiracy theorists and believers have no issue "taking the word" of NASA who first discovered them. And take the word of known science - it has a voice of its own. Or, James Van Allen himself:
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable." James Van Allen (2003).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It has not been possible to fly on a passenger aircraft between London and New York in under three hours for 22 years. I don't think we have gone backwards in technology.
Man last walked on the moon 52 years ago (not 53) and Project Artemis has completely different technology, mission objectives and profiles to Apollo. All this needs development, testing and validation.
The USA stopped going to the moon because in the midst of an expensive foreign war, growing public apathy and disquiet, a lack of political will and the looming OPEC crisis, Congress withdrew the funding in 1972. They saw little benefit in continuing to plough such a high percentage of the annual federal budget into continuation of something that had already been achieved. The Apollo Programme was cancelled meaning that the manufacturing plants, the processes, the bespoke tooling, the expertise was either retired or moved on, whilst production of the heavy lift capability ceased and no one build a replacement for the Saturn V. Powerful lobbying for the folly of the Space Shuttle Programme shifted the emphasis upon low Earth orbit and the subsequent construction of the ISS meant that space exploration became the preserve of much cheaper unmanned probes and landers that did not require a heavy lift rocket. The old technology of Apollo has become obsolete and defunct.
We now have the SLS and Space X are developing Starship/Super Heavy Booster and new technologies are being applied, purposed and developed to return crewed missions to the moon and beyond, whilst also. like I said, fulfilling very different objectives and mission profiles to those of Apollo. Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018 and this takes time and money.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blaze1148
So to remind you, here again was my caveat:
"Naturally you'll wish to avoid the same old obligatory, predictable junk online conspiracy theory that has been endlessly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over again by gullible scientific illiterates with zero actual knowledge of the science, technology and history of the Apollo moon landings. Do you have any original thoughts or observations or are you going to rely upon what some online grifter has told you to think that has been debunked and ridiculed innumerable times?"
And what do you do?
1. Traversing through the Van Allen Belts which btw they say they can't get through now.
No one has said that "they can't get through now". The VABs are toroidal and contain charged alpha and beta particles, you can shield against the former with a piece of paper. The new Orion capsule however needed to tested and validated. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. One engineer, Kelly Smith stated in 2014 that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again?
2. The shear distance of 238,000 kms [so we are told to believe] being exposed to all that radiation.
What radiation? The Apollo missions traversed the inner belt which consists of energetic protons in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft then took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Total mission doses were measured in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'sheer'.
3. Docking the LM to the CM which was moving at 25,000 mph with 1960's tech
It was not moving at 25,000mph. Where are you getting this nonsense from? And what do you mean "60s tech" - what about it? The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods. A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock.
4. Where exactly did they put the Lunar Rover - especially the first one with pneumatic tyres.
The lunar rovers were folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage equipment bay. There is ample footage of the loading and deployment of them - you could have established all this for yourself. What the hell are you talking about now? 'pneumatic tyres'? They were steel mesh, wrapped around a solid inner frame.
5. Air con / scrubbers in the LM ?
The LM did not use air conditioning, rather open cycle sublimation which is a passive process. And yes, scrubbing cannisters were used to remove C02. What's your point?
6. Rockets do not work in a vacuum.
The entire branch of science called physics demonstrates otherwise as does Newton's third law of motion.
7. The Moon is not a solid entity.
Said no astronomer ever.
Jeez.
We can measure the composition of the moon from Earth, by analysing its light via spectroscopy. We have landed on the Moon 29 times now. None of those landings reported anything other than solid rock. 4. 8 missions brought back samples (more than 380 kg), all rock. If the moon produced its own illumination and was not solid it would not have phases. You can discern the geological surface features, topography and relief of the moon for yourself using only a cheap pair of binoculars ffs. What's wrong with you?
"I could go on and on"
You could, if you want to continue making a complete tit of yourself.
"but many of the files are on my other PC when I researched the Moon Landings in 2015 ....will have to dig it out and repost as and when."
I didn't ask for you to regurgitate files on your other PC, I asked for your singular most compelling piece of evidence or original observations knowing that you wouldn't have any. Instead, as predicted, all that you have done is parroted the same old predictable and obligatory crap conspiracy theory based upon your own ignorance and personal incredulity.
When you researched it? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following squandered evenings consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"The surprising thing about 25% of the UK not believing in the Moon landings is the 75% that still do believe it !!"
Known science is not a question of belief.
You'll also find that 25% of internet users are complete imbeciles such as yourself with no idea how to use it responsibly.
2
-
@Juxtapositional
Why are you people utterly fixated upon and obsessed with NASA? Forget NASA.
The fact that the moon is a solid planetary body is independently scientifically verifiable. Are you actually suggesting that you don't understand the phases of the moon? You actually think that a portion of the moon is "obscured by blue sky"?
The composition of the moon and surface minerology can be measured by spectrometry. If you purchase a cheap telescope or even use binoculars you can discern the surface features and topography for yourself. Aside from Apollo, missions to the moon have been conducted by the following nations and organisations - the Soviet Union/Russia, Japan, the European Space Agency, China, India, Luxembourg, Israel, Italy, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates.
The moon exerts gravitational influence on the earth and is the reason that we have high and low tides.
As has been mentioned, 382kg of moon rock has been returned to Earth, in addition to meteorites of lunar origin. These have been studied and authenticated by an entire branch of science called geology and through laboratory petrological analysis.
Why are you and your ilk hell bent on returning to the stone age?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Carl-mw3ft
Have they? You mean those entire branches of science, specialist fields/disciplines such as aerospace engineering, rocketry, computer science, Nobel Prize winning physicists, historians and investigative journalists, over 10,000 private sector initiatives and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? Or are you referring to random, insignificant, scientifically illiterate, Dunning Kruger afflicted gullible online conspiracy believers and self proclaimed experts with no actual knowledge of the subject whatsoever?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You can't have it both ways"
Precisely my point. Chemtrails are a baseless internet hoax.
"If I see a chemtrail you want me to fly up and capture some of it for a lab."
You don't see a chemtrail - you think that you see a chemtrail because you have allowed the internet to condition what you believe. It is not a question of belief, rather critically challenging your preconceptions with objective science.
Actually, it would be a routine endeavour to sample these supposed trails at source or through ground based mass spectrometry yet on the twenty years or so of this hoax no one has. Moreover, the skies are constantly monitored via remote sensing and were this spraying underway it would be blown wide open.
"yet you want me to believe everything you see is a contrail with no proof."
You obviously have no understanding of the burden of proof which, as the one making these claims, is entirely incumbent upon you. As I said, meteorlogical science is incontrovertible and axiomatic - the physical laws of aviation and the atmosphere are demonstrably not on your side.
"Frankey you are an asshat. I am done arguing with you."
This is the first and only time that you have engaged me on this thread and furthermore my name is not "Frankey".
"You and the other guy insist that it's a logistic impossibility and at the same time you have no idea what they are spraying or what systems they use."
Firstly have you any idea of the mass, volume and consequently the weight of these contrails that you erroneously ascribe to your "chemtrails"? The commercial aircraft that you people insist in posting as supposed evidence of this spraying have a typical MTOW of 200 - 280 metric tonnes max. A persistent contrail stretching over 100kms that you deem to be an irrefutable sign of a chemtrail would weigh millions upon millions of lbs.
Secondly, condensation of invisible vapour in the atmosphere creates visible clouds - aerosols of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystal acretion via hydroscopic nuclei either present in the atmosphere or the aircraft exhaust. Contrails (short for condensation trails) are formed by the same process, either triggered by the pressure drop on the aircraft wing (aerodynamic contrails) and/or the injection of extra water vapour into the atmosphere a principle byproduct of the hydrocarbon fuel combustion process. No other chemical has been shown to have similar properties in the Earth's atmosphere. Although other chemical compounds can be sprayed into the air, they will not linger there for long as a visible cloud; they will quickly dissipate - just as smoke vanishes if a smoke generator is turned off. Geoengineering which is frequently conflated with the chemtrail hoax involves the deployment of very small quantities of novel solid aerosols at 16 miles in altitude. This does not resemble a large opaque white cloud and would not be occurring at the substantially lower altitudes in your videos - coincidentally at the level that commercial air traffic cruises.
Until it is demonstrated experimentally, in laboratory conditions, that an alleged chemical compound or mixture can assume the behaviour of water vapour in the atmosphere, the hypothesis of some persistent trails being "chemtrails" can be rejected as lacking scientific basis.
"I would suggest you watch this guys videos as they tie into chem spray. Or? Don't, I don't give a fuck, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxyJl0WxqZ0"
As ever, the "evidence" of your conspiracy theories is a conspiracy video made by a conspiracy theorist about the conspiracy theory.
I would strongly recommend that you balance and challenge your views with true critical examination, objective scepticism and independently verifiable science.
Finally, why do you people respond so angrily and abusively when challenged? You elected to visit this page and the fact that you are utterly unable to substantiate your claims perhaps explains your indignance and indicts you and no one else. I was nothing other than civil to you in my response to your claim that this was a matter of opinion..
As much as they want your money, conspiracy theorists snare you with emotional investment hence your views are visceral instead of rational.
"I post here to talk past YOU to others who come to read. Thank you for the platform."
Which is precisely why this nonsense will always be the preserve of subjective YouTube conspiracy videos and forever remain sequestered on pseudoscientific fringe websites. Not one of the perpetrators of this fraud that you parrot will bring their claimed 'science' from out of this vacuous echochamber that you inhabit and into the genuine objective scrutiny of independent scientific examination.
Your posts achieve little more than your own humiliation and are testament to your abject scientific illiteracy and innate gullibility. The only case that you have convincingly made in the three years of exchanges on this thread is that you are a very silly man with a search engine that doesn't know how to use it and that online access should be means tested.
1
-
1
-
"You like to talk in circles don't you?
The only circuitous logic here is your own.
"As I pointed out (and you ignored yet again), you don't know what technology is being used so you cannot comment on the impossibility. "
Then you may as well speculate about whatever you wish - holograms, mysterious orbs, portals, cloaked aircraft, pixie dust, pink unicorn feces...oh wait, most of you do. Familiarise yourself with the concept of Russell's Teapot.
"You are basing your view point not on laws of physics"
Once again this is not about your viewpoint or mine - this is not about opinion. Such known laws of aviation and the atmosphere are immutable and until it can be demonstrated otherwise scientifically then anything else is pure conjecture. As I said, you can speculate about whatever you wish but that is precisely why your nonsense remains the preserve of fringe pseudoscientific websites and internet conspiracy theory.
"nice try, trying to sound scientific to dazzle the reader with your BS"
Please feel free to highlight any laws of physics that you deem that I have contravened in my posts in addition to highlighting anything that you identify as "BS". In order to do so you will need to summon independently the verifiable science that contradicts this in support of your contention - something that you evidently fail to comprehend. It's called the scientific method - and it's not on your side. Simply branding something on the internet as bullshit because it challenges your preconceptions will not suffice.
"you don't know what technology is being used so you cannot comment on the impossibility."
If it contravenes established and known physical laws of atmosperic chemistry and aviation then actually yes I can and will continue to do so. Anything else is unsubstantiated fantasised woo dreamed up by uneducated dullards and subscribed to by the grossly scientifically illiterate or extremely suggestible (almost invariably both).
"You let me know when you are privy to the delivery systems and we can further discuss this. Until then talking to you is like talking to a wall."
You can fantasise about whatever you want but as the one making these ludicrous claims, the burden of proof is entirely incumbent upon you - such is the fundamental principle of a criminal prosecution in a court of law, or the scientific method itself. This is precisely why you are afforded absolutely no credence outside of your conspiracy circles and are doomed to graduate no further than the comments section of YouTube. The only thing that you have convincingly demonstrated is your complete ignorance of meteorological science and aviation together with your continual susceptibility to logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@themissingkeyexplainsevery7671
Seriously, this is excruciating to witness - you are making more of a fool of yourself with each post.
"The missing telemetry tapes"
Firstly, I have absolutely no idea where you are getting the notion that 200,000 tapes of the first moon landing were erased. Magnetic tapes were used to back up raw data at source. This consisted of telemetry and slow-scan broadcast signals sent by Unified S-Band. Once this had been extrapolated, converted and transcribed they were no longer required. Magnetic tape decays and is not intended for archival use. It is also very expensive and so was designed to be reused. For this reason, some of the tapes pertaining to the Apollo 11 EVA were erased, however having served their purpose, the contents was not longer required. With the tapes now defunct and the machinery for playing them obsolete, some from Apollo 11 and preceding/subsequent missions have been sold via auction to private collectors, because they are useless but not without financial value.
"When you review all the perfect photographs"
And you've reviewed all of them have you? Sure about that are we? There were approximately 31,000 photographs taken in total during the Apollo missions and if you were familiar with even a small fraction of these, you'd understand that a great many were far from perfect. Of course you are only going to see the successful or defining ones.
"the fuel ratio"?"
What does this even mean? Present the mathematics.
"The astronauts rolling in the ground."
Some astronauts stumbled or lost their footing. What about it?
"The radiation scenario."
Again, what about it? Do you understand that radiation is not homogeneous? There are differing types and intensities.
"There story is like a 50 by 50 sheet of swiss cheese with thousand of holes in it . .If it looks like a crack head foaming from the mouth. . Then it must be a crack head foaming from the mouth."
Odd that you haven't noticed that about the dumb online conspiracy theories that you regurgitate and tell you what to think about subjects that you clearly have zero understanding of whatsoever.
"The probability we went to the moon in a tin foil craft"
Except it wasn't a "tin foil craft"
"with the technology of a ninth grader"
Precisely what technology was lacking?
"is one big fat.........................0"
Your IQ, your qualifications or your relationships?
"Bing a ding ding batá boom. a gee gee"
Professional help is out there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You’re telling me that there was a race to the moon and all the other countries just stopped when America got their first?"
There was only one other nation in contention, and that was the Soviet Union. And no, they did not stop. The Soviet moon landing programme was not cancelled until 1975.
"So Russia and china are cool with there being an American flag on the moon and they haven’t gone up there to plant their flag too?"
It is obscenely expensive to place crewed missions on the moon. The Soviet moon landing programme was doomed from the beginning due to the fact that it was allocated a fraction of the budget of Apollo. That, and the untimely death of Korolev and the consistent failure of the N1 rocket. China, went the way of all spacefaring nations post Apollo, which was low Earth orbit and the construction of Tiangong. Deep space missions became the preserve of unmanned landers and probes which are significantly cheaper and avoid the risk of manned exploration.
"You’re telling me it’s possible to get to the moon but no country has gone up since the 1960s???!!!"
Wrong. The last manned moon landing was December 1972. Since the cancellation of Apollo and the cessation of the Soviet manned lunar landing programme three years later, no nation, including the USA possessed or developed the heavy lift capability necessary to launch crewed missions to the moon. With the approval of Project Artemis in 2018 and the advent of the SLS/Starship, that is soon to change.
"Even though we are a lot more advanced with technology?"
Technology still costs money and doesn't surmount every challenge. The technology exists to fly passengers from London to New York in under 3 hours, but there is no supersonic airliner currently in service. By your skewed logic, Concorde was a hoax too.
1
-
@TerranceBurney-z8j
"The Soviet space programs and rockets were much more advanced than in u.s. at that time and they never attempted a manned mission to the moon"
What on Earth are you talking about? The Soviet Union had its own manned moon landing programme between 1962 and 1974. It was doomed to failure due to a chronic lack of funding, the untimely death of Sergei Korolev and the repeated failure of the N1.
"And they never attempted a manned mission to the moon because of the great dangers involved in sending a module thru not two but three Van Allen belts, boiling with radioactive particles"
What? The charged particle radiation in the VABs does not "boil". Also, the third belt is transitory.
Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them. if you have a shred of integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such a dumb and ignorant statement on on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
"Werner von Braun said we would need 9 feet of steel between an astronaut and space, to avoid death from radiation poisoning."
Original quote at source please. Good luck with that.
"Gus Grishom knew it was a b.s. too."
Incorrect. Gus Grissom was highly critical of the management culture and the repeated technical glitches and problems associated with the development of the CM. There were others far more vocal than him.
"They drove cars"
Three lunar rovers as part of the expanded J missions (Apollo 15, 16 and 17). What's your point?
"shot putts"
I can only infer that you are referring to Apollo 14's Commander Alan Shepherd who attempted to hit three golf balls using a nine iron affixed to the shaft of his sampling tool. He missed the first, scuffed the second and was successful with the third. It comprised about two minutes of the 9 hours, 22 minutes, 31 seconds total EVA time. Again, what's your point.
"danced and pranced on the moon"
And you think that's all they did?
"They went there so often it became a great getaway for the astronauts!"
No, there were a total of nine manned missions and six landings between 1969 and 1972. It would have been more had it not been for the aborted Apollo 13 landing (I presume you think that was faked too for some inexplicable reason?).
"For 60 or so yrs. nasa has talked about going back"
Absolute nonsense. For a start it has only been 52 years since man last set foot on the moon. The emphasis switched to low Earth orbit and the political motivation of the shuttle, the construction of the ISS, and deep space exploration became the preserve of cheaper unmanned landers. The return to the moon was not contemplated until the Constellation Programme which gave way to Project Artemis that was finally approved in 2018.
"but never will cause they didnt go in the first place."
Please, have some respect. This is a serious scientific website and your mindlessly consumed and regurgitated dumb online conspiracy theory will get short shrift here. Go away you ridiculous individual. All that you are accomplishing is your own humiliation and proving that you have an internet connection that you don't know how to use responsibly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The same personal incredulity over and over and over again.
"There seems to have been no dust kicked up AT ALL from the landing."
😆You can clearly hear Buzz Aldrin during the landing of Apollo 11 say - "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage.
And what do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.
The dispersal of dust on the ground is caused not by rocket exhaust, but by the displacement of air. There is no air on the Moon, therefore no significant dust movement beyond that which is observed by Aldrin and captured on the LEM camera.
"The radiation is still an issue, with NASA claiming they have to do ALL the research all over again to get through it. Seems like a lie to me."
As I said, the same things over and over and over again. Apollo is a very different craft to Orion. The challenge to be solved for Orion was a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design. Orion is being designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. One NASA engineer, by the name of Kelly Smith, presenting a video about the then upcoming first unmanned test flight of the new Orion spacecraft (now over 5 years ago) said that the challenges of the space radiation environment had to be solved for the new design. This seems to have been massively misinterpreted by moon landing conspiracy believers.
"Also, explain the crosshair appearing BEHIND objects."
They are not behind. For God's sake, think rationally. Assume for a moment that NASA had both the technology and the wherewithal to pull off such a massive conspiracy as to do the impossible and fake the moon landing successfully. Do you really think they would be so careless as to make daft errors like that? Do you not think they would make sure that they dotted all their Is and crossed (haired) all their Ts? Very fine markings can get washed out in overexposed regions of the film, as very bright light tends to “bleed” due to reflections within the film itself. You see precisely the same on terrestrial photography. The reticles can be hard to observe easily in certain circumstances, e.g., if a bright area washes them out. That’s it. Either the contrast is low or there is overexposure or bleeding or any of many possible photographic exposure and developing issues. (And sometimes it’s just the quality of the reproduction - It consistently amazes me at how many alleged self-professed “photo experts” on conspiracy sites work from low resolution, highly-compressed JPEGs.)
What’s the alternative? That NASA put the crosses on a backdrop? That they “forgot” to draw in the crosses after the fact precisely at a border of light and dark? Seriously?
"I used to believe the moon landings, but now I have some doubt. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just have doubt."
You appear to be susceptible and succumbing to the erroneous and ill-informed claims of conspiracy theorists. Which is a great shame.
"The Vietnam war was also happening at this time."
So what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NotJanine777
"it was made from bits of crap"
It wasn't though.
There are three that weren't used due to the premature cancellation of the programme and are now exhibited. Aside from that, the construction of the LM and what it was fashioned from is fully understood and has been forensically scrutinised down to every rivet, every switch, every circuit breaker by aerospace engineering worldwide. You can find the full schematics and specifications yourself assuming that you either had the will, the capability and the intelligence to understand them.
So the The Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation traded their future and their reputation building a l"movie prop" made from "bits of crap" and no one noticed? For over half a century they managed to dupe entire branches of science and specialists fields such as aerospace engineering - but never reckoned on a random, arrogant, gullible conspiracy believer on the comments section of a video entertainment platform with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Nothing gets past you!
"It was a just a movie prop, like everything else on the Apollo programme."
So the Saturn V, y'know, those 363ft three-stage rockets as tall as a 36 storey building, that fully fuelled weighed in at 6.2million pounds, produced 7.6 million pounds of thrust and 203 decibels at launch...they were actually a "movie prop"?
You're not particularly bright are you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for your post Russel.
Firstly, why do you perceive that our sunsets have changed? They can be beautiful or unremarkable due to a range of geographical and atmospheric phenomena. It much depends upon the prevailing conditions at the time. There is a common misconception that tropospheric aerosols when present in abundance in the lower atmosphere as they often are over urban and continental areas can cause brilliant sunsets, but in fact they do not enhance sky colours they usually subdue them. Clean air is, actually the main ingredient common to brightly coloured sunrises and sunsets. Particles are good Rayleigh scatterers when they are very small compared to the wavelength of pollution droplets such as those found in urban smog or summertime haze which are on the order of .5 to 1 um in diameter. Particles this large are not good Rayleigh scatterers as they are comparable in size to the wavelength of visible light. If the particles are of uniform size, they might impart a reddish or bluish cast to the sky. Because pollution aerosols normally exist in a wide range of sizes, however, the overall scattering they produce is not strongly wavelength-dependent. As a result, hazy daytime skies, instead of being bright blue, appear grayish or even white. Similarly, the vibrant oranges and reds of "clean" sunsets give way to pale yellows and pinks when dust and haze fill the air. Also, airborne pollutants do more than soften sky colours where they can enhance the attenuation of both direct and scattered light, especially when the sun is low in the sky. This reduces the total amount of light that reaches the ground, robbing sunrises and sunsets of brilliance and intensity. Thus, twilight colours at the surface on dusty or hazy days tend to be muted and subdued, even though purer oranges and reds persist in the cleaner air aloft.
The colours you perceive on the light's path before it got to you, how the object you are viewing reflects that light, and what your eyes are sensitive to. Absolutes don't really exist in colour perception however disquieting it may seem - it is often as much a matter of relative perspective as it is atmospheric chemistry. at sunset, the light takes a much longer path through the atmosphere to your eye than it did at noon, when the sun was right overhead. And that is enough to make a big difference as far as our human eyes are concerned. It means that much of the blue has scattered out long before the light reaches us. There are then a myriad of variables which can influence the resulting colour of a sunset irrespective of wherever you may be in the world.
The most beautiful sunsets that I can recall were as a child following the eruption of Mt.St Helens and later Pinatubo in 1992. Stratospheric particles are derived mainly from volcanic eruptions and exist as thin veils of dust or sulphuric acid droplets at altitudes of 12 to 18 miles. These aerosols usually are invisible during the day because they are obscured by the scattered sunlight (blue sky) of the troposphere. About 15 minutes after sunset, however, with the troposhere in shadow and the stratosphere still illuminated by sunlight passing through the lower atmosphere to the west, these high-level clouds come into view. Since their colours achieve greatest intensity after the sun has set at the surface, volcanic twilights have become known as "afterglows.". Turner's vivid sunsets were captured after the eruption of Tambora in 1815.
It is precisely this effect that Straospheric Aerosol Injection aims to simulate.
"Why do planes make checker board patterns with the trails? And please don't tell me because of air traffic control."
I genuinely don't understand the incredulity over this. Aircraft fly in different directions and altitudes to a multitude of destinations using a variety of designated airways and corridors. If conditions are widely conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, they will remain in the sky and often be blown in a lateral direction by high altitude winds leaving a gird formation. This NATS video illustrates the complex and crowded controlled airspace above the British Isles.
https://www.nats.aero/news/take-guided-tour-around-uk-airspace/
Thanks again for your post.
1
-
1
-
@MS-ib8xu
"I would highly suggest watch the film "American Moon." It is very obvious"
Very obviously three hours of falsehoods, fantasy, deception and outright lies.
Out of curiosity I watched more of this the other week. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is. It's an appalling documentary, one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Today, I clicked to a random timestamp, saw the "non-parallel shadows" picture, and immediately questioned why there's no mention of David Percy getting caught red-handed twenty years ago cropping the photograph to hide the shadows changing directions.
I then recalled that it's made by the vile Massimo Mazzucco, a professional con artist who preys upon the gullible, impressionable and ignorant for personal gain. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Bumps in the Night. Thanks for your civil response.
"John Yossarian One normal contrail is not going to spread out and cover the whole sky. "
Indeed not, but together they can. There is a large amount of current research into the spread of cirrus aviaticus and the extent of radiative forcing in association with this.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1068
"My guess is that they are creating extra water vapor to manipulate weather patterns."
???? Creating extra water vapour? You are aware that there is threshold - Water vapour varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapour molecules. This is because temperature sets a limit to how much water vapour can be in the air. Even in tropical air, once the volume of water vapour in the atmosphere approaches 4% it will begin to condense out of the air. The condensing of water vapour prevents the percentage of water vapour in the air from increasing. If temperatures were much warmer, there would be a potential to have more than 4% water vapour in the atmosphere. Temperature and to a lesser extent pressure determines the maximum amount of water vapour that can exist in the air. The higher the temperature, the greater the potential percentages of water vapour in the air. I'm assuming then that you are referring to areas of the planet in which the moisture content is below 4%. Short of the mysterious "they" having a series of giant hidden humidifiers concealed from the public eye, what do you believe would be the mechanism for this given the factors mentioned?
When you see a persistent contrail in the sky it's because the surrounding air is saturated with respect to ice. The jet engine precipitates the trail it can then grow due to the ice budget in the air around it. The water that it needs to do this is already in the atmosphere - something that chemtrail conspiracy theorists seem utterly incapable of comprehending with this "a contrail can only last for minutes" nonsense.
"Do you think the government/military or any other organization has ever used a plane to disperse chemicals above a city ?"
I categorically know that they have - and I can tell you precisely when and why. I can also tell you two things. Firstly it wasn't from the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere from which altitudes it would have been utterly ineffectual and therefore pointless and secondly, it would have looked nothing like a contrail - an opaque white plume in the wake of a commercial aircraft.
I can also tell you that Operation Northwoods was real - but it doesn't mean that I think that every terrorist atrocity since is a false flag.
Thanks again for your courteous reply, if you would excuse me, one more to do...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"We all know the moon landing was fake."
Who precisely do you mean by "we"? Could you be referring to entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? Or perhaps you mean the gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believers in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
"Like nearly everything else the government is telling us. I'm getting so tired of it..."
The moon landings have nothing to do with what "the government is telling" you. The scientific/technological, independent and third party evidence in support of their authenticity is irrefutable.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of a moon landing hoax or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic fallacy.
And meanwhile, the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself place your faith in is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noname52768
"yes they did. All the telemetry data and film for Apollo 11 is lost."
Did you even bother reading your own source? Back ups for Apollo 11 were erased. You said that all the telemetry data was lost. Do you even understand what telemetry is? And presumably you are aware that there were a further five landings?
“A team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to find the tapes in the early 2000s but was unable to do so. The search was sparked when several still photographs appeared in the late 1990s that showed the visually superior raw SSTV transmission on ground-station monitors. The research team conducted a multi-year investigation in the hopes of finding the most pristine and detailed video images of the moonwalk. If copies of the original SSTV format tapes were to be found, more modern digital technology could make a higher-quality conversion, yielding better images than those originally seen”
And the search revealed high-quality broadcast versions of the footage. NASA then working in conjunction with Lowry Digital, a premier film restoration company, processed the video using techniques unavailable in 1969. The restored video was released in HD as part of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11.
Let me remind you of your claim -
"Why did NASA destroy all the original telemetry data, blueprints and original film reels for the biggest accomplishment achieved by mankind?"
They didn't "destroy "all the original telemetry data and original film reels" your own Wiki reference tells you that. Your statement is demonstrably source.
The blueprints that you refer to are not destroyed and the full schematics and technical documentation for the Apollo Programme all readily available. The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket/Apollo are archived and stored on microfilm at Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Federal Archives in East Point, Ga., also house 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has archived dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program, which was initiated in the late ‘60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production and assist in any future restart.
1
-
@noname52768
Did you actually read your own source? Your three replies and your ad hominem abuse is simply a product of your own frustration.
Firstly, you asked "Why did NASA destroy all the original telemetry data?". They did not - from your own link that is demonstrably untrue.
"blueprints"
Again, completely and utterly false.
"and original film reels"
Again, what on Earth are you talking about? Film reels? The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world. What film reels? What the hell are you talking about?
The search also discovered high-quality broadcast versions of the footage. From your own link: "Their findings included a videotape recorded in Sydney after the conversion but before the satellite transmission around the world, videotape from CBS News archives (direct from NASA, without commentary) and kinescopes at Johnson Space Center.[3] At the news conference, it was mentioned that Lowry Digital would complete enhancing and restoring the tapes.[3] Mike Inchalik, president of Lowry Digital, mentioned that his company would only restore the video and would not remove defects (such as reflections that looked like flag poles).[1] A few short clips were shown at the news conference, showing their improved quality.[3] NASA released some partially restored samples on its website after the news conference.[33] The full restoration of the footage, about three hours long, was completed in December 2009".
So during the search, the team came across broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen. There were tapes recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. They also found kinescopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives they uncovered tapes that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived.
Your claim is complete and utter nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NickRobinsonICA
You only have to post the one reply. Why are you people incapable of consolidating your responses?
Firstly, none of your patents relate to "controlling the weather" which as explained is technically impossible. I've seen them all before, over and over and over and over and over again. Most of them are either irrelevant. You have for example, for some inexplicable reason included patents for exhaust atomisers, smoke generators crop spraying, and cloud seeding, (which as explained does not "control the weather", it aims to influence it on a local/micro scale). Moreover, none of these are 'government documents', they are patents, which anyone can register irrespective of how outlandish, obscure or ridiculous they are. A patent is not proof of the existence of something, precisely the reason that you can find them for teleportation or mind reading devices. Also, many of these are abandoned or unadopted, for this reason. The last one, in particular, which is utterly absurd, is an example of this sort of nonsense.
Secondly, Joe Biden has not recently announced that "the USA government is about to use geoengineering (weather modification) to 'fight climate change" whilst geoengineering is not "weather modification". It falls into two categories, GGR, which is already underway through such strategies as direct air capture, carbon sequestering, aforestation and biochar. The second is SRM, (which you appear to be referring to) which with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening is entirely hypothetical. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which idiotic conspiracy theorists and believers term 'chemtrails' has not even graduated beyond research paper and computer modelling. It will never become a reality, not simply due to the environmental unknowns, the logistical challenges and the opposition, but the sheer impossibility of international governance because it would need to be globally deployed.
Even if it was, neither, "barium aluminium of strontium" would be used, that is simply another tiresome trope mindlessly parroted by conspiracy believers. It is likely that sulphates would be released given that the aim is to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and those formed heterogeneously in the Junge layer. This means that it wouldn't even leave a trail, look remotely like an aircraft contrail and would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails that you gullibly term as 'chemtrails'.
Stop allowing dumb online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think about subjects that you are demonstrably ignorant about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamiethibodeau1
"you don’t sound very smart"
As I said, the irony was it intentional?
"so I’m not sure if you have access to peer reviewed literature- or maybe you would have just researched it yourself in the time it took you to articulate this weak response."
My background is atmospheric science and I work in research capability. I simply asked you to present it, that's all. Oh, hang on...
"You could start with electromagnetic scattering"
What? Do you mean Stimulated Brillouin Scatter (SBS)? What about it?
"and artificial plasma clouds when doing a university library search to get edu websites to substantiate the information. Or you could refer to an article on science daily for a more commercial source that refers to HAARP, DARPA"
I understand what HAARP was built for, what it was designed to do and what it is capable of. It's my background. Clearly you do not.
"as well as PhD physicist from U.S. naval academy reporting the same factual information. It’s called Scientists Produce Densest Artificial Ionospheric Plasma Clouds Using HAARP. It’s from 2013, shouldn’t be hard to find. "
You mean the potential for HF radar and communications signals to be relayed by the creation of plasma clouds in the ionosphere? I know "it isn't hard to find" because as I said, HAARP has never been classified. Perhaps you should actually try reading it. Incidentally, HAARP was sold by the military to the University of Alaska the same year and was subsequently unused for three years due to refurbishment. What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails, and your claim that "barium and aluminium" is being sprayed by aircraft?
"So again, this may be more complicated than you can comprehend but there are many scholars doing research, rather than being cynical and doing that arm chair crap that you’re doing."
Said the chemtrail believer.
"Not everyone “googled” their facts, and some people know more than you do"
Again...said the chemtrail believer. Many people know more than I do...that's the beauty of being in science. You are not evidently one of them.
"You just sound like a moron, and i normally would not even reply to a douchebag like you who talks down to me."
I have simply asked you to evidence your claims. That's all - and don't you people despise that.
"I don’t need to substantiate evidence when I’ve already done that in school for a degree."
I should ask for your money back, although the University of You Tube...that's free isn't it? And yes, as the one making the claim, the burden of truth is incumbent upon you.
"But you could look into that if you wanted to be more informed, or you could keep doing this cool Chad thing you’re doing. It’s super cool of you."
I'll ask you again, what does an HF pump and the paper that you referred me to which concerns ionospheric plasma generation to evaluate its effect upon communications and space weather have to do with aircraft contrails? Wait, you don't understand the term "space weather" do you.
When conspiracy believers attempt to do science 🤦♂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willyjankins
"Google aerosol aluminum barium patent pdf"
And it returns a method and a device for extracting barium and barium salt from ore.
Do you not understand confirmation bias and cherry picking? Chemtrail conspiracy believers parrot the same nonsense over again from tenuous links and association fallacy. I've seen all of these patents before and understand what they were intended for. Moreover, a patent is not proof of the existence of something, rather, the registration of an idea or process, irrespective how outlandish that may be.
"there are several open government documents about "chem-trails"
No, there are none. There are however as mentioned previously, government impact statements and appraisals of a wide range of geoengineering strategies, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that you are observing.
"its just not called that. Thats a buzz word for conspiracy theorists to look foolish on youtube."
To clarify - the word chemtrails originated with a junk conspiracy theory which misidentifies persistent aircraft contrails which is what this video is about. Over the last decade, the perpetrators of this hoax have introduced a range of false equivalence such as cloud seeding, defoliants/pesticides, geoengineering in the form of solar radiation management and sounding rockets in an attempt to legitimise their ludicrous claims.
Suggestion - why don't you provide a link to one of these patents and an "open government document". I can then explain to you what they actually pertain to. I guarantee that the latter relates to a review of largely hypothetical geoengineering strategies.
What's your point?
1
-
@willyjankins
"My point is I have printed out several military and congressional documents about "warming the climate"
Really? Never seen anything relating to that. So you'll have no trouble producing it then?
"I understand that most people are too lazy to find things, and most are too ignorant to understand even when you do the work for them."
Whoa, whoa there. Hold on. Why is it that you people are utterly incapable of comprehending that the burden of proof is incumbent upon those that are making the claim...the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to search for an absent or negative based upon your insistence, your personal incredulity, your confusion or at your behest.
No use simply saying it - you need to back up your claims.
"I waste time arguing with pleebs about documents because I like sharing information. I could send you several links, you'd spout off a few more buzz words you learned from YouTube or Instagram"
Why the personal abuse? I am simply asking you to substantiate your claims that's all. I am irrelevant. Anything that I respond to in relation to your posts is independently verifiable. A few buzz words learned from You Tube or instagram? - said the online conspiracy believer.
As requested - do feel free to "share" these "links". Not interested in junk conspiracy videos, false equivalence, cherry picked confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites. Original sources please.
"My "point" was that Rogan hosts Propaganda. At best he's irresponsible for not researching it himself before speaking to millions of idiots about it."
Because online conspiracy theory is of course entirely accurate, honest, reliable, not in the slightest bit manipulative or exploitative, is entirely free of bias and agenda and has your best interest at heart?
And in my original response to you I asked you to cite precisely what is non factual about this video. You have yet to do that.
1
-
1
-
@willyjankins
Four replies. Why are you people incapable of at least consolidating your random and erratic emotional responses into one comment?
"no sir, im using a mobile device, no lock keys here."
Then why the sporadic need for capilisation?
"Are you a 55 year old troll, or did you read one of the 390 pages in that link I posted?"
Firstly, why are online conspiracy believers almost invariably in addition to failing to understand burden of proof, incapable of comprehending the meaning of trolling? I am in complete agreement with this video. As the one posting unsubstantiated nonsense, ad hominen logical fallacy and ill informed opinion, by definition, the troll would be none other than yourself. As I explained, I - along with my age, is irrelevant. You need to address the subject as opposed to the individual. Regarding your "link", there is no such post visible. Unfortunately the YT spam filter can block posts containing links - and before you revert to your conspiratorial default position, this also happens to me regularly.
I absolutely guarantee that I have seen and read what you are referring to and that it pertains to impact assessments of geoengineering strategies. What's your point?
"Seems you already know everything so why are you so aggressively defeating your own arguments?"
There is nothing self-defeatist about requesting corroboration of your claims.
"You troll MY post about a nerd spreading untrue facts (lies)"
Sigh - As I have explained, responding over a comments section and requesting substantiation is not trolling. On the contrary, your posts are precisely that. I'll ask you again for the third time, what "untrue facts" (double negative there - well done), are being "spread" here? No use simply saying it.
"The nerd as well as Rogan both act like YouTube is what's wrong with the average conspiracy theorist."
It's certainly a major source of your personal incredulity and the nonsense that you parrot.
"And I agree. So I typed a post. Go take your hypertension pills and read the document"
My blood pressure is below average, but again, I am irrelevant to this exchange. Furnish me with this "document" and I'd be more than willing to read it, but as I said, I guarantee I have done before. I'd be happy to explain it to you to dispel your confusion and personal incredulity though.
"I bet you voted for biden"
Bet again - I live in London. You're doing well here so far.
"I bet you wear blue blockers in the house"
You're getting increasingly desperate here - At no stage have I mentioned political affiliation, or your system, which is irrelevant - as am I. Please try to stay on topic. There's a good lad.
So to return to my questions. You referred to "several military and congressional documents about warming the climate" I asked you to present these. I also queried what was non factual about this video. In spite of claiming it again, actually specifying what you are referring to appears to have slipped your mind. Try again - in your own time.
1
-
1
-
@willyjankins
"Holy Shit Sir. Im done. I sent a "link"
This link you claim to have posted. You either didn't or it isn't visible. Most likely, looks like the spam filter claimed it. Happens quite a lot. Put it in but avoid a hyperlink - or tell me where to find it. If you log off, and return to this thread, you'll likely find that it is not showing. Happens all the time. I absolutely guarantee what it will refer to. Allow me to remind you of what you said:
"I have printed out several military and congressional documents about "warming the climate" intentionally."
And this -
"there are several open government documents about "chem-trails"
Like I said, I guarantee what false equivalence you are referring to. Produce them then - off you go.
"I can't stay engaged in this circular debate with such a long-winded simpleton."
The irony - was it intentional?
Debate? You are incapable of responding or remaining on point, you admit that you resorted to trolling, and you now are reduced to ad hominem logical fallacy.
"If you spend half the energy researching that you've wasted typing and quoting fragments of my YouTube comments, you'd be an expert on the subject."
Given that "researching" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Like I said - atmospheric science is my background. We can discuss it if you like?
"You are very foolish to keep this up, im literally not reading your responses anymore."
Yeah, you claimed that last time, then went on to read my reply. You're not the sharpest tool in the box are you.
You find that "literally" involves "reading" and the written word.
These government "open documents" relating to "chemtrails" and "warming the atmosphere"...when you're ready.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aliced7505
So as I thought , you can't - no surprise there.
"Do your own research""
And there is again, the default conspiratorial cliché and cowardly refuge of those that are unable to comprehend burden of proof.
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"and be honest about it."
Because of course the crap online conspiracy theory that you worship at the altar of is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic, monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
1
-
@jankopandza1072
"how do i know ? i am meteorologist !"
Of course you are. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing?
So you reply with a block of staggering arrant stupidity centred solely around the appeal to your own authority and ad hominem rebuke. Seriously, this has to be the most hilarious claim that I have read from a gullible believer in this dumb online conspiracy theory. A chemtrail believer attempting to pass themselves off as a meteorologist is a bit like a flat Earther claiming to be a geophysicist, a pilot, a surveyor, and astronomer or a civil engineer.
As we both know full well, you are not a meteorologist, rather, a very dim insignificant nobody with an internet connection that you don't know how to use properly that has allowed themselves to be duped by a ludicrous online hoax that has managed to reduce a cloud to a conspiracy theory.
"Do you even know conditions of condensation ?"
Yes, would you like to discuss it in more detail? How about, instead of your pathetic online posturing and attempts at abuse you actually concentrate on the subject concerned and attempt to refute anything that I have written. Start with "conditions of condensation" and naturally, being a "meteorologist" you will be able to substantiate and support any of your claims and contentions with objective meteorological science at source as opposed to what some crap online conspiracy theory told you to think.
Go ahead then. I'm waiting.
1
-
1
-
@Unknown-UpTown-Resident
"Common sense" is just another term for personal incredulity.
As explained, persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. The main difference is that today they are far more prevalent due to a marked increase in commercial air traffic - both PAX and freight, and the fact that there are far more routes flown.
The explanations for your observations are all provided in this thread.
Chemtrails are a physical and mathematical impossibility. To deposit a 100 mile long trail would require a payload vastly exceeding the MTOW of any aircraft. In addition to this, what chemical can linger and increase in mass - just like, well fancy that, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Moreover, if you really are paying attention then you will observe sections of a persistent trail often seemingly randomly fading, vanishing and reappearing - which your conspiracy theorists never mention and would be unable to explain. This is due to the fact that the atmosphere is a fluid and is neither isotropic or homogeneous. Parcels of air rise and subside and differing humidity, vapour pressure and temperature can mean that a trail may become broken after it has been deposited.
1
-
@Unknown-UpTown-Resident
But to reiterate, the "immense contrails" that you refer to are nothing new - and if the atmospheric conditions are conducive to their spread, they can merge and blanket the sky. Contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading, or they may not necessarily form at all. Whether or not they do is governed by the interplay and interrelationship of vapour pressure, relative humidity and ambient air temperature - all of which is in flux.
In his 1942 book, "Flight to Arras, a memoire and modern classic by French aviation luminary and author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, he observed...
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you actually read this?
Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. As I said, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - yeah, that's right, chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studios of Hollywood? Wow...now that's a thought. Was it your own? - nothing gets past you. In a studio or a basement? Tell me more, because, (at the risk of sounding contrary), I thought that Stanley Kubrick was supposed to have filmed it at Shepperton UK? Wait, some say Pinewood, or was it Elstree?...or maybe Twickenham so as not to arouse suspicion. Hold on, stop right there! - it was definitely Cannon AFB New Mexico, that was it. A converted hangar...or was that at Area 51? No, that was in the desert, Groom Lake. Or was it Arizona? the Utah outback? Death Valley some say. No, without a doubt Devon Island Canada. You complete goons can't even make your minds up. I guess it depends upon which dumb online grifter/conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood Studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, and six times, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Any other rays of insight genius?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ctaukus9146
“are you a paid troll?”
As the one posting abuse and uniformed drivel on this page, by definition, the troll would be none other than yourself. I am merely challenging your claims which I am perfectly at liberty to do so.
“Very quick to jump on my reply however let's turn the tables a little bit and you show me your evidence that it's not happening because it's fairly obvious.”
The burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim the onus does not lie upon another party to prove a negative or an absent.
“By the way shouldn't a persistent contrail actually persist? Around me they stop and start and stop and start whatever the GPS turns it on and off.”
What?
The atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogeneous in respect of temperature, humidity and pressure, (the chief factors governing the formation of a contrail) – moreover it is constantly in flux. All three can change within a matter of mere metres. Are you similarly perplexed about variations in cloud cover? Fly an aircraft at speeds up to 500knots through such conditions and of course a contrail will appear sporadic and seem to instantaneously turn on and off. You need to pay closer attention. Observe a recently deposited persistent contrail and you will often witness segments of it proportionately fade and vanish – confirmation of rising and subsiding parcels of warmer and drier air. The same effect can be observed with an aerodynamic contrail.
…Oh look, Discovery spraying.
https://youtu.be/Xtfnl_KOuCM?t=174
“You can't suspend the laws of chemistry and physics at will it he there is a persistent contrail or it is not.”
You are absolutely correct that a contrail can be a binary event – however the length and duration is entirely governed by the ambient atmospheric conditions (in addition to velocity and thrust) – they may be short lived, persistent, spreading or not occur at all. In conditions of high RHi, a contrail will persist because it is unable to rapidly sublimate back into its invisible gaseous phase – (water vapour). In cases of supersaturation in respect to ice, a contrail will not only endure but will expand and grow often merging into a single sheet often becoming indistinguishable from naturally occurring cirrus.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
In respect of “laws of chemistry and physics” – would you like to discuss them in more detail in relation to your supposed chemtrails?
“But you know you're full of shit anyway, and so does approximately 30% of the population that live in the NATO Nations that are participating and a global aerosol program.”
And you have established this how?
1
-
1
-
@ctaukus9146
"You must be a newbie On the boards"
It's the comments section of an entertainment platform. How old are you?
"because you’re technique is pretty lame."
So is your grammar (note the use of the possessive pronoun).
Why would that be? - being able to back up my comments and requesting similar substantiation from you?
You questioned how a trail can appear to turn on and off, I presented footage of the Space Shuttle Discovery producing the same effect with an aerodynamic contrail and explained how. You are perplexed and confused about the differing duration and lengths of contrails and that they expand and spread out. I provided you with the science which you reject.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Pay particular attention to Section IV in which the number densities (n) and volume mixing ratios (x) are linked by the ideal gas law to compute the air density M (at the pressure p = 250 hPa) and calculate x = n/M where iw denotes the flux (per unit time) of H2O molecules from the gas phase toward the small ice particles as defined by taking into account the transition between the free molecular and diffusion-limited regimes. As I explained, this flux is driven by the relative humidity in the contrail in respect to ice, given as RHI = 100% × nw/nsat, where nsat is the H2O equilibrium number density over ice. Again, do feel free to refute and demonstrate the error in the applied mathematics that express these mixing ratios and ultimately the contrail factor.
If you are unable to follow the above, then how are you qualified to pass any comments upon what you are observing. If that is the case, I suggest that you commence by reading up on dew points, relative humidity, lapse rates and the Appleman equations.
"How do you know there is an aerosol spray going on? How are you so sure?"
For the third time - you are the one making the claim therefore the responsibility lies with you back that assertion up with evidence. The onus does not fall upon another to prove a negative or an absent. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the concept of Russell's Teapot. In the meantime, this is for you, because you've assuredly earned it - and pray that you never end up in court as the prosecution...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
"Who the fuck are you that you would know if there’s a secret program going on or not."
If it's so secretive - then how do you know about it? Of course - you read it on the internet.
"The answer is you’re bullshit, And you don’t know a thing and less you’re on the inside."
I do know how to conjugate a sentence - which is always a bonus.
Well not entirely. As I explained, my background is atmospheric science and remote sensing. Here's the thing. Given the two decades that this alleged spraying has supposedly been in progress and the fact that you maintain that the sky is supposedly full of these chemical trails; appreciating that there are hundreds of studies into the micro-physical properties of contrails and in view of the sophistication and availability of remote sensing and atmospheric monitoring technology worldwide, there should similarly be a multitude of data gathered in respect of your "chemtrails".Just one in-situ spectrographic analytical study at source will suffice. Oddly, none of you seem to be able to produce this data when requested.
And it doesn't necessarily have to be derived from an aircraft mounted optical array spectrometer. As I mentioned, my specialist field was ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) - handy for me and unfortunate for you. In view of this, I would specifically be most interested in the results from airborne differential absorption LIDAR measurements during a defined IOP, PBL illustrating the dynamics and vertical separation of these aerosol layers of your supposed chemical trails. We can commence with COD data. CGS yielding TWST results - the advantage being that such precisely calibrated instrumentation can examine a narrow segment (0.5 degrees) of the sky directly overhead in great detail, recording the spectral radiance of your alleged chemical trails in the visible wavelength regime at 2-8 nm spectral resolution. It is also a routine undertaking extracted a distinct signature of these chemical trails regarding the extent of thermo-atmospheric scattering which can be derived from mono-static SODAR data and optical thickness equations and in association with the Ångström exponent derivation.
Could you refer me to the hard data? Oh wait...
"But I know what I see"
Of course you do...
https://youtu.be/IPcPuehb0OI
To return to my initial question again then. What is your method/criteria to allow differentiation between persistent spreading contrails and you supposed "chemtrails"?
"and I know the dozens of commercial airline pilots interviewed who can’t explain this phenomenon."
Name them, together with the airlines flown for, flying hours and current position - there should be thousands to choose from - just one will do.
"And why is it that every morning the sky is blue in our area and after three or four hours of planes going overhead it’s a complete white out."
Provide your location together with a date of your choosing and I'll furnish you with the meteorological data.
"Because it’s a normal phenomenon you say? Bullshit. You’re fucking bullshit and so are any of the other trolls That come on here and send us links to more bullshit."
Yeah, two things to understand here. firstly if you insist upon branding something as "bullshit" - you need to state why. Secondly, as I have painstakingly explained, as the one hurling abuse, making irrational statements and attacking this video then the troll would be none other than yourself. I am simply challenging and asking you to qualify your claims.
"Unfortunately any links to actual evidence has been taken down by all of the government controlled websites so that’s why you know it’s true because all of the evidence has conveniently disappeared."
How convenient. What "evidence" would that be? Perhaps you missed the endless pages of search engine results manipulated to return this nonsense? the confirmation bias, the thousands of baseless conspiracy videos on this platform alone, all those hoax pseudoscientific websites? - which is precisely the reason that you subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BornAgain222
"You believe in the corona "science" too probably...?"
If you are referring to the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology then that is my frame of reference, however known science is not a question of 'belief'.
"I know what contrails looked like before chemicals began being added."
Really - and what was that then?
"And their are several documents explaining in great detail that they are indeed attempting to cool the planet with chemtrails."
Produce them - just one will do. Incidentally, I think you meant to type the adverb, there as opposed to the determiner, their.
You appear to be relying on the false equivalence of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is a hypothetical concept positing that the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols can be replicated to arrest rising global temperatures. This is entirely in the province of research proposal and mathematical modelling and has not even remotely reached the stages of small scale trails. The SCoPEx project which was to involve a steerable balloon launched 22km into the stratosphere to release mere kilos of water in order to evaluate perturbation was abandoned. Moreover, SAI would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and believers term chemtrails.
"Did you do any research?"
Indeed, it's my job, whilst my background is climatology and specialist field ground based remote sensing. Would you like to discuss it? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barbaraduncan3126
"very hilarious. I know the difference between contrails and chemical trails."
Of course you do, you are an online conspiracy believer, you know everything - the internet said so.
"Contrails disappear quick behind the plane."
Really? Why? Detail the physical laws that determine this.
"Chemtrails are lines that stay and spread out and connect to other lines that other planes leave that are spreading the chemical trails making a cloud type cover in the sky."
And out of curiosity, how do you differentiate these supposed 'chemtrails' from persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years and are understood by the fields of aviation and meteorological science?
"You are not looking up to see and are being misinformed about the dangerous chemicals they are spreading in the sky."
Well, I obtained my post graduate qualification in 'Applied Meteorology and Climatology' over two decades ago and having alpine climbed since the age of nine, qualified as a mountain leader which has seen my work spanning four continents. Added to which, my field was ground based remote sensing, and as a keen astronomer, well, you could say I've spent most of my life 'looking up. It has been my living.
Really simple. I suggest that you yourself, 'look up' lapse rates, relative humidity and dew point, understand a bit about cloud formation and learn some basic facts about aviation - in addition to gaining a modicum of humility. Then you'll be less likely to humiliate yourself by arrogantly parroting nonsense off the internet about subjects that you clearly haven't the slightest clue about.
"So either become informed or stay blind to the truth."
Said the believer in a dumb online hoax that has managed to be convinced that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
Now as requested, could you detail the physical laws that determine that a contrail must necessarily 'disappear quick behind a plane' whilst at the same time, explain the duration of a cirrus cloud. In your own time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Brennan said nothing of the sort.
Here's ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered reading this or was it the ridiculous strapline of some conspiracy video that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway or planned, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI is a hypothetical concept that hasn't even graduated beyond paper based proposal, computer modelling or reached the stages of small scale trial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@-TheOracle-
Kelvin is a measure of temperature. Space as such is neither hot or cold, it’s empty. There is no 'hot' in space; it’s a vacuum. So space is said to be “filled with cold”. If atoms come to a complete stop, they are at absolute zero. Space is just above that, at notionally an average temperature of 2.7 Kelvin. From this, naturally the common misconception is that outer space is cold, but in truth, space itself has no temperature. In thermodynamic terms, temperature is a function of heat energy in a given amount of matter, and space by definition has no mass. Furthermore, heat transfer cannot occur the same way in space, since two of the three methods of heat transfer (conduction and convection) cannot occur without matter. Any heat you feel is radiant energy from a sun. Objects in space can be hot or cold, depending on how much energy they have, they receive and they lose. In the absence of convection and conduction a body will either warm in the presence of a heat source or cool down in the absence of it through radiation.
Clearly then the Apollo craft was simultaneously exposed to the heat of the sun and the loss of it in the shade. In spacecraft design, the function of any thermal control system is to keep all the spacecraft's component systems within acceptable temperature ranges during all mission phases. It must cope with the external environment, which can vary in a wide range as the spacecraft is exposed to the extremes found in the shadows of deep space or to the intense heat found in the unfiltered direct sunlight of outer space. A TCS must also moderate the internal heat generated by the operation of the spacecraft it serves. A TCS can eject heat passively through the simple and natural infrared radiation of the spacecraft itself, or actively for example through an externally mounted infrared radiation coil.
Apollo spacecraft were often put in a "barbecue roll" - an example of a passive thermal control mode. This slowly rotated the spacecraft along its main axis. Without this maneuver, one side of the spacecraft would get too hot from facing the sun all the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The plane sitting perfectly still on the runway. It was still spraying whatever is in this mixture."
Can you upload this video that you shot? You also claimed this...
"The passengers were delayed being able to depart the plane. Oh, and the doctors tested their clothing as well as themselves,.....they found; 1.Aluminum oxide 2.Thorium oxide, just to name a couple. The particles ranged in size from 10 to 100 microns"
How did you establish this and where is the official report or evidence?
"The patent numbers, sprayer types, all of it, can be found at the U.S. patent office."
Patents are proof of nothing, you can find almost whatever you want in the U.S. patent office irrespective of how absurd it may be. There are indeed patents for spraying devices and apparatus for a range of different application. What does this have to do with the flight that you were on, the erroneous claim that contrails are evidence of chemical spraying and why would a commercial airliner be fitted out for the purposes o weather modification?
For the second time of asking, do you believe that the footage in this video is also evidence of chemtrails? As I suggested, your response will explain much.
1
-
"Because one of the doctors "was" my dad. Believe it or not, I don't care if you do or not."
One of the Doctors was your Dad. Ok. And no one, not one person spoke to the press? How did he sample their clothing? What was his prognosis? I'm not interested in anecdotal tales over the internet and no, I don't believe you. Substantiate it, start with the video you claimed to have shot which you oddly, as an advocate of this conspiracy theory cannot produce and have not uploaded. What flight was it, what was the airline and what was the date? - thanks.
"You and yours are breathing this crap believe it or not."
No we are breathing measurable harmful ground based and airborne industrial pollution which you seem oddly impervious to.
"The fool is the one who would not even look into it because he or she just simply doesn't believe it."
I have looked into chemtrails and I'm confident that I know infinitely more than you do about where and when these claims began, precisely who the main protagonists are in addition to all of the fallacious supposed "evidence" which has been deceptively circulated by the perpetrators of this hoax. In the absence of empirical data demonstrating cause and effect your nonsensical conspiracy theory is eternally consigned to the echochamber of YouTube comments section, subjective social media and fringe online conspiracy obsessed clickbait confirmation bias.
"dare you to study it and then call anyone a lier!!"
I qualified in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over a decade and ahalf ago and my current field is remote sensing, which I can assure you is infinitely more useful in understanding and measuring the atmosphere than an evening in front of baseless You Tube conspiracy theory. I have "studied it" as you say and until you are able to prove otherwise, yes, I am indeed calling you a liar. (Note the spelling).
For the fourth time, do you believe that this footage in this video is capturing chemtrails?
1
-
"I'm gonna ask the questions."
As opposed to answering them? How convenient. Merry Christmas, this is for you...
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1499/94/1499948393552.png
"Who do you work for, what is you interest in this subject?"
I work for an NGO my field is remote sensing and part time as a lecturer and researcher for a UK University.
"what is your interest in this subject?"
I have no interest in the pseudoscience that is the chemtrail hoax other than debunking a dangerous, deceptive and damaging fraud together with the online charlatans associated with it.
"Now, I'm done talking to absolute idiots"
So you are actually renouncing your belief in chemtrails and those associated with it?
"I dislike trolls like yourself"
As the one that originally visited this page and saying this
"Bullshit!!!!!" - conversely, you'll find that you are the one that is trolling this video not me.
"AND PEOPLE THAT ALWAYS ASSUME OTHERS ARE LYING."
You claimed to have shot footage onboard a stationery commercial aircraft of "chemtrail spraying during which PAX were detained from disembarking whereupon a team of doctors discovered chemical residues upon their clothing of which one of these was your Father. Oddly enough, no I don't believe you and I am asking you at the very least to produce the video. Easy to do - this is after all YouTube. (Incidentally, your caps lock appears to be intermittently malfunctioning).
"No wonder this planet is doomed, complete and utter thick headed people like you that assume everything is a lie."
Perhaps I should subscribe to unsubstantiated junk online conspiracy theory instead?
"More important things to do than, listen to rambling of the uneducated!"
As I mentioned, I qualified in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two and half decades ago and currently work in the field of remote sensing and as a part time academic...will that do? And yourself?
Ok, I answered your questions - now once again, here are mine (again)...
1/ This flight that you were on, what was the date, the airline and the flight number?
2/ Do you regard the footage in this video as being evidence of chemtrails?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@myfirstasmrvideo8463
"cameras have gotten better over time so it's very likely that nasal have worked on better cameras that would work in space plus alot of those images are sent directly to nasa wirlessly, when the moon landing happened they was littrly filming on potatos and had to have the footage in their hands to be able to see it meaning that the camera would have to make its way back to earth witch very lively was noy designed to leave the earth thefor the heat from it leaveing or entering earth's atmosphere at speed would have burnt parts of the film and due to the poor quality of the camera anyways the footage would not be usable as proof as we would not actually be able to see anything other than a blury image that jumps about"
Punctuation is your friend. I'd like to conclude that you dictated this, but some of the appalling English betray a complete lack of literacy.
Other than that, what you typed is complete and utter nonsense. Seriously, why are you attempting to sound authoritative and informed about a topic that you demonstrably have zero understanding of whatsoever?
"Technology has improved so much over such a short time what we have now is 100 times better that they had during that time they was not going in to space at that time with iPhone 37s or what ever we are on now shooting 8k videos that they was wordlessly airdriping to everyone, The carmas they had there wear poor quality not designed to go to space and the footage had to be brought phisicly back for anyone to see it and if you know anything about would cameras its hard to keep the film intact it gets damaged so easily here on earth so imagine what happens if you take this fragile thing and shoot it up in to space where it essentially has to pass through an oven and then back again the chances of that footage surviving is very low and once its damaged there's not really anyway to get it back to the way it was meant to be so yes there is a very high chance that the footage was unable but nasa didn't want to let people down as they promised us footage so they had no other choice but to fake it"
It's honestly nigh on impossible to know where to begin when confronted by such abject ignorance. Firstly, the cameras were expressly modified for the Apollo mission both in terms of heat and radiation. Levels of radiation encountered during the Apollo missions did not have had a significant effect on the moderate speed and low sensitivity film types they used. The film for the cameras was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Radiation’s effects are largely cumulative, so if you can toss a roll of film in a drawer for two decades, which you can, and then use it successfully, you’ll actually have exposed it to the worst that any film on the Apollo missions experienced. In the main, Apollo used modified Hasselbad 500 EL 70mm film cameras and initially slow scan video cameras on the surface of the moon. The images were relayed via S band antenna. Regarding temperature, this is redundant and completely different to heat. Space is a vacuum, so no, it is nothing remotely like 'an oven' which heats its contents largely through convection but also conduction. On the moon, there is no atmosphere and so no air temperature. In space you need to shield over time against the radiative heat of the sun, but also insulate against heat that is radiated out from a body in the shade. This is no issue whatsoever for a small camera or the film inside anymore that it was in terms of the operation of the experimental packages/instruments deployed on the lunar surface.
Again, I am utterly unable to comprehend why so many people feel the need to advertise their complete ignorance over the internet and to comment about subjects for the sake of it that they clearly haven't the remotest idea about. Is this something that you do in the real world?
1
-
@myfirstasmrvideo8463
"so because I didn't put a gay ass little squiggly line in the right place what I'm saying is automatically a lie?"
Nope, I commented on the fact that your post was so appallingly written and composed it was virtually unreadable. What precisely is a "gay ass little squiggly line"? Meantime, what you were saying is not a wilful lie, it's simply wrong and based entirely on your own lack of knowledge and conjecture.
"okey bro what ever you say, like I said that was just my opinion your entitled to your own but to say someone is wrong because of something that has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about is just dumb asf this is not an English class room it's the comment section of a YouTube video so fk your punctuation marks"
Take one moment to read that rant back, reflect on my previous response to you and hopefully have some humility and introspection. Your punctuation (or lack of it) aside, this is nothing to do with "opinions", yours or mine. The film, the cameras, the video footage, the fact that no, space is not like your oven, all this can be independently verified. The issue here is that you are confusing your "opinion" with fact - and it's everything that is wrong with the internet and the populist world that we now live in. Individuals feeling the need to comment for the sake of it around subjects that they demonstrably have zero knowledge of whatsoever and being completely oblivious to their personal incredulity. And why the unnecessary abuse?
"if you want ti say I'm wrong then at least come up with good points to suggest that I'm wrong or come at me with some real evidence not just oh you didn't put a punctuation mark here and there that means your uneducated on the subject we are talking about thefor your opinion is automatically wrong"
Sigh! - what part of my response to you did you not understand. The models of the cameras and contrary to your claims, their modifications made to them? The S-Band transmission of footage? Or the thermal dynamics of a vacuum? Specifically, which of these would you like me to clarify further or go into more detail about? Shall we start again in explaining why the vacuum of space is not remotely like your oven?
Seriously, if you are that thin skinned sensitive and indignant in response to a comment on a video entertainment platform, how on earth do you function in the real world on a daily basis?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1nation919
"your a sheep"
Oh Jesus wept...is that really it? Doesn't it get embarrassing for you and don't you see the irony in mindlessly regurgitating the same banal conspiratorial clichés? And in common with practically every conspiracy theorist in existence, you fail to differentiate between 'you' and 'you're'. I guess that's the consequence of an internet connection substituting for an education. The chemistry of the atmosphere may well be slightly premature.
"Let me guess u don’t believe in global warming either?"
As I explained, climate science is my background and science is not about 'belief'. That would be online conspiracy theory.
"Why do these “trails” seem to appear on only certain day’s? If it was a flight path well traveled it would be an everyday thing."
Did you not even bother opening the links that I sent you?
A contrail is merely a form of artificially induced cirrus. The main governing factors are temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all of the air is very dry. Are you equally as perplexed by variation in cloud cover? By your logic a cloud should be a permanent fixture continually present in the same location in three dimensional space. The atmosphere is studied as a fluid and is continually motion. Moreover it is non-isotropic and not homogenous in terms of temperature, humidity and pressure. You obviously haven't been looking hard enough. You can frequently see evidence of this in recently deposited lasting contrails. Very often sections will seemingly arbitrarily fade vanish and even reappear. As if you really needed a final nail in your chemtrail nonsense. This is due to the motion of the atmosphere rising and subsiding pockets and columns of warmer/drier air. Have you ever actually flown? Think about turbulence in an aircraft.
In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise however - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
The links that I provided you with explain the science behind all this.
"As smart as you think you are you are still an idiot when it comes to common sense"
Why the pointless personal attacks? Why do you people react with such indignation when your emotional investment and anecdotal incredulity are challenged? Because face it, that's all conspiracy theory is. Common sense? Read back your last reply to me why don't you.
I am irrelevant - as is your subjective notion of 'common sense, You are choosing to contend known physics of the atmosphere in defence of a puerile conspiracy theory that has managed to convince you that a cloud is a conspiracy theory. Tell me, do you spout this nonsense outside of your echo-chamber in the real world?
"look up in the sky sometime and open your eyes and mind!!!!!"
Thanks for that. I have alpine climbed since a child - leading and guiding on four continents, obtained post graduate qualifications in applied Climatology and Meteorology, my subsequent field was Ground Based Passive Remote Sensing - specifically in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) - I also taught GIS and currently work in Research Capability. To reiterate, I am irrelevant to you...as much as you desperately try to personalise this, your contention lies with the physical laws of the atmosphere not me.
Like I said, what have you got to tell me? Perhaps we could start with your data? There are after all hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails - I sent you two. In over two decades of this alleged spraying there must be a multitude of analyses to choose from into your supposed 'chemtrails' at source....'surely your 'common sense' tells you that?
Just one will do. Go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bondojoe8161
So in the space of three comments you've gone from "those capsules were" as thick as an aluminium can" to "they look thinner than an aluminium can".
Lets start with Gemini shall we? The adaptor module was an externally skinned, stringer framed structure, with magnesium stringers and an aluminum alloy frame. The adaptor was composed of two parts, an equipment section at the base and a retrorocket section at the top. The reentry module consisted mainly of the pressurized cabin designed to hold the two Gemini astronauts. Separating the reentry module from the retrorocket section of the adaptor at its base was a curved silicone elastomer ablative heat shield. The crew module was composed predominantly of titanium and nickle-alloy with beryllium shingles.
The Apollo Command Module's Inner Hull varied in thickness from 0.25 inches to 1.5 inches of aluminium alloy. The Outer Hull vairied from 0.5 inches to 2.5 inches in thickness of steel. Between the two hulls was a layer of fibrous thermal insulation.
So in each case, your claim is demonstrably wrong.
Regarding radiation, the VAB consists of a high population of low energy particles, easily stopped by a spacecraft's hull. Only the relatively low population high energy particles would penetrate the crew compartment, resulting in a low radiation dose for astronauts on Apollo translunar missions. You can shield against alpha and beta particles with a piece of paper.
In cislunar space, The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. What this means that the even the SPE of August 1972 which occurred between Apollo 16 and 17, had it have happened during either of these missions would have been attenuated by the capsule from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs.
It's nothing to do with what I think or what you think - read the specifications and the schematics. Why do you think that in over half a century the entire field of aerospace engineering worldwide has failed to notice these supposed shortcomings but you, a random conspiracy believer on You Tube with zero knowledge of the subject or relevant expertise presumes to know better?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Wait a minute. Cloud seeding is an actual thing not a conspiracy"
No one is suggesting that it is. What's your point? It has nothing to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and their believers term chemtrails.
"Also all of these bureaucracies have admitted to dispersing aerosols into the air at one time or another. Its know as geoengineering and is a very real thing."
Have they? Could you provide an original link at source to one of these supposed "admissions"?
Several things here. Firstly, geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) carbon sequestering, biochar, aforestation and ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. Other than ground based albedo modification, this is entirely hypothetical. Sounds as though you are referring to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which has not progressed beyond research proposal and computer modelling. Moreover, it has never at any stage been secretive. The proponents of this research are keen to publicise it to generate support and funding. How precisely do you admit to something that isn't denied?
What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails?
"Also aluminum is an aerosol released by NASA. Link below
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sounding-rockets/tracers/metals.html"
Sounding rockets...again? Really? Again, this has never been concealed from public knowledge and have been launched since the 1950s, These are not "sprayed", they are launched into the ionosphere and contain trivial amounts of material. Strikes me, your 'chemtrails' are whatever you want them to be.
Consider for example fireworks. They produce smoke and dust that may contain residues of heavy metals, sulphur-coal compounds and some low concentration toxic chemicals. These by-products of fireworks combustion will vary depending on the mix of ingredients of a particular firework. (The colour green, for instance, may be produced by adding the various compounds and salts of barium, some of which are toxic, and some of which are not.) Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryillium, strontium and radium. Literally chemtrails!!! - and there are an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of fireworks detonated every year! It would be like me saying "fireworks have been admitted to".
Incidentally. that's 460,000,0000lbs detonated on or near ground level in comparison to the 20 sounding research rockets launched by NASA annually used at altitudes between 50-248 miles and which contain about 1lb each of vapour tracer material - so 20lbs in total each year.
What's you point?
1
-
@mikec4196
"My point was that manipulating geomagnetic frequencies to disrupt weather patterns is not only equally as destructive, but boarders on a doctor evil level, and were also without a doubt developed by weapons engineers. Coupled with the FACT that these exact chemicals in question, are know to be intentionally emitted, gives some credence to an argument."
That wasn't your point at all. You were talking about cloud seeding, a supposed admission that doesn't exist and sounding rockets which as I have explained have been launched into the ionosphere since the 1950s and contain around a kilo of tracer material.
What you are now alleging is absolute conspiratorial nonsense and junk internet pseudoscience. Typing "fact" in caps lock doesn't make it real.
"Maybe you have some specials clearances that i do not making such definite claims. However we know the internet was created in 1969, again by weapons engineers."
What's your point? Oh hang on....
"My point being that if you are suggesting you know the extent of these programs and can site fact, then you are sorely mistaken. Research is never just research with DARPA."
What does any of this have to do with cloud seeding, sounding research rockets and misidentified aircraft contrails?
"Its stupid I actually have to give you these examples."
What's "stupid" is that the first is summary of the effects of exposure to a pesticide, the second pertains to a defoliant used to reduce vegetation and therefore cover for the Vietcong in the Vietnam War and the third is a list of experimentation on the public compiled by Wikipedia.
Simply because governments have and do deceive or act without the knowledge or consent of the people, that does not automatically add legitimacy to any random conspiracy theory off the internet of ones arbitrary choice, agenda or devising. Surely, surely you are capable of comprehending that?
Again, what does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails that you are witnessing and been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years?
"Oh yeah lets not forget COVID"
What about it?
"Also thanks for the fireworks explanation, I am complete now."
Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryillium, strontium and radium. Literally chemtrails!!! - 460,000,0000lbs detonated on or near ground level in comparison to the 20 sounding research rockets launched by NASA annually used at altitudes between 50-248 miles and which contain about 1lb each of vapour tracer material - so 20lbs in total each year. Glad you actually understand that now.
"Point is, Lets not be sheep."
Bleated the online conspiracy believer.
1
-
@mikec4196
"The point I made was exactly what I intended. Thanks for telling me what I meant though, that's as much fun as a nagging wife. Joe's initial claim was that aluminum cant be an aerosol. That is factually untrue."
Could you provide the time in the video in which he claims this? thanks.
"I never claimed to believe that contrails were dangerous. I said cloud seeding and geoengineering coupled with the known toxins purposefully released in the air, gives credence to an argument. How is that pushing a conspiracy?"
Gives credence to what argument precisely? This video is about the chemtrail conspiracy theory.
"What is truly stupid, is that you are suggesting malathion and agent orange were some benign pesticides that didn't kill and mutate thousands. You might want to educate yourself a little further."
Nice strawman there. At no stage have I said anything of the sort. What I am asking and will repeat again is what does any of this have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
"Every world government has released viruses, gasses, bacteria, and radioactive elements on its own people.
None of that is conspiracy theory. Is this something your capable of understanding?"
That is incorrect. However some have either carried out atrocities using chemical weaponry such as the Assad regime, or Saddam Hussein - other, covert experimentations for a range of reasons. I did not at any stage refute this, rather asked again, what does this have to do with this video or the chemtrail conspiracy video? I also asked you whether you are capable of comprehending the fact that throughout history, although governments have experimented and deceived the people, it does not then naturally follow that chemtrails or any random online conspiracy theory of your arbitrary choice or devising is legitimate. Not hard to understand.
"If you care to look you will find hundreds of examples where harmful agents were purposefully released. There is a long history of bio weapons being used on civilian populations. I never claimed this was a reason to believe all conspiracy. You made that assertion."
To reiterate, this video is about the chemtrails conspiracy theory. So why are you posting all this, which is already known and acknowledged? Again, what does all of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails? That is all I have been repeatedly asking you.
"What does COVID have to do with it?
Are you fucking serious? You asked for examples of man made harmful agents being released in the air genius."
SARS-CoV-19 is a naturally occurring zoonotic disease - it is not man made. There are hundreds of coronaviruses present in the animal kingdom that could make he leap to another vector.
"And don't call me Surely."
Original then. I'd stick to your 1980s Zucker horseshit - although even the airplane in airplane made contrails
"Said an adult with a stupid nickname lolol"
Said an 'adult' that types "lolol".
Yassassin is Turkish for "long live". That's all. Clear now?
1
-
@mikec4196
"Well well, I was about to round the kids up, head out and start a search party to look for your sense of humor."
No need - I find you and your chemtrails nonsense hilarious.
"Rite at 13:00 min he goes into it. Granted he is tired and has been beaten down by every wack job conspiracy in the bag."
Cheers for that. I've taken a look. At no stage does he say that aluminium can't be an aerosol. Rather he's implicitly suggesting that if it was, it wouldn't look like a cloud - which is correct.
"Sweetheart, if you don't know that COVID came from the Wuhan lab of virology, then I'm not sure what more of a rational conversation we can have about that subject."
No one does. The accidental release hypothesis from the Wuhan Institute of Virology has not been proven. SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans. However, a lab leak has not been ruled out. Even if that were the case however, that does not mean that it was "a man made harmful agent released into the air" - and to reiterate once again, this would have nothing to do with the aircraft contrails discussed in this video that chemtrail conspiracy theorists refer to as "chemtrails". Why do you insist on constantly changing the subject. If you want an example of man made harmful agents released into the air, then I'll refer you back to fireworks. Strikes me, that chemtrails are whatever you want them to be.
"The matter is, that it has happened, and just because you have the specs from FAA regulated jet fuels, doesn't mean you know for sure it isn't happening."
What has happened? What is happening?
"You are 100% correct, not every nation has done it. Unfortunately the lineage is long, dark, and not so far in the past."
So in another spectacular tangential non-sequitur you're back to something totally unrelated to trails behind high flying aircraft? To clarify again - this video is about the ludicrous belief that aircraft contrails are evidence of a planned programme of chemical spraying.
"For the record: You actually called me Surely. Your sentence was constructed funny."
Mate - trust me, you are in no position to comment upon written English anymore than you are atmospheric science. I suggest that you read back your own posts.
"Leslie Neilson was a champion, no?"
Well police squad and naked gun was mildly funny if telegraphed American humour is your bag.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Are you saying the "vapor" in the e cigs do not contain metals and nickel because the people are blowing water."
Water vapour is an invisible gas. It is present in any combustion process of a hydrocarbon fuel. The exhaust that produces this will also contain by products. All combustion engines produce trace metallic elements in the exhaust. These are present in the fuel and exhaust in trace quantities and also to a much lesser extent are the product of wear and tear. The total emission of metals will be less than 0.3 percent of total fuel particulate matter mass. All the elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in road going diesel and petroleum. Not sure of your point here.
"B. Gates was on this initiative to replecate volcanic plume cover, but not with water!! Smh."
Bill Gates has leant vocal support and some funding to Harvard's geoengineering research initiative - other than that, he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The main branch of this is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is an entirely hypothetical concept aiming to replicate (note the spelling) the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. This is purely in the province of research paper and mathematical modelling, however a small scale trial was planned in 2019 which never took place. The SCoPEx project intends to launch a balloon 20km into the stratosphere to evaluate dispersion and perturbation using...you guessed it, several kilos of water. Based upon this data similarly negligible quantities of calcium carbonate would be harmlessly released. Here's your SAI as it currently stands....
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... again, may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Just because people are aware of what power can do DOESNT mean they are scared, or afraid."
To clarify - you've managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
"Its sick when people make the others who dont believe the same out to be crazy or trippen (rabbit hole), or not credible. WHEN did You get Bent this way?"
Known science is not a question of belief.
"I'm shocked you let this guy slander jim lee. His website climate weather dot com is very well made and has so many intractive maps, "real maps" that ur "square" viewers would jealously scoff at, yet most ain't never even crossed any oceans."
Jim Lee???? Are you actually being serious? I suppose that explains much. No, as one of the main perpetrators of this hoax his website contains false equivalence, association fallacy and misrepresentation to bamboozle and dupe the scientifically illiterate.
"Check your yourself Joe Rogan, debunking doesn't mean go extremely over to another conspiracy. $HIP TRaCKS? Bunker fuel? Its OLD news, operation popeye, the men who injured my dad in operation brown water didnt know what they were doing"
Cloud seeding wasn't secretive. Again, what are you talking about? The brown water strategy was an attempt to blast the Vietcong out of the Mekong delta using gunboats.
"So of coarse someone could release on thier own heads or families unbeknownst to them for years...duh"
In the guise of aircraft contrails that have been observed for the best part of a century. And what would be the purpose of that?
"LOOK at what cloud seeding is? Get a grip, Silver Iodine is what primes the clouds to create rainfall..."
I think you mean silver iodide. Again, what's your point? It's typically deployed in very small quantities from flare racks retrofitted to light aircraft. The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant by peer-reviewed research. Also, it's not at all widespread despite high profile state sponsored schemes in China and the UAE.
"This video makes me cringe, and regret all the others I have watched. So so sad, but glad I heard what you people are capable of $hit slinging and singing and they are influenced."
Because of course online conspiracy theory is entirely trustworthy and accurate, not in the slightest bit deceitful, deceptive, opportunist, exploitative or manipulative, completely free of agenda or profit motivation and has your best interests at heart? Ok then.
1
-
@starlaseattle7948
"retro fitted..."
Yes - rack mounted flares, usually installed on the wings.
"small doses...to do what, for what?"
As you suggested, to apply additional nucleation to existing clouds already conducive to precipitation in an attempt to induce rainfall, either prematurely or over a designated area. It has nothing to do with contrails which are non-rain bearing cirrus clouds formed at a much higher altitude, nor is it related to any aspect of geoengineering.
"Low doses eventually become enough of a dose for more damage"
As I said, cloud seeding is not widespread and the quantities of materials are so negligible such cumulative/incremental build up is impossible. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels.
"Thanks for responding anyway and bringing your info."
Genuinely, thank you so much for your constructive and civil response. Much appreciated.
"Do you have any info to share about the ionosphere, or frequencies, Is that a conspiracy that has a clear explanation?"
These conspiracy theories stem from a misunderstanding of the HAARP project - (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme). Its original designations was to explore the Luxembourg-Gorky effect to enhance long range communications. HAARP has been able to create Extremely Low Frequency waves as low as 1 Hertz, the hydroacoustic potential of this meant that the Navy could more effectively communicate with its fleet of submarines worldwide - though at an almost uselessly slow data rate. Since being sold off by the Military in 2012 and purchased by the University of Alaska is has been commissioned as an ionospheric research tool for atmospheric scientists and physicists from all over the world. There is nothing remotely sinister or secretive about the HAARP facility - it was never classified nor is access restricted. Aside from being hired out for research purposes, you can actually visit it through open days. and tours. Also, our weather takes place in the troposphere, not the ionosphere. HAARP can be trained on and agitate a very small area of this for research purposes, but it gives out well below 0.03 W/m2 yielding an energy density in the ionosphere that is less than 1/100 of the thermal energy density of the ionospheric plasma itself - which compared with the solar flux at the Earth's surface equates to about 1.5 kW/m2. What this means is that it is capable of producing only 75 times the power of a commercial radio station - a mere 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 because the radio wave power is completely absorbed by the naturally heated ionosphere.
Now consider and contrast the power and energy of a lightening bolt.
"No one is trying to control weather via radio waves?"
No, that is impossible, as is controlling the weather. All internet baloney and online conspiratorial pseudoscience. We can attempt to modify or influence it though, albeit on the micro local level but certainly not at the macro, synoptic or global scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ffs - this again? Seriously, how many times? So because you struggle to understand something, because of your staggering scientific illiteracy, you brand something as fake?
The signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device, as opposed to a 210 ft wide radio telescope dish. The current 4G communication band is 0.8-2.6GHz, and the main communication frequency band used by 5G is also below 6GHz, your signal can dip as low as a trivial -30 dBm. A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and have towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. The transmitters used in space have exponentially greater power than the few milliwatts of a cell phone, using a high gain receiver and directed focused antenna arrays. The Apollo radio transmissions broadcast at 20 watts, to a huge parabolic dish almost 200 feet in diameter which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module. They are entirely different scenarios.
Why is it even necessary to explain this to someone in the 21st century?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SweetBrazyN
Oh Jesus wept - I even speculated that you couldn't have been stupid enough to fall for the Brennan videos and fuck me, that's precisely what you post???!!! How is this possible?
This is ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
Perhaps start with the part in which he "admits" that they are "using planes to release gasses that will ‘help golbal (sic) warming"
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Do you even understand what SAI is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kalebvera1841
Solar Radiation Management which with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical. The branch of this that you refer to, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing that have been witnessed, photographed, filmed, measured and studied for over 80 years and since the early advent of high altitude powered flight.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
@kalebvera1841
Incorrect - SAI is entirely hypothetical - and why would it involve aluminium, barium, cadmium or pathogens? Strikes me that it's whatever you want it to be. Saying it's been used for years? As I said, the contrails that you are misidentifying have been observed and studied for almost a century. You are caught in a circuitous logical fallacy based upon a deceptive false premise. You are told that SAI would look like contrails, so when you see contrails you think it is SAI and if anyone challenged you on this or says anything contrary to your parroted conspiratorial narrative, you respond with the usual ludicrous accusations. Let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous chemtrails conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Odd don't you think that the entire independent fields of atmospheric science, meteorology, environmental monitoring and aerospace engineering worldwide - y'know, the people that actually understand the physics of the atmosphere - remain completely oblivious to these supposed geoengineered 'chemtrails' yet a community of online key board warrior conspiracy theorists and self-appointed overnight 'experts' think that they know better because the internet told them so?
Defend what or who? I simply asked you to detail the "lies" that are contained in this video.
I notice that you avoided or are incapable of answering my question? So even if you think that SAI is in progress, in view of the fact that by design and deployment, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
Burning a hydrocarbon fuel? Of course it produces water, that is precisely the case. The combustion process looks like this:
CHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2OCHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2O.
In short, what this means is that because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of the combustion process are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. In this case, the aircraft exhaust was merely the trigger event where 99% of the ice is from atmospheric origin. Exactly the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
Think about it, how could the aircraft you are seeing possibly carry the required material to completely cover the sky above you - and what chemical is able to not only linger, but increase in mass, just like - well fancy that - condensed atmospheric water vapour?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeyanglada1275
"so explain why a " contrail" expand and last for hours. So tell me why they do cover the whole sky."
If I do, will you suspend your preconceptions and listen? Let's see. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. If the superheated exhaust of the airliner encounters frigid air at a high relative humidity and differing vapour pressure, then the water vapour will condense forming a cloud. In such conditions, the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (invisible water vapour). If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will not only remain, but expand and spread almost entirely composed of the available atmospheric water vapour - hence the growth. No different to cirrus clouds which they become indistinguishable from. Here's the science:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
"Have you ever seen the shape of those "contrails" something they even drawn words or x patterns?"
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace? Other than that, pareidolia is common amongst conspiracy believers - you see what you want to see. Regarding words, all I have seen is appropriated videos of skywriters.
"We're do you live 20 feet underground and never watch the sky."
I live in London, I have alpine climbed since the age of nine, worked as a mountain guide in four different continents (including your own) and my background in atmospheric science is over a quarter of a century. So, yeah, you could say I "watch the sky" given that my living and those in may care has depended on it.
"The heavy metal in your blood, I've seen case brought to court about that."
Link?
"There are so many retired pilots who have spoken out about the contrails. And chemtrails."
Name just one. I can guarantee what you might come back with - but in reality, there would be thousands to choose from.
"Like it or not MIKE MORALES is more relevant than you."
I am entirely irrelevant. This isn't about either me or some conceited conspiratorial conman on You Tube, rather, known atmospheric science which being governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms has a voice of its own. And yes, Mike Morales is completely irrelevant to the real world.
"Because I've seen those ships in the middle of the ocean releasin "clouds" in the ocean an then he do a predictions and boom nailed."
You mean emissions from funnels? "Boom nailed"?? I'm afraid science doesn't work like that. Present the causative data.
"And on top of what ever you say I've seen the effects of the " contails" over the weather.
So you can say what ever you say."
As I explained, I am irrelevant - known meteorological science speaks for itself. The atmospheric conditions that result in the formation of contrails are also the cause of the weather that you observe, not the other way around. Like cirrus clouds, contrails are often a precursor of unstable air and approaching weather front. It is this that forms the contrail, not vice versa.
"The elite knew tha led was toxic and they still using it on paint and many other product. Even knowing that many country banned the use of it but it's ok Round up is causing cancer and now one of Monsanto is in charge F.D.Aspartame was banned as a medical treatment but later they approve to use as a artificial sweetener."
What does any of this have to do with contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years?
Couple of things to pick up on though, the banning of lead in domestic products and petrol has been piecemeal worldwide, which is why 'The Global Alliance to Ban Lead Paint', a WHO-UN Environment Partnership involving countries and civil society, set a goal to ban lead paint in all countries by 2021.
Monsanto does not exist - it was purchased by Bayer in 2018. Although there is ample correlation, there is no causal link between roundup and the incidence of cancer.
Aspartame has never been banned nor used as a 'medical treatment' and is one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients. Reviews by over 100 governmental regulatory bodies found the ingredient safe for consumption at current levels. Personally, in spite of this, I choose to avoid artificial sweeteners. Again, what does any of this have to do with contrail cirrus?
1
-
@joeyanglada1275
You appear to have completely disregarded all of my replies to you. Not unexpected.
"So gravity does not exist?"
What?
"So do you tell me that commercial aircraft have different routes every day"
Aircraft route planning and designation is highly complex. There are a multitude of airways/air tracks that a flight may be directed through on any day and yes, these can vary at any stage of a designated route.
"spartame wasn't created by mistake trying to make a medicine? Jajaja you sound so stupid trying to deny something that is undeniable."
Firstly, it's 'aspartame'. Secondly aspartame is made up of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine. It was a serendipitous discovery by a chemist attempting to synthesise an anti ulcer drug. However, that is not what you said. To remind you, you claimed the following...
"spartame was banned as a medical treatment"
All of which is untrue.
"Sometimes for weeks we don't se planes on the sky"
Incorrect. The aircraft are still there, it's simply that the atmospheric conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Are you similarly perplexed by natural variations in cloud cover?
_"and if you search plane routes none of them match with a sky covered of "contrails" _
I've never found that. Appreciate that some of the contrails that you may be seeing are 150 miles away or more. Also, not all aircraft are ADS-B equipped. Your personal anecdotal incredulity does not substitute for evidence.
"The video of the retired pilots talking is all over the internet."
Must be true then. And actually, no it isn't all over the internet - it's all over the echo-chamber of chemtrail conspiracy believers. Like I said, I absolutely guarantee what you'll come back with because it's the same nonsense over and over and over and over again. Forget junk You Tube videos and online conspiracy theory, there should be thousands of these genuine testimonies out there in the real world and the aviation sector. As I invited you to do, present it - I promise you I've seen it before. I can then explain it to you.
Also, I've just noticed that you had posted this:
https://youtu.be/e1HgWZJAouQ
😆 😅 😂 🤣 This isn't a weatherman "acknowledging chemtrails" as the ludicrous title suggests, he's simply talking about 'chaff' which has been used by military aircraft as a radar countermeasure since WWII. It was deployed as part of an AF exercise. It is designed to distract radar-guided missiles from their targets. Most military aircraft and warships have chaff dispensing systems as a decoy.
Contemporary radar systems can differentiate chaff from target objects by measuring the Doppler shift. Once deployed, chaff quickly loses velocity relative to the aircraft and therefore betrays a signature change in frequency that allows it to be filtered out.
At what point does he mention "chemtrails"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Aluminum is not found in free form in the environment. For it not to be bound to another element it has to be mined, refined and dispersed."
Oh christ - this again? There are multiple pathways in which aluminium can find its way into soils. As the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element, aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
You are referring to aluminium production, the bayer process the principal industrial means of refining bauxite to produce aluminium from mined bauxite. Although Al is the most abundant metallic element in the Earth's crust, it is highly insoluble and generally unavailable to participate in biogeochemical reactions. However, under highly acidic or alkaline conditions, or in the presence of complexing ligands, elevated concentrations may be mobilised to the aquatic environment. In fact, natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Whilst as I explained, acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes will also occur mainly to air.
Also, any soil or water test submitted by the perpetrators of this hoax, which invariably has been collected through flawed and incorrect methodology will be tested by analytical laboratories using ICP-MS. I'm sure that you will be able to comment on precisely why this is significant?
"The high bypass jet powered engine is nearly incapable of producing any visible condensation."
Absolute nonsense. The enormous fan at the front is powered by a combustion chamber through a turbine linkage. That shaft powers both the compressor and the fan. Irrespective of the bypass hydrocarbon fuel is still burnt to drive the process. The myth about high bypass turbo fans "not" producing contrails was started long ago by some clown by the name of Jack Baran, since then Russ Tanner and Dane Wigington have promoted it to the impressionable, gullible, uneducated and critically impaired to further their online fraud. High bypass engines actually produce MORE contrails than the older low bypass engines. This is not my opinion, you can easily verify this by visiting objective sources and avoiding confirmation bias through deceptive conspiracy based websites.
High bypass turbofans have been around since the late 60s and were fitted to military jets like the C5A which I can assure you produced contrails. The water vapour produced is simply a function of the total fuel burnt. While the turbofans allow large engines to be built, the amount of water vapour created has also increased due to the large fuel flows of those engines. The exhaust of the engine is the gasses that come out of the combustion chamber. It's the product of burning kerosene (hydrogen and carbon) with the oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (water). It's the water in the exhaust that produces the contrail. This principle is basically the same irrespective of if it's a low-bypass, no-bypass, high-bypass or even an internal combustion engine.
What creates a contrail is the mixing of the exhaust with cooler air. It does not matter if it's mixing with the air that passed through the bypass fan, or if it's mixing with the air that passed around the engine. It's still just exhaust gases mixing with the air. As the gasses mix, the temperature falls, and the water condenses out.
The only difference with a high bypass engine is that the exhaust gasses in a high bypass engine are a little less hot (more of the energy has gone into producing thrust from the bypass fan). So they reach the condensation point quicker, and so are actually more likely to form contrails.
Your contention can be routinely dismissed simply by a review of the objective published scientific literature which oddly doesn't seem to conform to your definition of 'research'. The likelihood that a particular engine will create a contrail is governed by the "contrail factor", and this is higher for high bypass engines
Any idea of the bypass ratio of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D or the GE TF39? Of course you haven't.
Suggestion. Visit General Electric, Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney or any college of aeronautical engineering...tell them that their high bypass engines are "nearly incapable of producing any visible condensation" and don't forget to mention that Dane Wigington said so and the University of You Tube sent you.
"I could go on and on..."
Parroting dumb online conspiracy theory about subjects you clearly don't know the first thing about? Please feel free. It's highly amusing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mitchell-lc5kj
"You probably didn’t graduate high school. You are very gullible and naïve."
To clarify...you think that the moon is "made of gaseous state", that the moon landings were shot at a London soundstage by Stanley Kubrick because social media told you so, and you don't understand why you can see "the sun and half the moon in the same sky." And I'm the "gullible and naive one that probably didn't graduate high school"? Righto then. You realise that everything that I am telling you is taught in high school? Kind of contradicted yourself there didn't you champ!
"The moon rocks were fake"
Fascinating. I repeat, despite being examined by an entire branch of science called geology and independently tested in analytical laboratories worldwide and rocks gifted to 135 countries...yes, I'll say that again, 135 countries, some random dumb conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube that thinks the moon is a ball of gas, now claims that the moon rocks were faked.
Sigh, since - and only because - I find you goons so unintentionally amusing, go ahead then genius, demonstrate how that you have established that the Apollo moon rocks were "faked". Surely, surely, you can't be about to parrot the supposed Dutch moon rock/petrified wood again?
1
-
1
-
@mattycakesmuhammmad
"nice try khazaar devil...."
Grow up.
"but your quick and speedy response lets me know om doing my job..."
It's a comments section you clown.
"whut eye wrote stands true and eye don't need to repeat myself or dispute a paid shill....."
Then why are you repeating yourself and replying then you imbecile?
"and eye grew up the DC area and know plenty of alphabet agency folks including people in the FAA who verify whut eye say is true......"
Of course you do.
You are nothing more than a very silly man with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it and inhabiting a fantasy world.
"simple math folks.....if the trail doesn't disappear......they are spraying"
Then perhaps you can identify this magical chemical that can linger, expand and grow in mass, y'know, just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour. While you're at it, the precise aircraft with the payload capacity to deposit a horizon to horizon trail - any idea how much these weigh? Of course you haven't. Simple math folks.
"but do your own research"
Errrr.. right. Firstly, I absolutely guarantee that I know more about the origins, the history, the background and the perpetrators of your crap conspiracy theory than you do. Secondly, appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight "expertise" following a squandered evening in front of junk You Tube chemtrail videos, cherry picked clickbait confirmation bias and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how did you do yours? Oh wait...
"watch the FRANKENSKIES documentary on bitchute"
...Matt Landman's hoax internet conspiracy movie??? Are you actually being serious? And you call this "research" 😆 😅 😂 🤣
"and just know that the chemtrail spraying/solar radiation management played a HUGE role in the corona virus doing as much damage as it did....corona patients are vitamin D deficient...."
😂 🤣😂 🤣Seriously, stop it - you're busting me up here.
"eye think there is a bigger reason other than climate change they are doing this.....its part of the population control agenda of the elites.....why else would they lock down everyone, try to force a mask and vaccines on us, all in the name of health and then proceed to spray our skies up with chemicals and the block the sunlight which would help us combat this virus."
2021 update - instead of wearing masks to avoid chemtrails, conspiracy theorists now avoid masks, even in the midst of a global pandemic.
"there is sum sinister people who secretly rule this country apparently, and they need to be captured, given a speedy trail and executed! spread the word people.....the only reason they can away with it is because people don't know about it"
Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that like yourself, the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Clever lad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MirMMadani
"Don't you have anything better to do?"
Says that...posts this -
"Watch this https://youtu.be/FeTaejpg18g"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So you present a link to possibly the most obligatory chemtrail conspiracy video, posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, produced by the main perpetrator of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, featuring fellow advocates of the chemtrails conspiracy theory about the chemtrails conspiracy theory as evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory???
This is Dane Wigington's farcial chemtrails rally of July 15th 2014, which culminated in a march to the Shasta County Supervisors chambers where they proceeded to bore the shit out of the few people present. A bunch of conspiracy cranks in a town hall. Most of these are Wigington's local cronies, others, career conspiracy theorists. One of them, Jeff Nelson, who has early onset dementia was even dressed up as a pilot, and another, Iraja Sividas, y'know, the clown that thinks that a contrail should be analogous to your breath on a cold day is a local maths teacher. Yes, there are I concede two medics present - but although Stephen Steven Davis was a Chiropractic he is now a Certified Traditional Naturopath quacktitioner - and peddler of all manner of snake oil and woo. Dr. Hamid Rabiee a Neurologist at the Redding (Mercy Medical Centre) has since been struck off for sexual harassment of his patients and staff. Since you're so interested in 'testimonies', perhaps you'd like to take a look at his?
https://eu.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/03/29/grand-jury-indicts-redding-neurologist-already-facing-sex-abuse-charges/469649002/
Seriously, I swear you people are getting exponentially dumber and gullible by the post. I mean, did you actually bother watching this garbage?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"there was Simply NOT ENOUGH HORSEPOWER to "blast them OFF" of the moon's surface, again Orbit & "Sling-shot" back to EARTH."
Rocket engines are not rated by “horsepower.” It can be calculated, but you will not see that term in a specification for a rocket engine.
The ascent stage at liftoff weighed about 10,000 pounds on Earth, but in 1/6th lunar gravity it was less than 1,700 lbs but produced 3,500lbs of thrust. Since the gravity on the moon is only 1/6th of what it is on Earth and there is no atmosphere to slow the LM down, it takes less thrust to lift the mass off the surface.The ascent engine used a 50/50 mix of hydrazine and dimethylhydrazine (the mix was called Aerozine 50) with dinitrogen tetroxide as an oxidiser. It is a self-igniting (hypergolic) mix that provides a lot of thrust and a colourless (invisible) flame. The fuel and oxidiser was pressure-fed into the Ascent Propulsion System, which gave it the necessary 16 kN thrust and 311 seconds specific impulse needed to reach lunar orbit. After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock.
The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. It was the SPS that performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NT-is8pv
Yassassin? Third track on 'The Lodger' and Turkish for 'long live'.
"I reply as many times as I would like, I’m not sure why that’s an issue unless you are just looking for issues to pick at?!"
It isn't an issue, I simply questioned why the multiple erratic comments when you could consolidate them into one reply?
"I understand the options that exist as far as creating artificial rain or weather modification but I guess you had to tell me I don’t understand so you can feel better about yourself for whatever reason?! Is fighting with people on YouTube the highlight of your day, little man?"
What an odd comment. Known science is not about "opinion". Your OP shows that you don't understand - that's all. Not fighting with you. You are the one that has responded so indignantly with your multiple triggered responses and ad hominem rebuke.
"you are definitely a comment section genius. Lmaooo. It’s important enough for you to keep droning on and on and copy pasting from Wikipedia to seem smart. I see you have this attitude with several people in several different comment sections so I don’t take it personally."
Yet you are the one that feels the need to respond with personal attack. I am irrelevant to this exchange. I simply explained to you the rudiments of cloud seeding that's all. Nothing to do with Wikipedia...and at no point have I copied and pasted any information. From your posts, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about but appear to loath the fact that you have been called out.
"I use emojis to communicate the tone i’m saying things in bc it facilitates a better understanding and communication. It’s something many humans do and it’s another weird thing to pick at."
You appear to deploy legion of them as some sort of compensatory tool - en mass, like a child would do. Nothing to do with communication. We have the written word for that. If you really feel the need to use an emoji to accentuate your point, then surely one will suffice?
"I must also remind you…cloud seeding has evolved over the years and there are several different options when it comes to cloud seeding. There is not just one way to create articulate rain."
It has, but that has nothing to do with your ill-informed OP, in which you said this..."They make it rain in Dubai … what is so hard to understand".
Regarding the evolution of cloud seeding it is commonly dispersed via at least four methods --[1] light aircraft, retrofitted with flare racks containing a few grams of silver iodide (although other materials can be used). [2] Burn sticks - again containing silver iodide, placed in desirable spots on the ground, [3] Rockets (they are often also fired in order to prevent the formation of crop-damaging hail. Some tea growers also use them, sometimes with radar-reflecting "needle" wire dipoles scattered through the silver iodide, to enable tracking of the release points; some hail rockets are at least partially reusable). [4] Surplus AA (anti-aircraft) guns, whose shells contain silver iodide instead of high explosive. The Chinese make extensive use of cloud-seeding AA guns, the shells' fuses can be set to burst at any desired altitude within the guns' altitude capabilities.
What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brent-sherman
_"ahh, so you're definitely a "chemtrail denier".
I am irrelevant to this exchange. The chemtrail hoax debunks itself.
"If I sent you 5,000 pictures of non-labeled non-commercial Jets with contrails behind them, and obviously no passengers, not flying in a flight pattern from one airport to another, you would just hide your head in the sand?"
No need. Feel to just send me just one.Your best example.
"Wow that's pretty sad"
Well no one forced you to subscribe to a dumb online hoax.
"So basically what you're saying is every contrail that's ever been behind a plane has always been either United or Delta or American or some other airline, but you're definitely saying it has to be some type of flight whether private or commercial with a flight pattern going from one airport to another."
Not at all - military aircraft produce the trails you are witnessing too, including spy and reconnaissance planes and stealth aircraft too. That's somewhat of an oversight don't you think?
"You might want to check into that a little deeper."
Check into what? If the conditions are conducive to their formation, a jet engine in the stratosphere will produce a contrail, be it commercial flights, cargo or military exercises. Completely unremarkable and very rudimentary science. That you choose to term them chemtrails has no bearing upon the rational/real world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Chemtrails’ are a form of geo-engineering."
No, they really are not. The chemtrail conspiracy theory originated in the mid nineties, and is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. Yes, the perpetrators of this nonsense have conflated the two, but only in a lame attempt to add credence and validity to their tenuous claims.
"The actual name is stratospheric aerosol injection or SAI. You can find a clip of former CIA director John Brennan speaking about it at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on YouTube."
Those are largely deceptive chemtrail videos that have appropriated and dishonestly titled the footage. In his voluntary address about transnational threats to foreign security to the COFN (an independent think tank) Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan wasn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he was warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech by which to refer to...
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
"The theory behind this is that the particles sprayed in the stratosphere will reflect solar radiation back into space and stop the earth warming."
Correct. SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols in an attempt to arrest global temperature rise. As you say, it is nothing more than a "theory". SAI is entirely hypothetical and has yet to graduate beyond mathematical modelling and paper based research proposal. In 2019 an experiment was scheduled that never took place and has yet to, involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. Google Keutsch Group 'SCoPEx project'
"The problem, heavy metal particles have been observed by Keele University to cause dementia in bees. Could it do the same to humans?"
This has only been postulated, there is no causal evidence.
What "heavy metals"? SAI would involve nothing of the sort. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. Regarding Calcium Carbonate I mentioned, early research suggests that it has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulphate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. It is also non-toxic and earth abundant. However, it does not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may respectfully I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marktheshark1984
"Since we can create contrail cloud formations inadvertantly and numerously at times, wouldn't it be logical that we would research methods of seeding these cirrus clouds with materials that would increase their reflectivity or albedo to further enhance their dimming properties? It would be similar but not the same as the research done on marine cloud brightening. Also, I am aware of cirrus cloud thinning which is a method of injecting material into cirrus clouds to attempt to manipulate their radiative properties. And so, exploring similar methods with a different purpose doesn't seem out of the question."
Cirrus clouds are thin and opaque. Marine cloud brightening would be far more effective as would Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is intended to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. It is highly unlikely that the latter will ever get off the ground though (if you'll pardon the pun).
"At this 'moment of creation' of a contrail cloud that would then instantaneously be classified as a cirrus cloud, what would be the specific species of this cirrus cloud forming at that exact moment of creation (e.g. cirrus castellanus, cirrus fibratus, cirrus floccus, cirrus vertebratus, etc.)?"
Regardless of their subcategories, all cirrus clouds are formed
through similar generating mechanisms that are needed in order to “trigger” their formation. A proportion of the nuclei associated with cirrus clouds and contrails originate from different sources, but both phenomena go through similar freezing processes as they develop.
"Influencing the temperature couldn't affect other aspects of the weather such as evaporation rate?"
Radiative forcing associated with contrails cirrus occurs at night, and as I mentioned earlier, the net diurnal balance between dimming and forcing is negligible.
1
-
@marktheshark1984
"But, if you could seed cirrus clouds in such a way as to enhance albedo, you might aim to keep them thin to minimize forcing while attempting to enhance dimming. And wouldn't Stratospheric Aerosol Injection also be transparent? Although, SAI could potentially have impacts on cloud formation at lower levels of the atmosphere."
The optimum cloud to conduct marine cloud brightening would be stratocumulus.
I mentioned SAI purely as another proposed method of Solar Radiation Management not as a means of increasing albedo from clouds. And yes, it would not be discernible to the ground based observer. There are a great many unknowns associated with the idea which is why is is highly unlikely it will ever progress beyond the stages of small scale trail. Following the indefinite postponement of SCoPEx, that isn't looking forthcoming either.
"After their formation has been 'triggered', what specific species/subcategories of cirrus cloud is a contrail capable of becoming?"
That would depend upon the atmospheric conditions, altitude, windshear.
Firstly, there are five generating mechanisms - synoptic, injection cirrus, mountain-wave updraft, cold trap, and contrail-cirrus. Cirrus castellanus is associated with injection (we have already discussed the anvil at the top of a cumulonimbus cloud). Persistent spreading contrails may commonly resemble fibratus, thin and fibrous formations, aligning with the high altitude wind direction, and giving the appearance of white parallel stripes which streak across the sky. The conditions that create uncinus formations may also add to their growth.
Lidar observations have detected contrails in the range of 0.05 and 0.5 microns in optical depth - so not sufficiently dense to form spissatus or cirrostratus.
"So, for instance, if it happened to be a cloudless/full sun day over a specific location, but then cirrus cloud cover moved in throughout the evening and covered the sky during the night, in this specific scenario, there would be no dimming to balance the forcing at this location."
I was referring to the net global balance. In the above scenario (although there are many other variables to consider) you would likely not see the temperature drop away so acutely at night as it would have done under clear skies.
Question for you. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, returning to your OP - why did you mention Dane Wigington and why is he claiming otherwise?
1
-
@marktheshark1984
Yes aircraft deploying stratospheric Aerosol Injection could create high altitude contrails in the process. Amusingly, fools like Dane Wigington would continue to claim that this was the visual evidence of the practice itself.
It may enhance sunsets, and create a barely discernible thin haze, but understand that volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year. Such aerosols are also produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present and occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Sulphate aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
"Also, with the introduction of a large number of potential ice-nucleating particulate into the stratosphere, this could very well affect contrail clouds and other cloud formations, as they would inevitable fall back through the atmosphere to earth."
What???
Transformation? We've already discussed this. We can debate semantics if you like. In fact I can refer you to a paper titled "On the Transformation of Contrails into Cirrus During Success". Or another; "On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus" - but since contrails are already cirrus as your definition states, the transformation is one of appearance. I explained the mechanism of formation and that the atmospheric conditions creating uncinous formations may add to their growth, but really what we are referring to here is that supersaturation and wind shear can spread aircraft contrails in which may then resemble fibrous formations across the sky.
"Get some boots on the ground and keep your eyes to the sky."
I do indeed and have done for most of my life through working as an alpine guide across four continents. Furthermore, my field was ground based remote sensing. Apologies, and to clarify, I understood this conversation related to the stratosphere where most contrails are created since that is the region in which commercial airliners cruise. Some regional flights may be lower and aircraft ascending and descending will of course pass through the tropopause and troposphere and in so doing produce contrails. Contrails can be formed at a range of altitudes. It is the atmospheric conditions at these altitudes that govern their growth and evolution.
You have asked me well over twenty questions during this exchange, which I have duly responded to and am more than happy to do so. I have asked you just the one which unfortunately you were unable to either through an inability or refusal to answer it. Here it is again: Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft). That the practice has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which concerns misidentified aircraft contrails... may I ask you, returning to your OP - why did you mention Dane Wigington and why is he claiming otherwise?
You seem to enjoy google, odd though that you seem reluctant to place Wigington's claims under the same level of scrutiny. Perhaps you do. What precisely is your position? - Only you haven't stated that either.
1
-
@marktheshark1984
"Due to the uncertain lifetime of stratospheric aerosols, the fall out of these particles into the lower atmosphere is most likely inevitable and there may be side effects regarding weather such as cloud formation."
SAI is designed to be conducted in the tropics to utilise the Brewer Dobson wind circulation patterns meaning the aerosols can remain in suspension for years. Like I said, there are between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols produced by volcanoes every year. As I also mentioned, sulphate aerosols also form heterogeneously in the stratospheric aerosol layer. The introduction of additional aerosols are unlikely to create significant impact in terms of cloud formation once they disperse - and of negligible concern in comparison the the climate chaos that we now find ourselves in. There are however undoubtedly negative environmental feedbacks and potential unknowns and most significantly, the danger of snapback if once employed it were ever to cease. This is precisely why it's a reckless and dangerous idea that in all likelihood will never happen.
"I had assumed, based on your response, that you understood that this was a question regarding cloud classification as the term species directly correlates. I never asked about the generating mechanisms. Furthermore, the papers in which you cited, make no mention of taxonomic classificaton beyond the use of the word cirrus nor do they involve any ground based observational analyses."
You may not have asked for the generation mechanisms, but formation helps you to understand what you are looking at. Persistent spreading contrails increase in mass due to supersaturation, and are spread via windshear. Visually this most often assumes a fibrous appearance.
"Based on the WMO definiton, they would not be classified as a cirrus cloud type unless they persist in the environment for at least ten minutes."
Interesting, because Wigington was one of the individuals that started the false belief that contrails can only last between seconds and a few minutes. We refer to them as "contrail cirrus" since they are cirrus. Frequently when they spread they can become indistinguishable from existing or naturally formed cirrus cloud. You seem to be very preoccupied by semantics.
"Are you similarly perplexed by cloud classification?"
No not at all and like I said, it would help you if you understood the generating mechanism for each instead of cherry picking what you want to find.
"Any altitude considered to be stratospheric would qualify. So, any aircraft exhaust dispersed into the stratosphere at any altitude could be considered SAI."
If you wish to term it that then that is entirely your prerogative - more fool you. The branch of geoengineering research titled SAI which your cult leader claims is underway, as you well know, is intended to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols.
"Such a feat should easily be accomplishable based on the specifications required. There actually does exsist a commercial aircraft capable of 60,000ft before any modifications a.k.a. Concorde."
The Lockheed U2 reached FL700 And the SRN Blackbird flew to FL850 - so what?
No it couldn't. You clearly haven't read the any of the literature and have very little grasp about aviation. Another false premise to suit your sorry, Dane's narrative. SAI would require a fleet of purpose built aircraft to deliver the necessary payload. Currently there is no aircraft with the MTOW and capacity to loft the required material to the designated altitude.
"65,000ft is only a currently proposed rough estimate for optimal dispersal of an albedo enhancing aerosol into the stratosphere."
Approximately 20kms. 65,000 - 70,000 feet. You understand why yes?
"Yet you claim that SAI, "...would not form a trail..." when explaining why it couldn't exist?"
The actual process itself wouldn't form a trail. And I explained why currently it doesn't exist and why it is unlikely to. Do you have an entire legion of straw men at your disposal?
"Depending on the semantics regarding SAI but both (contrails & SAI) are considered weather modification."
As you say, depending on the semantics. The popular press has termed SAI 'weather modification' and I'm sure I've even seen the term in some of the papers I've read about SAI. Ken Caldera, who was instrumental in the inception of this research has always been very clear about the distinction. Your point about potential indirect weather modification is a valid one.
"Dane Wigington makes no claims about aircraft flying at 65,000 - 70,000ft."
You have evidently misunderstood the question. That's precisely the point. He claims (amongst many other things), that regular aircraft contrails observed at half the altitude are proof that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is underway. In fact, he is one of the main drivers behind the conflation of the two and the subsequent false equivalence/association fallacy employed by critically impaired chemtrail believers.
"If Mick West can be interviewed by Joe Rogan, then it would only be fair that Dane Wigington may also be interviewed."
Mick West is not a conspiracy theorist and following the recent debacle surrounding Robert Malone, you'd think he's choose his guests more carefully. Now as a consequence I can't listen to Joni Mitchell on Spotify any longer!
I don't believe in granting these opportunistic and exploitative charlatans air space - far less oxygen. However, despite what you read on these comments sections, I'm not sure that a chemtrail lunatic is about to imminently interfere with a flight or pose a danger to life - (although the use of laser pens and attacks on pilots and their families have occurred in the past). They may do from their other irrational beliefs though. Conspiracy theories are mainly agenda driven and are seldom accommodated individually.
Wigington would at least be amusing I guess, and unlike the anti-vax movement, chemtrail believers are largely anonymous beyond their online echo-chambers rarely venturing and voicing their nonsense beyond their walled gardens into the rational world. in short, no one in the real world really gives two shits about such Dunning Kruger afflicted scientific illiterates and acolytes of Dane Wigington.
Through all your prevarication, pedantry and deflection, you still haven't stated your position on the chemtrail hoax. Go ahead.
1
-
@marktheshark1984
Oh, hello again.
"The introduction of additional aerosols are unlikely to create significant impact in terms of cloud formation once they disperse - and of negligible concern..but then you say, "There are however undoubtedly negative environmental feedbacks. Contradicting yourself to downplay the potential effects on clouds? That's peculiar."
Why? and how am I contradicting myself?
"And since i know how much you like cherries"
As much as your penchant for unintentional irony? That's the icing on the cake.
"here's a few i picked from one of the fellas on how SAI would affect the climate/environment"
One of the fellas"? Source? Until you provide one, I'll assume you selectively extracted content from the original context conerning a recent paper titled "Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention by reflecting sunlight to cool Earth" In so doing, you intentionally omitted perhaps the most important sentence: "Although climate science research has resulted in greater understanding of predicted climate effects should SRM be implemented, little is known about how those changes would affect ecological systems"
No one knows precisely how SAI would affect the climate and environment nor the extent of this feedback because it is not underway, which is why it is currently pure speculation. It is to an extent modelled, but as I said we are dealing with unknowns which is why it is such a terrible and reckless idea.
"We? As in who? Alpine mountain guides?"
Well certainly not Dane Wigington or his legion of gullible online conspiracy believers.
"Based on the fact that you have not been able to provide the correct answers to simple questions about cloud transformations which i have now had to correct you for by citing information from a source in which you reffered me to? (*"...WMO Cloud Atlas..."*) It seems strange that you would try to downplay the cascading impacts that contrails can have on cloud formations and the environment. You seem to be in '*denial*' of the '*known science*' regarding these matters."
What "cascading" effects of contrails are you referring to?
"Concorde seems reasonable based on its service ceiling and MTOW."
Possibly the most ludicrous sentence you've typed since originally mentioning Dane Wigington in your OP. A decommissioned supersonic passenger aircraft with a maximum payload of 29,500 lbs that was taken out of service due to crippling operating costs. Ok then. Like I said, the Lockheed U2 and the SR-71 Blackbird also flew to the required altitudes - should we drag those out of a storage hangar too?
"If you want to inject aerosols into the Brewer-Dobson wind circulation current specifically, then maybe someone should call it Brewer-Dobson Aerosol Injection."
Bit of a mouthful though. Perhaps Dane Wigington felt that 'chemtrails' rolled off the tongue better.
"You've seen the actual definition that you claim to exist but can't cite it?"
Cite what? Don't misquote me. I was referring to the conflation of the term "weather modification" with SAI in the press, and from memory I ventured that have also seen similarly wrongly applied in a small amount of academic literature. I may be mistaken.
"Based on all the known science about contrails, if you were to purposefully disperse aerosols into a jet aircraft engine exhaust plume through an area of the stratosphere conducive to cirrus cloud formation, what do you think would be the outcome?"
What aerosols, what material? I believe that Dane is claiming aluminium yes?
"I think it's clear that based on your actions and incessant ramblings here in this comment section that you are, infact, the 'chemtrail lunatic"
Perhaps take some time to revisit your own posts. Actually, don't.
"How many years? How many comments?"
It's a comments section - you'll find that's the general idea.
"Saying the same things over and over again"
How would you know?
"And then you can't even classify clouds?"
You mean I don't tell you what you want to hear based upon your misunderstanding of the classification of clouds. Odd that you mention me, whilst my presence on the comments section of a video entertainment platform seems to irk you, but you appear to have no issues whatsoever with Dane Wigington's pseudoscientific hoax or the fact that he thinks that aluminium is a heavy metal. Have you ever actually placed 'geoengineeringwatch' under even a cursory level of scrutiny?
"You would also wish to deny people, who you are openly prejudice against, *oxygen*, as it is necessary for survival?"
Are you this literal with your family, friends, relationships, people you meet? - (assuming you have any or at any stage you interact with the real world).
"You exhibit the symptoms of a psychopath."
The words, pot, kettle and black immediately spring to mind.
"Joni Mitchell claims to have Morgellons disease, what say you?"
Which has no bearing upon my enjoyment of 'For the Roses' which was recorded half a century ago.
"Said the psychopath who spends years of it's time trying to manipulate and harrass said people. And so, you would spend all of this time here because you can't resist your psychopathic tendencies."
So a full on descent now into ad hominem rebuke. How precisely have I "manipulated or harassed" anyone?
"You've also deleted six of your replies against me which implies how weak you are and that you are trying to hide something regarding 'misidentified aircraft contrails'."
What on earth are you on about you lunatic? 😂That is completely untrue. At no stage have I deleted any replies to you - you are entirely mistaken. You're clearly getting desperate now.
"Shall i sing you a lullaby?"
Is it the same as the one Dane puts you to bed with every night?
Actually, any chance of a 432Hz flute by Peaceful Waterstream?
To reiterate, you avoided my question, for all your prevarication, pedantry and deflection, you still haven't stated your position on the chemtrail hoax. Also, what is your opinion of 'geoengineeringwatch' and the validity of Dane Wigington's claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ok this video is a little older so they may not know the truth about “chem trails” but it isn’t a natural occurrence"
Correct, the misidentified contrails that are the origin of this nonsense are not a natural occurrence since they are created by aircraft exhaust. The atmospheric science governing their growth however is completely natural.
"they have admitted to spraying heavy metals in the air such as aluminum to try to reflect the sun’s rays away to slow global warming."
Firstly, aluminium is not a 'heavy metal'. Secondly, you are changing the subject to geoengineering of which one branch, Solar Radiation Management, is (with the exception of ground based albedo modification and some isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening), entirely hypothetical. The strategy that you are loosely referring to is called 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' and would aim to recreate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. For this reason, it would be conducted at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are observing and would not be visible to a ground based observer or result in a trail. Aluminium Oxide was originally suggested as a possibility over a decade ago, but as yet, there is no agreement upon which material would best achieve this aim. An experiment called SCoPeX that would involve a steerable balloon released 20km into the stratosphere would release a few kilos of water and subsequently calcium carbonate to yield data on perturbation and reflectivity. This has consistently been denied ethical approval and SAI has yet to progress beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. In fact it will never become a reality, not simply due to opposition and logistics, but due to the potential impossibility of international governance.
"That’s what they say the reason is anyway but facts are facts and now we’re finding heavy metals in our rain water and snow which should be nothing but H2O."
You will always find some level of impurity in rainwater - it's called ground based pollution and airborne dust which settles in a drainage basin/watercourse.
Chemtrails are nothing more than aircraft contrails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelfee2022
"Condensation trails sure did get much longer in the last few years?"
No, they became more prevalent. The length and duration of a contrail is a function of temperature, pressure and humidity - this has been known, recorded, documented and understood since the early advent of jet powered aviation irrespective of what your junk online conspiracy theory tells you to believe.
"I wonder how that happened."
Your personal incredulity is of no consequence and utterly irrelevant in the rational world.
"I'm sure your entire field of atmospheric globalists....I mean of science and meteorology..."
Not interested in politics and opinions, known science and physical laws of the atmosphere are axiomatic, demonstrable, ineluctable and thereby speak for themselves.
"can explain how condensation trails can stretch approximately 10 miles at only about 15 thousand feet."
Unlikely - although not impossible. What's your point?
"I notice condensation trails..I mean the real condensation trails only extending about 5 plane lengths behind a jet at 25,000 ft."
And how have you established this? If the atmospheric conditions are conducive to their formation, contrails will commonly occur at altitudes between 18,000 ft and 45,000 ft - in the tropopause and lower stratosphere, they may also stretch for in excess of 100 miles.
"Aren't these trials supposed to be longer the higher up you are because of the temperature?"
I suggest that you familiarise yourself with dew point, dry and adiabatic lapse rates and understand the contrail factor. The applied mathematics/binomial equations are presented below - do feel free to falsify the contents of the following papers...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281997%29036%3C1725%3ACOACFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1017/S1350482799001115
Contrail factor and propulsion:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/2.2976?journalCode=ja
1
-
@UCOthrOWW5fsUJI1z1-Ap7uQ
Thank you for your civil and courteous response Michael.
"All I know is if what you say is true than than the atmosphere above my house must have really changed."
"What I say" is of no consequence. Like I said, the known physical laws of the atmosphere and established meteorological science is axiomatic and thereby has its own voice. The atmosphere above (and surrounding) your house is very likely more polluted (depending upon your location of course), the main change 'over your head' (no pun intended, although evidently so) is the unprecedented growth in demand for air travel consequently leading to the exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector and associated routes flown.
"I never saw the sky look the way it has looked lately 10-20 years ago."
Ten years ago - yes, twenty, not so much. Interesting how so many of the believers in this hoax cite "20 years ago" which coincides with the origin of this conspiracy theory on Coast to Coast AM.
"Back then the only contrails you would see on a clear day in any of the four seasons was a jet flying well in excess of 20k ft and those trials would never go across the entire sky to slowly widen then dissapate."
I can assure you that this wasn't the case and there are studies, photographs and documented evidence to the contrary. Once again, in an ice saturated environment a contrail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state - invisible water vapour. This may then spread due to wind shear and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. Again, there are many journal published papers that have studied the radiative forcing effects of such contrail cirrus. Here are a few -
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/550c/b87d270f60c81c40b6446909342d388e26a0.pdf
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04068-0
The following paper from 1970 -
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet."
from Peter Kuhn," Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970)
Or the following -
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometres is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”
Taken from RG Knollenberg "Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail" 1972.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
In "Flight to Arras" by French author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry published in 1942 the author recounts his role in the Armée de l'Air as pilot of a reconnaissance plane during the Battle of France in 1940.
''The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside''.
"I will say that the pictures here don't look like condensation trails to me."
You will say? - Fortunately science offers an explanation for each one. All of these images can be explained - incidentally, you may wish to look into the phenomena of a roll cloud/morning glory which one of your pictures captures.
Every meteorology and cloud reference book published since the 1920's explain how and why a contrail may dissipate rapidly, persist for many hours, or persist and spread across the sky. You can hold a beat up and yellowing meteorology book published decades ago that not only explains what you are seeing in the sky, but also contains photographs of persistent contrails -- again, from decades ago -- that completely match what you are identifying as chemtrails in your images.
"Also wasn't this finally admitted by the CIA?"
If you care to believe sensationalised monetised straplined sensationalist You Tube conspiracy videos.
During his address to the Council on Foreign Relations, former head of the CIA John Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts.Brennan is discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a PESTLE framework. Research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice - he even discussed future implications of anti-ageing technologies.
Do feel free to cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"These people also seem to be rational in their thought processes as well."
???? So you link me to a chemtrails conspiracy video posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, featuring proponents of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, assembled by the main perpetrator of the chemtrails conspiracy theory as proof of the chemtrails conspiracy theory????
Rational? One of them, Iaraja Sivadas believes that the superheated exhaust from a jet engine is analogous to your breath on a cold day!!!
This is Dane Wigingtons's farcical Shasta hearing from nearly a decade ago which astonishingly is still being batted around the vacuous echochamber by the chemcult. Tell you what - name every person featured in this video, list their flying hours, their fields of expertise and their publications in respect of chemtrails. When you fail to do so, come back to me and I'll tell you who they really are - including the clown in the pilots fancy dress outfit.
I find it utterly astonishing that people increasingly reject science and empirical data in favour of online anecdotal You Tube videos and social media which believers in this nonsense brand as 'research'.
There are hundreds of in situ studies into contrails, now produce one similar analytical examination of one of your chemtrails at source.
All I can say is - good....luck...with...that!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I think their problem is they can’t figure out how we went through the van Allen belt"
Firstly, there are two belts, with a third that is transitory. You need to understand that these are toroidal diffuse volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The Apollo craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts. This was all understood in the early 1960s. To quote James Van Allen directly:
"The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable."
"nasa’s space station astronauts keep saying they are trying to figure out how to get through the dangerous radiation without damaging equipment or killing them but will have the answer soon."
No 'space station astronaut' has said anything of the sort. Terry Virts and Don Pettit discussed the loss of a heavy lift capability following the cancellation of Apollo. Also, in 2014, prior to the test flight of the (then) new Orion capsule, engineer Kelly Smith in a video called 'Orion: Trial by Fire" discussed the challenges posed by radiation to the sensitive electronics and systems that are used in spacecraft today in comparison to the radiation hard Apollo spacecraft.
Stop listening to junk online conspiracy theorists and
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Google SRM, solar radiation management."
A hypothetical series of research proposals, with the exception of ground based albedo modification. SAI? a strategy which would aim to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in the mid stratosphere. There is no current agreement on the material that would best be deployed to achieve this aim nor is there the current lofting mechanism or aircraft with the requisite payload to transport and disperse this material to the necessary altitudes. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails that have been observed, documented recorded and studied since the early advent of powered aviation - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"Ho Chi Min Trail we used "cloud seeding"
Again, what does cloud seeding/weather modification which takes place at the fraction of the altitude of a contrail, does not leave a trail, does not create cloud and does not involve large commercial jet airliners - rather, rack mounted flare assemblies fitted to the wings of light aircraft have to do with a white plume in the wake of a high flying jet aircraft?
"If they are not real and a part of 'normal air travel', then why do they not appear everyday?"
Are you equally as perplexed by daily variations in cloud cover?
"The military will control the weather by 2025, read the public report."
It is impossible to "control the weather" at the global and synoptic scale. Mankind may well be influencing weather patterns by our activities and through anthropogenic climate change, but that is very different to "controlling" it. Do however feel free to link me to this "public report" - I guarantee what you'll come back with.
"Aluminum levels are on public reports as well. The aluminum levels are 60,000% above normal according to govt surveys. This is in all regions."
60,000%???????? Sure about that are you? Could you present these "government surveys"?
"I researched them for 3 years."
You "researched" them? - And how precisely did you undertake this? Oh, wait...
"There are several 'reasons' for this according to conspiracy theorists"
According to conspiracy theorists? And it never occurred to you to commence your enquiry with objective independently verifiable meteorological science? "Research" does not mean squandered evenings in front of You Tube conspiracy videos, cherry picked confirmation bias, quote mining, and baseless self - referencing pseudoscientific websites.
"I don't care about the why, I care about what I see and want to know why. I still don't know why exactly."
Logical fallacy much?
"The real contrails are the same as exhaling on a very cold day, the water vapor freezes and then melts. When I can walk around the block on a cold day and leave a trail of my breathe that lasts for hours and slowly dissipates, then I will believe there is absolutely nothing going on."
Because the exhalation of your lungs is of course comparable, equivalent and analogous to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C, emitting a stream of 900°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst travelling in excess of 500 knots.
"Learn Daily."
I suggest that you start. Commence with some basic rudiments of aviation and atmospheric science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@morganophelia5963
"um no . all you have to do is go to the un's website and read about agenda21 it's all there the new world is real too so is the freemasonic illuminati all real"
You mean that non-binding action plan suggested by the United Nations in respect of sustainable development dating back the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, some twenty eight years ago? The one that isn't enforced and contains a series of guidelines pertaining to fair trade practices, sustainable energy and urban development (i.e. more efficient zoning), and debt reduction for the developing world? The one that no nation ever has instituted or rigidly adhered to its guidelines? That Agenda 21?
"but that's ok get back in line bootlicker and NEVER question anything be a good little drone for government and military"
Did you not read my initial response to you? What did you fail to comprehend? At what point have you ever thought to question the junk online conspiracy theory that you naively and obediently consume and regurgitate?
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of hoaxed moon landings or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
A syllogistic logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dubtownman9508
"rain/cloud same thing"
No it isn't. The clouds that aircraft produce as contrails are a form of artificial cirrus, these are not rain bearing and are composed of ice crystals. Cloud seeding in the other hand does not create clouds, it introduces additional nucleation into existing cumulus and stratiform masses - clouds which are already conducive to precipitation in an attempt to induce rainfall. This is precisely why it is conducted at much lower altitudes between 2 - 6,000 feet compared to the contrails that you are observing typically between 20,000 and 44,000 feet. As I said cloud seeding isn't in the slightest bit secretive, actually isn't that widely practiced and no one has suggested it is a 'conspiracy'. Why do you people fell compelled to comment on subjects that you clearly have no knowledge upon whatsoever simply because you have an internet connection? Is this what you do in the real world?
"chem trails are real , also openly acknowledged by military personnel.."
Chemtrails are simply misidentified contrails a phenomena which has been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied for the best part of a century and virtually since the early advent of powered flight. There are no 'military personnel' whatsoever that acknowledge the existence of chemtrails unless you are referring to a handful of career conspiracy theorists or the ludicrous Kristen Meghan. Are you sure you really want to go there?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KK96303
You have regurgitated and parroted a series of claims about subjects that you demonstrably have zero understanding of whatsoever that have all been refuted here and you simply disregard all the responses to you, assume your dumb default position of accusing someone legitimately challenging your falsehoods as being a 'shill' and turn tail and run to the hills in the process. To return to your original claims -
"the blueprints for the lunar module and where they are, they mysteriously disappeared"
No they didn't. The full specifications and schematics are readily available online, in academic journals, PDFs, and a wealth of available literature. Also, in engineering, blueprints evolve and are subsequently subject to revisions. Moreover, some of the original Grumman diagrams and drawings have been sold under auction by Southeby's and are owned by private collectors.
"along all the NASA mission control tapes that collected all telemetry and location data. The sacred original film of Armstrong's first step on the moon has been conveniently 'lost', as well."
Again, utter nonsense. Do you even understand what telemetry is?
Some back up recordings of raw analogue video transmitted via unified S Band during the Apollo 11 EVA was at some point erased. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording equipment in order to capture the raw transmissions at source in case anything should go wrong with the process used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium anyway. The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world.
During the search for these tapes, the team came across broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen. There were tapes recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. They also found kinescopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives they uncovered tapes that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived.
The relevant information from the telemetry was evaluated real-time and shortly after the missions, then the tapes were re-used. The majority of that information coming over telemetry was switch settings, voltages, tank volumes, etc., on a craft that will never be used again. Engineering data about performance of the various systems was sent back to the ground for analysis and diagnosis of any problem. Also, biomedical data on the astronauts. Today, such data would be measured by an analog-to-digital converter and transmitted digitally. At the time of the Apollo program, computers were heavy and expensive. Analog data was encoded in semi-analog formats—frequency modulation, phase modulation, pulse-code modulation—combined into a microwave signal, received on the ground, decoded with special equipment and recorded on large reels of magnetic tape. For viewing the data, the signals were often written out onto long charts with strip chart recorders. Data on magnetic tape that needed to be kept, such as telemetry data, was always printed out as a hard copy. So after each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the extracted telemetry data was analysed and presented as charts and graphs and tables. The telemetry for all the Apollo missions would be hours and days of details of obsolete equipment working normally. Nobody cares about that and the people who might know how to make sense of it are passing from the scene, as is the machinery that could read those tapes. Nowadays, vast quantities of data can be recorded to disk for negligible cost. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, that wasn’t the case. As explained, data was recorded on big, heavy and expensive reels of magnetic tape that could only be read on big, heavy, specialised equipment. There are real-time recordings and transcriptions of all the missions and the data/confirmation can be found in the post flight mission reports. These are available in PDf format for download.
Everything was backed up and transcribed. Every scrap of the original data from the landings is carefully archived away. This is a classic example of the inflation of events in the minds of conspiracy theorists that you parrot. Several backup tapes from one mission EVA gets recorded over. But that's exaggerated to the fallacious claim that involving all footage and all telemetry from all six landings being destroyed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This again??? Really?
This is the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous deceptive title that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. As part of this he referred to an area of geoengineering research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, which is entirely hypothetical. It has never been secretive and the research has been well publicised to generate funding and support. How do you 'admit' to something that has never been denied?
In the miniscule possibility that it were ever to be implemented, it would have significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance which would be impossible, there are many unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can provide you with a full transcription of the speech if you wish.
What the hell does research into SAI have to do with aircraft contrails anyway?
1
-
1
-
@tommy2pieceya734
"I don't believe in conspiracy theories and I never have"
That, I'm afraid, is demonstrably not the case.
"I just believe in the truth and it's quite easy to see, when looking at things from the outside in."
About a subject that you clearly have zero knowledge of and through the distorted and myopic lens of online conspiracy theorists that tell you what to think.
"Conspiracy theorists, are no different, then the people who believe all these ridiculous claims and nonsensical theories, just because it's told to them, by someone who they're, SUPPOSED TO TRUST."
Stop believing it then.
"For example, all that information in which I gave you, simply went in one ear and out the other, but that was expected, because I presented you with simple facts, logic and common sense and those three things, are impossible to refute..."
No you didn't - you posted a wall of irrelevant self-opinionated waffle a series of logical fallacies and most pointedly, in association with the latter, lame arguments from personal incredulity that have been repeated over and over and over and over again and contrary to your claim, are not only easily refuted but have been done so ad nausem.. Here's one -
"It's the year 2023 and we barely get internet, are download speed is 700 kilobytes a second, not even 1mb and cell phone service is terrible, it's because we live a mile outside of town and the nearest telephone pole is 75 yards away... Now, AT&T is our provider and they are incapable of providing better service, because of the distance of the telephone pole and the mile outside of town, yet, 3 years before cell phones were even invented, AT&T magically provided telephone service to the Moon.. Nixon, from a landline in the Oval Office, called Houston, which then transmitted and beamed a telephone call, 200,000 miles away, with perfect reception and a perfect connection, LMAO...."
The signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device, as opposed to a 210 ft wide radio telescope dish. The current 4G communication band is 0.8-2.6GHz, and the main communication frequency band used by 5G is also below 6GHz, your signal can dip as low as a trivial -30 dBm. A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and have towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. They are entirely different scenarios. Nixon's call? guess what? Radio transmission - it's a thing. Newsflash, fellah called Marconi, 1895, may well have passed you by. 1969? Landline + existing microwave network + Deep Space Network = giant f**k off antenna dish. Why is it even necessary to explain this in the 21st century to you people?
You then said this -
"When Buzz Aldren supposedly got back from the Moon, he became an alcoholic and Neil armstrong, became a recluse"
So what? Armstrong was a natural recluse by nature and Aldrin had problems adapting to civilian life. You don't mention the other 22 astronauts that journeyed to the moon - or the ten that also walked on the surface. Larger than life personalities such as Eugene Cernan, Charlie Duke, Al Shepard, Ron Evans, Pete Conrad, to name a few...all of them spent years in the limelight and celebrating/sharing their achievement.
"You know what fascinates me the most though, I use Google Voice and I just so happened, to overlook one misspelled word... Now, the truly fascinating part is this, not only did you see it, but you pointed it out to me and comboed it, with another assumption and or, justification. I mean, you literally did, exactly what I told you everyone does and basically confirmed my point, absolutely flawlessly..."
I simply pointed out the error, that's all. Just as it's 'Aldrin' - not 'Aldren'.
"What I would like to know and unfortunately, I already know you won't tell me, because nobody ever does and that is this,,,,, what if your brain, didn't find a way to justify and or, excuse, everything I had said, with things like that one misspelled word, or all your assumptions..<WHAT WOULD YOUR REPLY HAVE BEEN THEN>???"
Exactly the same as it is now. You are very simply and demonstrably another gullible, scientifically illiterate, know it all conspiracy believer afflicted by gross illusory superiority and a generous helping of the Dunning Kruger effect, with absolutely zero knowledge of the the subject that you arrogantly claim to be faked. You are neither informed nor clever, just another very dim individual with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it responsibly.
1
-
@tommy2pieceya734
"I'll let you in on a little secret, there's no indisputable evidence, that we went to the Moon"
On the contrary, the scientific, independent and third party evidence speaks for itself.
"NASA claims to have lost it all"
Do they? Then you'll have not problem presenting just one source confirming this then will you.
"they say, it either went missing"
What did? Be specific man.
"or they taped over it"
But they don't. They have never stated any such thing. Some back up recordings of raw analogue video transmitted via unified S Band during the Apollo 11 EVA was at some point erased. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording equipment in order to capture the raw transmissions at source in case anything should go wrong with the process used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations; there is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world.
"and that's all they have to say, because people have a hard time thinking for themselves and therefore, believe anything and everything they're told, as long as it comes from someone they're supposed to trust, like a teacher, or the government, etc and that's 100% fact."
Or a junk online conspiracy theorist.
"If it weren't a 100% fact, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION and you wouldn't be avoiding that statement, at all costs"
I'm not avoiding any statement. I have addressed every aspect of your clueless posts and the reason that we're having this conversation is because I am challenging your false claims - and you people despise that. (Incidentally, your caps lock key keeps intermittently malfunctioning).
"Furthermore, for someone who believes we went to the moon, to spend all this time having a conversation, about something he already believes to be true, well, that should tell you something right there.. Sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself, that we went"
How so? By explaining the difference between the DSN and a mobile phone antenna to you or the fact that a landline can be patched to radio transmission? Sounds like you're desperately trying to convince yourself that we didn't.
"THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, just the WORD of the person making the claim"
But as I have consistently explained, there is, and that evidence has a voice of it's own. Simply because you are completely ignorant of it, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
"and if you don't believe what you're being told, even with no evidence to show, then you're a so called conspiracy theorist and that you have said, over and over and I hear this all the time, but it has nothing to do with anything and everything to do with, people just don't know what else to say and that's the only excuse and or justification, that their brain could come up with and that alone, is quite something, to say the least and the psychology behind it, fascinates me more than you could possibly comprehend.. Why do you think people who believe all these outlandish theories and claims, spend all kinds of time and energy, going back and forth on something they believe to be true?"
Your pop psychology is a tad premature for you - I'd suggest that you invest more time in learning to punctuate a sentence.
"I mean, do you believe they discovered Antarctica and that if you were to go there, you would find cold and frigid temperatures, plus a lot of ice and snow, well, IF SO,, why the hell would you spend all kinds of time and that precious energy, on the contrary of what you believe, because that's exactly what you're doing, but it just so happens to be about the moon, on this occasion and do you know how many millions of people do this, like I said, the psychology behind it is fascinating, almost beyond belief..."
Nope. I am simply responding to your false and erroneous claims, your personal incredulity, illusory superiority and your arrogance. And as I say, don't you people simply loath that?
"Now, what you don't know and maybe I should have told you this before the whole conversation started, so I'll take responsibility for that......but,, I should have told you, that I can prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt to the point where it's literally indisputable, that the US government, is its own separate entity, enslaving and manipulating Americans like pawns on a chessboard and doing so, for their own benefit and financial gain.. Infact, it's quite easy to prove..."
Why don't you stay on topic instead? - or perhaps have the integrity, the honestly and humility to concede that you were wrong about your cell phone comparison and that you have zero understanding of how it was possible to patch a landline in the Whitehouse to the DSN? The reason is, as you know full well, that you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the science, technology and the history of spaceflight or the Apollo Programme and rely upon the consumption and regurgitation of junk online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
"If you were to ask yourself this question and that is, would it take hypothetically, to be convinced we never went to the Moon and if the only answer you come up with, is the word of a person, or entity, telling you otherwise and that it was all a lie, well, what more can I say.."
Do you mean "what would it take"?
I'm not remotely interested in the "word of a person". As explained to you repeatedly and on innumerable occasions, scientific evidence speaks for itself and has a voice of its own.
Now, could you substantiate your claim, at source, in which NASA state that they have "lost all the evidence" that they went to the moon. Go ahead then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petrikVSempty
"Well, I saw him proposing this to the public in one of his speeches on TED, where he claimed that he is studying this as one of his projects for many years now and that he thinks that this could be a solution to the global warming, not definitive, but solution nontheless. It was scheduled for 21 June 2021, but postponed for a year at minimum for ethical reasons."
I suggest that you watch the talk again. He makes it explicitly clear that in spite of his support, this is purely in the form of research based proposal and that although a small scale trial was planned (involving a steerable balloon and a few kilos of water), there is no material identified that yet that can replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. He also emphasises that this is one entirely hypothetical strategy designed to combat global temperature increase. As I said, aside from the technical barriers and environmental unknowns, SAI would be impossible in terms of international governance.
"On the other hand... talking about this as a hypothetical matter is irresponsible and naive especially when there are msm news from China for example, where they managed to "change the weather"using this geoengineering recently and successfully."
You appear to have unwittingly changed the subject to cloud seeding which is a wholly unrelated topic and has nothing whatsoever to do with geoengineering.
"Independent studies done on this matter saying that wherever this geoengineering takes place, the air and especially rain contains heavy metals. Havey metals poisoning symptoms are more/less same as flu."
There are no such "independent studies" - simply junk chemtrail conspiracy nonsense and self-referencing pseudoscience from the usual suspects and perpetrators of this hoax such as Dane Wigington. Do by all means feel free to reference these "independent studies", and present the data which is able to demonstrate a direct causal relationship with alleged chemical spraying. I absolutely guarantee what you'll come back with.
"Also here in UK we had recently 2 weeks super nice weather with no clouds, no chemtrails in the sky. On the last day of those 2 weeks, early morning I saw almost a dozen planes creating chemtrials and the nice weather was gone by end of that day. Since then there was 2 and a half days of skies full of clouds without any gap."
I am also in the UK and you are referring to a frontal system that passed over the country following a period of settled and warm weather due to a high pressure anticyclone from the south. The presence of contrails is often a precursor of an advancing depression or low and as such - as is the case in the clouds the followed - are the result, not the cause of the prevailing atmospheric conditions.
"So sorry, but doesn't seem so hypothetical to me."
It wouldn't though would it? - because you have been lead to believe by the perpetrators of this hoax that the contrails you are seeing are evidence of geoengineering in the form of SAI. You are trapped in a circular logical fallacy - you think SAI would look like a contrail, and so when you see a contrail you think that it is geoengineering.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded and studied for over 80 years... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
@petrikVSempty
So you were completely incapable of answering my question?
No one is disputing that geoengineering is real. Ground based albedo modification, carbon capture, aforestation, biochar - all active geoengineering strategies. It's likely that as we approach the tipping point our only option available is DAC. However, SAI exists simply in the province of research proposal and mathematical modelling. As the article that you yourself referenced, it has not even reached the stages of small scale trial involving a balloon and several kilos of water.
Known science tells you that the trails you are seeing are the result of condensed atmospheric water vapour and can be nothing else - nothing to do with the "government". The meteorological science itself is governed by physical laws which are axiomatic and thereby have a voice of their own.
The Geoengineeringwatch team? Are you actually being serious. So as I predicted and as you vehemently denied, you are simply parroting one of the main originators of the chemtrail hoax Dane Wigington, a proven liar and a fraud. Instead of actually understanding the actual meteorology, aviation and the physics of geoengineering you instead have allowed yourself to be sucked in by junk online conspiracy theory which appeals to the impressionable and the scientifically illiterate. You then regurgitate all manner of pseudoscience, appeal to authority and false equivalence claiming overnight armchair expertise as opposed to employing an objective critical faculty to independently verify his claims. So the 'science' you refer to comes from 'The Dimming'. Completely as I predicted.
I would like to correct you on on major thing here. Wigington's claim that you have gullibly swallowed and regurgitated that "Hi Bypass Turbofan" jet engines which are by design nearly incapable of producing condensation trails except under rare and extreme conditions" is utter horseshit. A complete lie and in direct contradiction to the physics of contrail formation. Have you any comprehension what the bypass ratio of the Pratt and Whitney JT9D that originally powered the first Boeing 747s was? Or the TF39s first used on the Lockheed Galaxy C5 in the 1960s were? Of course you haven't.
The enormous fan at the front of a high bypass engine is powered by a combustion chamber through a turbine linkage. That shaft powers both the compressor and the fan. Irrespective of the bypass hydrocarbon fuel is still burnt to drive the process. The myth about high bypass turbo fans "not" producing contrails was started long ago by some clown by the name of Jack Baran, since then Russ Tanner and Dane Wigington have promoted it to the impressionable, gullible, uneducated and critically impaired to further their online fraud. High bypass engines actually produce MORE contrails than the older low bypass engines. You can easily verify this by visiting objective sources and avoiding confirmation bias through deceptive conspiracy based websites.
As I said, high bypass turbofans have been around since the late 60s and were fitted to military jets like the C5A which I can assure you produced contrails. The water vapour produced is simply a function of the total fuel burnt. While the turbofans allow large engines to be built, the amount of water vapour created has also increased due to the large fuel flows of those engines. The exhaust of the engine is the gasses that come out of the combustion chamber. It's the product of burning kerosene (hydrogen and carbon) with the oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (water). It's the water in the exhaust that produces the contrail. This principle is basically the same irrespective of if it's a low-bypass, no-bypass, high-bypass or even an internal combustion engine.
What creates a contrail is the mixing of the exhaust with cooler humid ambient air. It does not matter if it's mixing with the air that passed through the bypass fan, or if it's mixing with the air that passed around the engine. It's still just exhaust gases mixing with the air. As the gasses mix, the temperature falls, and the water condenses out.
The only difference with a high bypass engine is that the exhaust gasses in a high bypass engine are a little less hot (more of the energy has gone into producing thrust from the bypass fan). So they reach the condensation point quicker, and so are actually more likely to form contrails than their tubojet predecessors.Again, there are studies that verify this. Persistent contrails have been a problem for military stealth aircraft for decades - and continue to be so.
Suggestion for you. Pay a visit to any aerospace engineering college, or GE, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney. Tell them that their high bypass engines don't produce contrails because Dane Wigington said so, and don't forget to remind them that the University of You Tube sent you.
Laughable.
"Like I said. Good luck believing people like Gates who are linked with depopulation programs"
Known science is not a question of "belief". But you have at least finally revealed your conspiratorially tainted true colours.
And talking of questions, you missed mine - again. Given that by your own inadvertent acknowledgement SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails you are seeing... I ask you again - what precisely is your point beyond badly parroting a deceptive charlatan like Dane Wigington?
1
-
@petrikVSempty
"That exactly what you have to believe in to be able to fit into your perfect worldly narrative where goverments are here for our good and to protect us. If it's not from you or the sources that you believe to, it's not true."
As I said, known science is not a question of "belief" or beliefs and at no stage have I expressed any - nor have I commented on 'government' other than meteorological science is governed by known physical laws that are axiomatic and ineluctable. Nothing to do with me, I am irrelevant to this exchange - as I said, the science of aviation, meteorology and the physics of geoengineering are independently verifiable. Bit rich that you speak about narratives, when parroting Dane Wigington which as I said, I suspected was the case when you insisted that the contrails you are seeing are evidence of SAI.
"Nobody said that high-bypass jet engines don't produce contrails. Quiet opposite. I said they do, but only under specific circumstances, that are highly unlikely to occur at the altitude that these planes are flying."
No you didn't - you copied and pasted the same old nonsense from Dane Wigington. Let me remind you of what you said.. Here you go..
"For the record, all US military jet air tankers and all commercial jet carriers are equipped with "Hi Bypass Turbofan" jet engines which are by design nearly incapable of producing condensation trails except under rare and extreme conditions."
Absolute utter arrant nonsense. Complete rubbish.
"And you talking about "known science" is exactly what I am talking about. Must be from very few or it ain't true. That's anti-science because science is made by arguments. You simply rely and dwell only on one side, refusing any argument from other side."
Known science is demonstrable and speaks for itself. It may be challenged, but any 'arguments' must be reproducible and substantiated by data to the contrary. The laws of physics that you are ignorant of are not by decree of some 'government' as you seem to think, but by verifiable fact. Dane Wiginton's nonsense about High bypass ratio turbofan engines that you feebly attempted to pass off as your own can be independently falsified. The fact that you are too afraid or lack the critical capacity or the will to do so demonstrates how emotionally invested you are in junk conspiracy theory.
"You simply rely and dwell only on one side, refusing any argument from other side"
I invite evidence to the contrary - that's what science does through the process of falsification. That's how the scientific method works. As yet, you haven't been able to produce any, instead, relying on junk online conspiracy theory and badly parroted pseudoscience.
"Good luck believing"
That you would sooner listen to an online con-artist and opportunistic fraudster than objectively learn about the science of aviation, meteorology and the physics of geoengineering confirms that the 'belief' is all yours.
You appear to have missed my question yet again, unless of course you are vehemently avoiding it. Given that by your own inadvertent acknowledgement SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails you are seeing... I ask you again - what precisely is your point beyond regurgitating Dane Wigington?
1
-
@petrikVSempty
"Just as I suspected from you 2nd reply to me. You only looking for an argument with me because I dared to say something that you seriously disagree with and yet you still claim that you welcome arguments."
Indeed I do welcome them - you have yet to offer any. As I suspected from the start because it was abundantly obvious and which has indeed turned out to be the case, you are simply badly parroting Dane Wigington in the absence of the remotest understanding about aviation, meteorological science or what geoengineeering actually is. As I said, I am irrelevant to this exchange, your claims are not only in direct contradiction of themselves, but are contrary to independently verifiable facts.
"Saying that something is impossible unless a specific circumstances occur for you means that that I said is definitely impossible. You constantly referring to "known science" but defined by who?!"
Mathematical axioms and demonstrable physical laws.
"And once you find out by who, ask yourself a question who is be funded by, because like I said you dwell on it so much that regardless of the context of the argument made or regardless who the argument came from, you will keep fighting otherwise your world crumbles"
What funding? As I said, known science has a voice of its own - scientists are funded. Moreover, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or as you suggested, institutional interest. We have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method which is the ultimate leveller.
And meanwhile, the online conspiracy theory that you faithfully and uncritically regurgitate is unfailingly honest, accurate, reliable, not in the least bit deceptive, exploitative, opportunist or driven by agenda and profit and naturally has your best interest at heart. Righto, Even a cursory glance at Wigington's laughable comedy fraudulent website wouldn't fool the most gullible and impressionable child, it's that glaringly obvious. What's your excuse?
"Also being discredited as scientist or doctor or as a fact any expert is quiet common especially in a last 3 decades"
As I explained, at no stage am I talking about individuals or any 'scientists' I am referring to the science itself. Why are you so preoccupied with appeal to authority?
You realise that you could routinely debunk Dane Wigington's ludicrous claims yourself if you had the critical faculty and the will to do so?
"so I tell you last time. Keep believing your "known science"
As long as the science in question is proven and backed by physical laws then it is self-evident. My beliefs, (which at no stage have I mentioned) are irrelevant. Unfathomable, that you should choose to "believe" an online charlatan over independently verifiable fact. Still insisting that "Hi Bypass Turbofan" jet engines are by design nearly incapable of producing condensation trails except under rare and extreme conditions."?
Quite telling that you are incapable of addressing my question. Let's try again shall we?
Given that by your own inadvertent acknowledgement SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails you are seeing... I ask you again - what precisely is your point beyond regurgitating Dane Wigington?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Soo....fuel burned in a turbine just makes a cloud??? Does anybody else know about this?"
Yes, the fields of atmospheric science, meteorology and the entire aviation sector for starters.
"When I looked it up , in decending order, exhaust from a turbine contained ' carbon dioxide, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, unburned fuel,soot and metal particles,as well as water vapor. Water vapor is the least. The first hydrocarbon in history to be burned in an engine and produce innocuous water vapor!???!"
What? If you burn a hydrocarbon - (the clue is in the term), the chief products are CO2 and H2O. Burning one gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water due to the oxygen added. Yes, there are by products of the combustion process, such as sulphur and soot, together with a range of trace elements and gasses - whilst the particulate you mention is minute. To reiterate - burn a hydrocarbon and you will produce carbon dioxide and water. This is basic high school chemistry for goodness sake.
Furthermore, persistent spreading contrails are not a product of water in the exhaust, that merely acts as the trigger event. If the air temperature and vapour pressure are sufficiently low and humidity high, the water in the exhaust will flash freeze and condense out as a trail. In conditions of high relative humidity in respect to ice, then the trail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous phase - water vapour. In conditions of supersaturation, then the trail will not only endure but expand, spread and increase in mass where 99% of the ice is being drawn from the atmosphere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@njneer
This again? Seriously? So a dumb quote mined conspiracy video is all it takes to convince you?
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deoccupyhawaii6268
"lol, they've used aerosolized metals since ww2 to seed clouds for paratrooper cover"
Oh Jeez, you're likely referring to chaff which is a radar countermeasure and has absolutely nothing to do with the trails you are witnessing, aerosols or geoengineering in the form of SRM. Cloud seeding only works if there are existing clouds to seed it doesn't create them.
"its not just a hypothetical proposal. They were denying using it for years until they recently admitted it was being done to seed clouds"
Cloud seeding is not Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, they are two completely different things. And yes, SAI is completely hypothetical. Why are you doing this to yourself?
No one is suggesting that cloud seeding doesn't exist - and it hasn't "recently been admitted'. Cloud seeding has existed since the 1950s and uses a range of different methods and materials to introduce additional nucleation into clouds that are already conducive to precipitation - cumulus and stratiform masses - in order to induce/divert or intensify rainfall. This is why it takes place at comparatively low altitudes 2,000 - 6,500 feet a fraction of the altitude of the contrails that you term chemtrails which are formed in the tropopause and stratosphere where there are no rain bearing clouds. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. SAI would be conducted at double the altitude of these trails, 65,000 - 70,000 feet because it would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and naturally heterogeneously produced sulphates in the junge layer.
"If you think the perfect grids made over every major UN city (and ONLY in the UN) is just condensation spreading out into a haze all day, you're delusional."
Contrails can indeed form grids - not necessarily perfect ones - and you see them wherever there are commercial air routes. This is nothing new. Contrails will persist and spread in conditions of supersaturation. Identify one chemical when released that can expand and increase in mass in the same way as - well no shit - condensed atmospheric water vapour. Are you equally as perplexed by a cloud? Any idea of the weight of material contained in these trails versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't.
"Explain the new "sun bow" phenomenon with condensation."
This isn't "new" - Irisation has been an observed phenomena throughout recorded history.
"When they spray in Hawaii it looks like there's a rainbow ring around the sun like oily asphalt in the rain."
No one is spraying in Hawaii - you are simply seeing a well understood meteorological phenomena. Look for your explanation in known science rather than junk online conspiracy videos.
"People have gathered air samples and determined the ingredients are indeed nano particles of metal and chemical compounds."
No they haven't - there are simply chemtrail conspiracy theorists that tell you what to believe and present no methodology or conclusive empirical data whatsoever. But do feel free to present the claimed samples that demonstrates causality with your claimed chemtrails. Better still, one in-situ sample of a chemtrail itself using optical array spectrometry. There are plenty such studies of contrails. Just one into a "chemtrail" will do.
"There have even been military whistle blowers who handled the logistics or flew the planes they remove from civilian radar trackers."
Name one - just one. Try to avoid the inevitable and obligatory Kristen Meghan - if this was true you should have thousands to choose from. I guarantee I've seen al of this bullshit before.
"You gotta be born yesterday"
Said the believer in an ludicrous online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
"to think this is something airplanes have always done, just look at old photographs and you won't see a single line in the sky."
Aircraft contrails have been observed, measured, filmed, photographed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of high powered flight and the early advent of high altitude powered flight. This is all independently verifiable. So your statement is demonstrably false. The chemtrail conspiracy theory originated in the mid-1990s through the sensationalist late night radio shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM, based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails (only in America 😆). Since then, all manner of false equivalence has been shoehorned in to justify such an ignorant and childish belief as your posts are ample testimony to.
Your personal incredulity is irrelevant as is your association fallacy. Once again, geoengineering has nothing to do with the trails you are seeing, neither does cloud seeding which equally has nothing to do with geoengineering. Why do you people feel the need to comment on subjects that you have absolutely no understanding of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@misterniceguy8765
"just watch the skies."
Well I was alpine climbing at the age of nine, have since worked as a mountain guide across four different continents, obtained a post-graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology an Climatology over a quarter of a century ago and subsequently specialised in ground based remote sensing - so you cloud say I've dedicated a reasonable amount of my life to 'watching the skies'. Even more of a bonus when you actually understand what you are looking at. Gets a bit tedious typing all that out every time a credulous conspiracy believer tells me to "just watch the skies" - what would you have me look at?
"They are trying to hide them in the clouds now."
You mean contrail cirrus, obscured by other clouds? Who precisely are '"they"?
"If people can't tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails they are blind the behave completely different."
Finally! A chemtrail believer that can actually detail the methodology to differentiate between their supposed chemtrails and those persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Go ahead then.
"And it rains 2 days later everytime they chemtrails not when you see contrails."
Not always - it could be sooner, could be later or not at all, but the persistent contrails that you deem to be 'chemtrails' are often indicative of unstable air and often the precursor of an approaching front bringing rainfall. Contrails themselves are cirrus clouds and so therefore not rain bearing. They are frequently the result of the conditions that you describe as opposed to the cause.
1
-
1
-
@misterniceguy8765
"no offence but I'm not here to debate with you"
No offence taken.
"I personally think your wrong."
I am irrelevant - known science has a voice of its own.
"They spray daily over me. There is a big difference in contrails and chemtrails."
So says every chemtrail believer on the internet, but none are able to detail the process to differentiate between these supposed 'chemtrails' and persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"And there is a difference. I physically feel it on some days it makes my eyes burn the NSA 5g antenna they put right in front of my warehouse puts out much more intense EMFs my chest pains increase and everyone experiences tinnitus"
Seriously, I would visit the doctor - that sounds serious. A 5G mast will have no physical effects whatsoever.
"I watch them intentionally inter into clouds spray and cut them of as the exit the clouds. And this is a new technique but it still obvious."
You mean intermittent contrails? Are you similarly perplexed by patchy cloud? You need to look closer. You will frequently observe large sections of recently deposited persistent contrails that you deem to be chemtrails randomly fading and vanishing. This is confirmation of the motion of the atmosphere - rising and subsiding parcels of warmer/drier air. Fly an aircraft at speeds up to 500 knots through such air and of course a contrail - which remember is a binary event - will be intermittent and appear to turn on and off. Understand that the atmosphere is neither isotropic nor homogeneous in terms of humidity and pressure.
"And this is where we probably have a difference in beliefs."
As I said, known science is not about "beliefs" - far less mine.
"I know that we are all a part of a global genocide program. I was put in the system years ago."
Really? how did you establish that? and tell me, how's that coming along given that the global population has increased by 1.7 billion since the turn of the century?
"You don't have to agree not do I really care if you don't. Because it really doesn't matter. Folks are gonna die either way."
Yes they are - unless climate change is halted and reversed.
"But I not in the mood to try to convince someone of anything. I'm just gonna go jam out on my drums. Have a good evening."
Thank you for keeping your response civil - a rare thing on the internet and genuinely, much appreciated.
May I ask, what rig do you have? what's your style of music? and what are you jamming to?
1
-
1
-
"It makes no sense"
To you. Your personal incredulity has no bearing upon reality.
"that if they are going 24,000 mph. Why did it take 3 days to get to the moon. It's only 245,000 miles. That's a 11 hour trip...."
Trans lunar injection raised the orbit of Apollo to intercept the moon using what is known as a Hohmann Transfer. Burning for five minutes and 41 seconds, this increased the velocity of the S-IVB using it's re-startable J2 engine from 17,432 mph to 24,994.656 mph to send it to the moon - it's then a coast. Once the spent third stage had been extracted and the CSM docked with the LM, since the Earth's gravity continually exerts a force on the vehicle, Apollo was steadily losing speed until it fell into the lunar sphere of gravitational influence at which point it began to accelerate again. So they coasted away from earth, they slowed gradually to just under 3,292mph before the gravitational influence of the moon allowed them to pick up speed again. Imagine having sufficient initial speed to coast uphill on a bicycle, you are continually slowing but if you have enough energy you reach the crest and gather speed once more. Lunar orbit insertion was then achieved through a burn of the SPS engine which lasted 6 minutes and placed the craft in an initial elliptical lunar orbit and a second burn lasting just 17 seconds and eased Apollo 11 into a circular orbit of 69 miles at 3,600mph.
1
-
1
-
@Flap999
"Bill Gates has been working overtime financing the spraying of aluminum particulate in the upper atmosphere (among other heavy metals) for years."
He has been doing nothing of the sort. Around a decade ago Bill Gates leant vocal support and funding to an area of geoengineering research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. This is entirely hypothetical. Moreover, it has never been secretive. The proponents of this research are keen to raise awareness to increase funding and support of their work. However, the environmental unknowns, the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles, the technical and logistical challenges, in addition to the impossibility of international governance mean that it is highly unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to arrest climate change that SAI would ever be employed.
It aims to arrest global temperature rise by replicating the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols, but currently there it has yet to be determined how to do this. Volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these sulphates are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. Calcium carbonate could be a possibility. Early research suggests that it has near-ideal optical properties, but obviously does not exist naturally in the stratosphere even though it is non-toxic and earth abundant. It is likely expect that calcium carbonate will not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphates however, the actual stratospheric reactivity is not known, which means laboratory and outdoor studies are needed. This is why in 2019 an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
Incidentally, aluminium is not a "heavy metal".
"Even more alarming is the video of US military aircraft being used for this."
There is no video of any aircraft conducting SAI since it has never progressed beyond hypothetical proposal. Plenty of false equivalence perpetrated by chemtrail conspiracy videos capturing contrails though. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Weather control has been a thing since the 1800s"
No it hasn't - controlling the weather is a technical impossibility. We can attempt to modify it on the micro/local scale however through practices such as cloud seeding. Also, the unintended effects of mankind's activity is inadvertently altering global weather patterns through anthropogenic climate change. But 'control' is the realm of fantasy and sci-fi.
What does any of this have to do the aircraft contrails under discussion in this video that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years?
1
-
@Flap999
So, you not only believe that the contrails you are seeing relate to a hypothetical geoengineering strategy that hasn't even undergone small scale trial but also they simultaneously serve as population control - all masterminded by evil genius Bill Gates. Only, no one has noticed - opposing world governments, the global aviation sector, independent environmental monitoring and the entire field of atmospheric science. However, you, alongside a community of online conspiracy believers know this...because you read it on the internet.
Contrails disappear after a short time? Really? A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all. The persistence, length and expansion of a contrail is a function of the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Are you similarly perplexed by the growth and duration of a cloud?
Appreciate that the atmosphere is neither obligated or duty bound to conform to arbitrary time limits imposed by a community of cretinous, credulous scientifically illiterate, conspiratorially addled clowns that have managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
My channel contains plenty of content - in addition to basic meteorology, do I need to explain the rudiments of You Tube security settings that a child could comprehend?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jesus - where to start.
You are evidently unaware then that in the troposphere, tropopause and lower stratosphere, temperature and pressure reduce with altitude which governs the amount of water vapour that the air can hold. I suggest that you investigate, relative humidity, dew point and adiabatic lapse rates.
The two main products of hydrocarbon combustion are obviously H20 and CO2. Do this in the regions that aircraft cruise, the tropopause and lower stratosphere, where temperatures are frequently <55°C then the water content of the exhaust will frequently condense out. If the ambient conditions are conducive a contrail will form. This may be short lived - or in cases of dry air , not at all, but if the RHi is high then it will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). If the atmosphere is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the contrail will not only remain, but will expand drawing upon the the available atmospheric moisture budget.
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18hrs, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You mean you saw a quote mined conspiracy video that told you what to think, Find the original 'Orion: Trial By Fire' from 2014 and place it in its intended context. Engineer Kelly Smith said that the challenges of the space radiation environment had to be solved for the new design - the Orion capsule before a crew can be sent into this region of space. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems. The challenge to be solved for Orion was therefore a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the Apollo era pre-written core rope memory is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. In the same year (2014), Orion was sent into the densest region of the belts and performed flawlessly, and last year on a test flight to the moon and back (Artemis 1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@-agent-47-80
You simply need to understand the nature of radiation - or rather, the Van Allen Belts.
High energy gamma rays were ignored. Nothing short of a thick lead layer (which would weigh way to much) would stop that. Gamma radiation isn’t one of the types of radiation present in the outer Van Allen Belt, so “a few inches of lead” wasn’t necessary to shield the astronauts from the Van Allen Belts, as is often claimed.The remaining alpha and beta radiation is stopped by the aluminium skin and the windows – alpha radiation is even stopped by a sheet of paper. The Van Allen belts are a trap for charged particles like protons and electrons. They’re held in place by the magnetic field of the Earth, and so they trace the shape of the magnetic field itself. The problem with the Van Allen belts lies not in them being impassable, but in the charged particles they contain.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO.
The VAB are toroidal, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. The highly technical reports of Apollo are accessible and give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory as did the PMP.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is … nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"But what is taking place now is actually covering the entire sky in a haze after the trail has spread out."
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
the following paper is almost five decades old.
" Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of powered flight. Here's the science here is what you are witnessing...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1
-
@HosstheBoss4
Thank you for proving the point that “we are covering ourselves with a toxic blanket” of toxic fuel exhaust.
Could you clarify precisely where I confirmed this? Thanks.
“Yes there is water vapor involved but it’s water saturated with toxins.”
Contrails? Incorrect. A visible persistent spreading contrail is composed of ice crystals drawn predominately from the available atmospheric moisture budget in conditions of supersaturation in respect to ice. In-situ studies of contrails using multi array spectrometry reveal that any by products from the combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel are trace – although sulphides and soot may serve as additional CCNs in the cloud formation process. Moreover, water vapour is invisible.
“Just smell a planes exhaust next time you are at / near an airport.”
Same can be said of an ocean liner, diesel locomotive or a family car. What’s your point?
“Also your statement proves they could be spraying to manipulate weather as well.”
No, my response to you explains the process of contrail formation and the chemistry of condensed atmospheric water vapour which is precisely what you are witnessing. However, there is a high volume of research into the extent of radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus.
“Just because the planes normal exhaust can create a sheen or blanket of toxins encased in water vapor does not mean it’s the only thing going on.”
It doesn’t. That’s just you talking nonsense over the comments section of a video entertainment platform. You perhaps need to understand, that simply because you elect to type something over the internet, it does not make it true.
“Harvard just announced they are spraying the skies to mitigate global warming. http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-scientists-to-release-chemicals-into-sky-in-2019-to-cool-earth-2018-12 “
Did you actually bother to read this? Harvard have announced nothing of the sort. This article is about the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which aims to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. If you take the trouble to read your link you’ll discover that it refers to the SCoPEx project. This involves two steerable balloons launched 22km into the mid stratosphere to evaluate perturbation and dispersal. Because there is no agreement upon the materials that would accomplish the aim of SAI the trails will initially involve a few kilos of water ice followed by mere kilograms of chalk. Here’s the status of your SAI as it currently stands…. I suggest that you read it…
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. As I explained, the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
“The globe is on a cooling trend with fluctuations of higher than normal temps in areas as the climate finds its new patterns.”
No it isn’t.
“John Brennon explained the fact that they were looking into spraying the skies at the council of foreign criminals(paraphrasing) years ago. https://youtu.be/0vBhEDbIy7g”
???? Do you even understand what the CFN is? It’s John Brennan actually.In his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the ex-Director of the CIA discussed the theme of "Transitional Threats to Global Security". https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline and insertion of the term “chemtrails” that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you... https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
“If you do your research”
And appreciating that research does not constitute or involve squandering evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, quote mined cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or crank self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, tell me, how did you conduct yours?
“you know by the time the public is brought in the loop, chances are it’s been going on for a while”
SRM/SAI has never been out of the “public loop” – it is entirely transparent. The advocates of this strategy are eager to increase visibility to try to sell their concept, increase funding and gain support given the political and environmental objections and concern.
“Appreciate your work in making an actual reply but you simply proved some of my points for me and made the other points that much more valid for those who doubt blindly.”
On the contrary, I have thoroughly debunked your ill-informed post on a point by point bases. Thank you for your civil response however. Genuinely appreciated.
1
-
@HosstheBoss4
"for starters to claim exhaust from a jet airliner is all or nearly all water vapor is completely false."
I said nothing of the sort - that's yet another poorly fashioned strawman on your part.. To clarify again, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification and misunderstanding of persistent contrails. The long visible or spreading white trail that see in the wake of an aircraft is composed of condensed water vapour in an ice saturated environment. The trail endures because in such conditions it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible phase (water vapour) and grows because most of the ice is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture content. Any by products within the trail are trace, however as I mentioned the presence of sulphides and soot may contribute to the presence of existing CCNs. Aircraft exhaust on the other hand is full of a cocktail of chemicals but as in any combusted hydrocarbon fuel, the chief products are CO2 and H2O. Actually modern high bypass turbofan engines are pretty clean burning and aviation in comparison to ground based pollution is far less of a hazard to human health - however, emissions from airports and increased volume of air traffic will indeed contribute to the prevalence of respiratory and even neurological health conditions whilst the increased air traffic means higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere. No one is denying this. Road going diesel contains similar trace metals and the emissions at ground level are all around us. In addition to Nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and pm2.5 - there are the huge quantities of metal particulates associated with an internal combustion engine and brake pads to consider. You are breathing these on a daily basis at ground level and such pollution that you seem oblivious to is thousands of times more harmful to health than the commercial air traffic that you decry.
3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? All those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. Shall we turn to that now? Do you drive?
I would be happy to discuss the environmentally harmful effects of the exponentially expanding aviation industry and in particular, the chemical composition of aircraft exhaust, but this has nothing to do with the erroneous belief that a persistent contrail is evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying or the subject under discussion in this video.
"The article about Harvard was to make a point that these programs are being publicly disclosed now and have been in affect for years."
You mean the article you posted that tells you that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is a hypothetical concept, the preserve of research proposal and is not currently in progress? That article? No it wasn't - you said...and I quote:
"Harvard just announced they are spraying the skies to mitigate global warming."
Which is completely false.
As I explained, SRM has never been out of the public domain or concealed from the public interest since its inception. The proponents of such strategies wish to increase visibility to increase funding, awareness and support. Incidentally, you meant to say "effect". Another association fallacy. What does this have to do with a mistaken contrail or aircraft exhaust?
"look up weather modification in Vietnam, look at the Olympic games in Beijing."
You mean cloud seeding? Yet again you lurch tangentially into yet more false equivalence. This has nothing to do with aircraft exhaust, persistent contrails or geoengineeering. Weather modification is the legal and technical term for cloud seeding. Cloud seeding aims to induce precipitation from existing cumulus or stratiform masses which are conducive to rain. Commonly using silver iodide flares rack mounted to the wings of light aircraft, it is deployed at altitudes between 2,000 - 6,500 feet. There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity. 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. The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant by peer-reviewed research.Moreover, despite being deployed in some high profile cases, it isn't by any means widespread, the science is disputed and the results erratic. What's your point?
"Did you bother to look at the patents on geoengineeringwatch.org"
Yes - did you? Clearly not, since this farcical list contains everything from a hot water heating element to exhaust atmomisers, smoke generators a garden sprinkler system and a device for measuring toner level on a printer...
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5486900
That'll be because this is Dane Wigington's supposed "extensive list of geoengineering patents"...and if you regard "geoengineeringwatch" as anything other than a self-referencing pseudoscientific scam conspiracy website, then you really are infinitely more gullible than your naive and ill-informed posts betray.
"or did you automatically make that grave error most ego driven academia seems to make which is discrediting before researching because it does not fit in your box."
The unintentional irony at this point is excruciating.
"Your attempt at insulting someone based on seeing something on the internet is lazy work to say the least. Oh and you are commenting on a video from youtube right now so not sure why you are throwing stones in that glass house."
I merely pointed out that when an online conspiracy believer is prone to saying "do your research", they should perhaps appreciate that "research" does not involve regurgitating lay You Tube conspiracy videos, out of context quote mining, cherry picked click- bait, confirmation bias and the contents of junk pseudoscientific websites such as geoengineerig watch...as you are ample testimony to.
"The global is actually cooling as we enter a solar minimum, most climate models completely ignore solar forcing as well as blaming CO2. Carbon Dioxide is plant food and is not a problem for the climate."
Oh Jesus wept.
"John Brennan is guilty of crimes that go far beyond lying to the public" "I feel you are either afraid to look into or are simple doing your part to keep people ignorant while attempting to overload someone with articles and false statements."
What "you feel" is irrelevant. The dishonest, inaccurate and sensationalist title of the You Tube conspiracy video that you presented purported that his voluntary address to the CFN was an admission of chemtrails. This is not only flagrantly untrue, but the majority of feeble minded online conspiracy parrots with the critical faculty of a sea cucumber don't actually bothered to watch it before mindlessly linking it as supposed "evidence".
"Ignorance is the only enemy we have in this reality"
God bless the internet.
"I wish you well my friend, when you see a bigger piece of the picture please message me and we will discuss."
Nice beard by the way.
1
-
@HosstheBoss4
"yet again using long drawn out responses"
The unintentional irony is hilarious.
I have addressed your posts on a point by point basis. Try it.
"Saying contrails are nearly all water vapor and ice nucleation again. Deliberately tiptoeing around the fact that it’s created by exhaust from an engine burning 500-850 gallons of jet fuel per hour."
Once again, and to reiterate, if you wish to discuss the chemistry of combusted hydrocarbon fuel exhaust I would be more than happy to do so. But be prepared to also broach road going vehicles, locomotives, ocean vessels and industrial pollution. I'll say this again, because you appear to be struggling to comprehend; the visible white plume in the wake of a jet aircraft is composed of condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals...no different to a cirrus cloud. In conditions of high RHi then most of the composition is drawn from the atmospheric moisture budget and in such conditions of supersaturation, the contrail is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous phase (water vapour).
"How does one assume that there is little to no affect on the environment with those numbers?"
The exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector has appreciably detrimental implications for the environment...no one is disputing that. Incidentally, once again, you are confusing "effect" and "affect". Affect as a verb meaning to influence something and effect for the something that was influenced.Clear now?
"Cloud seeding is changing the weather from what was naturally occurring, is it not?"
Yes, on the micro scale, it is an attempt to induce rainfall from existing clouds that are already conducive to precipitation ...the science is questionable, the environmental impact negligible and it bears no relationship whatsoever to the persistent contrails that are misidentified as your chemtrails...so what's your point?
"This by definition is weather modification. "
Indeed, as I pointed out, the legal and technical term for cloud seeding. What does this have to do with a trail in the wake of a jet aircraft and the topic under discussion in this video?
"Why is it so hard for you to wrap your mind around? Our food, water, medical systems, education systems have been systematically turned against what they stand for. Causing more harm than good, literally laced with poisons."
A spectacular tangential leap in logic there even for you. What does this have to do with persistent contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of powered aviation? Furthermore, are you claiming that you eschew medical science?
"I see you have your mind made up."
Squawked the online conspiracy parrot.
Science is not about opinion or preconceptions.
"What I needed to say has been said, one day you may figure it out. If not, no worries."
I assure you I have the measure of atmospheric science as much as I have the measure of you. It isn't hard, it's my background.
"So I wish you well, and hopefully someone as dedicated to posting as you will put that energy to better use by working against what’s being done to us all."
I dedicate my life to the battle against anthropogenic climate change and genuine environmental concerns..as opposed to baseless online hoaxes that have managed to reduce a cloud into a conspiracy theory.
That beard...tell me, are there regular and mandatory waxing requirements?
1
-
1
-
@biffteutsch3402
I have. And when you do you simply brand it a chemtrail. You are referring to irisation.
Similarly, what if you were to now discover that the expanding coverage that you term chemtrails are actually persistent spreading contrails?
A contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all - it is governed by the prevailing atmospheric conditions, in particular, the interplay between temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. In conditions of high RHi then a trail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible gaseous state (water vapour). However if the air is saturated in respect to ice, the contrail will not only linger, but expand and grow in mass where 99% of the visible trail and ice budget within it is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture. Contrails are simply cirrus clouds. If you question their duration and expansion, then you must logically also question cloud formation too.
Here is the science behind the phenomena that you are seeing:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
Persistent contrail coverage has been recorded to last over 24 hours. The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@millsy3221
You say that you understand it, but then gullibly and badly parrot another mindless online conspiracy theory. Stop believing garbage you read on twitter and social media. The simulated scenario listed the initial "attack" occurring on May 15, 2022, as the tweet says. The first cases in the current outbreak were in fact reported to the WHO on May 13....so you're wrong.
Back in March 2021 The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), an organisation focused on reducing strategic threats, created a simulation of a pathogen outbreak in the world. The virus they chose was monkeypox. In their simulation, a terrorist group released a modified version of it from a lab, which then spread across the globe. The date they chose for the outbreak was June 5th this year – which some people have erroneously pounced on to argue that this means this is not a simulation but is happening now.The World Health Organisation on Tuesday described the recent outbreaks as a ‘containable’ situation and that the likelihood of a rapid increase in infections remained quite low on a whole. No, it isn't weird at all.
Monkeypox (MPX) is a zoonotic disease and is currently the most prevalent orthopoxvirus infection in humans after the eradication of smallpox and the cessation of universal smallpox vaccination. In endemic areas such as parts of Africa, monkeypox virus (MPXV) is probably maintained in nature through circulation among a number of mammals, with occasional spill-over events to humans. the recent cluster of cases in the UK indicates that transmission likely occurred during close physical contact during sexual activities.
Bohemian Grove, this again? The only unsavoury thing about it is the fat, privileged abhorrently super-rich capitalists and Republican dullards that congregate there to get drunk and create more business cartels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fanaticzrecordz
I have watched it - several times. If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam. it's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims? Why would you rely upon a conspiracy theorist to tell you what to think about a subject that you clearly know nothing about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Fuck Google", tells you to google. You actually couldn't make it up.
"Um google the csiro Australia and there weather modification that flooded Tasmania's hydro electric dams."
Bizarrely Hydro Tasmania conducted cloud seeding over the upper Derwent catchment the day before heavy rains were forecast. Even if it did intensify the rain, what does cloud seeding have to do with this video?
"They have studied and documented spraying silver nano particles into the stratosphere using planes for aresol style injection."
No, that is a hypothetical area of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would attempt to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There is currently no agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose and although aluminium oxide has been suggested it is likely that sulphate aerosols would be employed. This has not yet even graduated beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling and although some small scale trials involving balloons have been designed to measure dispersal and perturbation, it is unlikely to proceed any further than that. You appear to be getting confused with silver iodide that is used in cloud seeding. Again, what does any of this have to do with the subject of the video or the misidentified aircraft contrails that are the source of the chemtrail hoax?
"They have been doing it since the 60s."
No 'they" haven't, SAI is entirely hypothetical. Cloud seeding however has been practiced since the 1950s. What's your point?
"How is that a conspiricy."
It's not. This video is about the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the erroneous belief that aircraft contrails are a sinister programme of intentional spraying.
"Turnbull spends 11 million dollars of tax payer money on unproven science" said the head line and i read the article the unproven science the spoke of was weather modification... "that is chemtrails"
No it isn't, it's cloud seeding. If however you choose to term it as such, then don't expect to be taken seriously.
"Spraying chemicals into the sky is the very definition of chem-trails no matter to what ends spraying chemical tails is chemtrail."
Strikes me then that "chemtrails" are whatever you want them to be. Let's add to that list, crop dusting, defoliants, herbicides, sky writing, air displays and fireworks then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solraczevehc3761
"Also why thirty years ago there was only con trails Not a hazy sky due to spraying."
You mean like this? The following image is taken from a meteorological text book dating back 75 years.
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
Contrails have been observed, documented and studied since the early advent of aviation and the best part of a century... In 'Flight to Arras', the legendary aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry recounted his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
The following paper is almost five decades old:
"Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
'Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail'
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
This details the science behind your observations:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1
-
@solraczevehc3761
"The sun use to look orange and now it’s white. Why’s is that?"
Absolute nonsense. The appearance of the sun is dependent upon it's position relative to the observer - when it is low in the sky, it may appear yellow, orange, or red. But that is only because its short-wavelength colours (green, blue, violet) are scattered out by the Earth's atmosphere. When the Sun is high in the sky, the shorter waves, primarily the blue, strike air molecules in the upper atmosphere and bounce around and scatter. Hence explaining why the sky looks blue. All forms of light and energy are part of the same phenomena: the electromagnetic spectrum. Our eyes can detect only a small amount of this energy, that portion we call "visible light." Radio waves, X-rays, microwaves, gamma rays all have longer or shorter wavelengths than visible light, but otherwise are the same phenomena. The Sun emits a lot of energy in the visible range. In wavelength scale it is from 390 nm to 700 nm, and when you translate it to colours, you get all colours from violet to red, just as we see them in the rainbow. When you mix all those colours together you get white, and that is why white is the true colour of the Sun. Most people perceive the sun as yellow because as I have explained the shortest wavelengths (that we see as different shades of blue) are being scattered by the Earth’s atmosphere, colouring the sky blue. And when our eyes combine the spectrum, except the blue , the Sun’s colour that our eyes detect is yellowish.
1
-
@solraczevehc3761
"man you really think you know it all. well keep thinking that lol so your education makes you an expert LoL."
You said the following...
"dude you don’t even look up."
I assure you that I do.....it's my living.
I am irrelevant to this exchange. Everything that I have posted is independently verifiable and supported by known physical laws. What in particular are you disputing - bearing in mind that your contention does not lie with me, rather the information that I have provided for you.
"It looks like you are a paid troll trying to disprove chem trails."
I don't need to 'disprove chemtrails' - they are a physical and mathematical impossibility that debunks itself. As the one making the claims the burden of truth is incumbent upon you - the onus does not lie with me to prove or disprove an absent. I am simply challenging your baseless claims. You are seeing persistent contrails which as I have shown, have been observed, recorded, documented, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight. Moreover, I am in full agreement with this video - as the one posting unsubstantiated claims, assumptions and allegations on this page, the troll would be none other than yourself.
"We all need a living, right."
And as I have explained, I have had a particularly interesting and fulfilling one.
Wait - you mean I can derive an income from lampooning your incredulity? Easy money - where do I sign?
"Just like those chem plane pilots ."
What "chem plane pilots" would that be?
Now, returning to my replies...what in particular are you disputing? Here again is the meteorological science explaining precisely what you are seeing. Perhaps commence with falsifying the applied mathematics in section 4?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cloud seeding, although deployed in some quite high profile cases is not that widespread and certainly not as reliable/dependable as people believe. - in fact the validity of the science is still disputed by many who are critical of the practice.
I wasn't aware that the are law suits directed against certain states for stealing atmospheric moisture. Could you link me to these? One of the implications of governance concerning any form of weather modification is the issue of beneficiary against cost. Some critics of cloud-seeding raise concerns about interfering with the natural equilibrium of the atmosphere. The amount of moisture in the atmosphere is determined by the balance between evaporation and precipitation. If cloud seeding was ever conducted on a large scale, it might lead to increased evaporation from locations outside the seeding area, - rain falling in one place would have fallen somewhere else.. Atmospheric budgets suggest that cloud seeding is unlikely to steal moisture from downwind sites though, because clouds represent a modest portion of the moisture in the atmosphere, a cloud-seeding effect of 15% would only remove about 1–2% of the total water vapour in the seeding area - and remember, cloud seeding cannot create clouds, it aims to introduce additional nucleation to existing stratiform/cumulus cloud masses.
A new study from the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service estimates that if cloud seeding augments annual rainfall by one inch, then for every dollar invested in weather modification, $19 is returned through more bountiful harvests and the use of less irrigation. I do hear you and more research is needed to understand if the practice works and what its environmental, social, and governance impacts will be.
Regarding any harmful effects, independently conducted peer reviewed studies have examined the ecological impact of cloud seeding in great depth demonstrating that the amount of reagents (crystallising reagents based on silver iodide (AgI), cooling reagents, and powder reagents) injected to the clouds does not exceed the level of inflow of these chemicals to the atmosphere from natural and anthropogenic sources. These data and the data on the pollution level in the areas where AgI is actively used, emphasise the extremely low impact of cloud seeding on environmental pollution. So no, you really can't, as you claim, find this in our soils.
Moreover, cloud seeding has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentification of persistent contrails in the wake of commercial aircraft that the chemtrail hoax is predicated upon other than the either the deliberate or unintentional conflation of weather modification and branches of geoengineering with this particular online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
This is hugely inaccurate. Yes, there were clearly design flaws with Mercury and most of the danger lay in a problem called dual authority control where it was possible for an astronaut to switch to fly-by-wire without turning off his manual system, drawing fuel from both tanks. During the the flight of Aurora 7, Carpenter didn’t realise his horizon scanner, the instrument that optically fed pitch attitude information to his onboard computer, was off by about 20 degrees - which he should have done. He also didn’t appreciate that in switching between fly-by-wire and manual control as prescribed by his flight plan he’d engaged dual authority control six times during his first orbit. Arguably not his fault. However, he wasn't concerned by the low fuel levels and despite a stream of advisories from Houston, which he ignored, he even covered the low fuel warning light with duct tape so it wouldn't distract him. He was so absorbed by changing the film in a camera for a last round of pictures and investigating the “fireflies” that had perplexed Glenn on his flight that he was late beginning his pre-retrofire checklist. It was at this point, when he needed to move quickly through vital steps, that he finally noticed the flaw with his horizon scanner. The automatic stabilisation system couldn’t maintain the 34-degree pitch and zero-degree yaw attitude he needed for reentry. Trouble shooting this new problem put him further behind, and when he engaged his fly-by-wire control mode, he forgot to switch off the manual system meaning for 10 minutes, both systems were burning fuel.
Although Aurora 7 aligned for retrofire, it consequently was a sub-optimal orientation and it was late meaning the capsule canted about 25 degrees to the right and the burn began three seconds late. And it was only after retrofire that Carpenter noticed both control systems were drawing fuel; at which point, the manual system was empty and the automatic system had just 10 percent left. Using fly-by-wire sparingly to keep the horizon in sight, Carpenter managed to hold Aurora 7’s attitude. The remaining fuel was consumed by the auxiliary damping mode that minimized oscillations as the spacecraft fell through the atmosphere...it was a very close call.
Chris Kraft vowed that Carpenter would never fly again - and he didn't. Although unquestionably a very talented electrical engineer and pilot. Max Faget who designed the Mercury capsule called Carpenter a better poet than astronaut. The Mercury capsule was a learning experience for all, but for all its flaws, there was a flight plan and Carpenter ' ' chose to disregard it. Witness the following 'Sigma 7' flight - (Carpenter's by then had become known as 'Stigma 7) - in which Wally Schirra performed to near perfection. Ironically he was also later 'grounded' due to his objection to the excessively detailed flight plan and work load placed on Apollo 7.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's virtually impossible to know where to start with this rote regurgitation of junk online conspiracy theory.
"Every time these astronauts are caught with their pants down regarding the moon landings topic, they always get confrontational and lose their cool."
They really don't. However, when you have an opportunistic lunatic of the ilk of Bart Sibrel relentlessly harassing and stalking you it's not hard to understand why Ed Mitchell for example booted him out of his house or Buzz Aldrin twatted him outside a hotel.
"Neil Armstrong wouldn’t even swear it on the bible that they went2
Why should he? I did enjoy his response - “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” 🤣
"Buzz Aldrin has strongly hinted that we never went to the moon"
Nope - nothing more than the usual quote mining by conspiracy theorists.
"just look at the Apollo 11 post-mission press conference film, none of those astronauts looked like they were proud of what was suppose to be a pinnacle achievement for mankind."
How many times? Seriously? You obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology, Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
"The moon landing hoax was the real-life version of ’Capricorn One’."
Yep - both are fantasy and fiction.
"The U.S. government threatened to hurt their families if any of the astronauts didn’t follow through with the plan."
Evidence?
"I also believe"
Must be true then.
this is why Area 51 was developed to conceal the evidence and equipment that NASA faked the moon landings."
The site in Groom Lake was acquired in 1955 to develop and test the U2.
"And just for the record, the official confirmed code name for the moon landing phony production was called 'Operation Slamdunk"
This again? Really? The term Slam Dunk didn't even exist in the 1960s. It was invented in the mid-70s - after the cancellation of Apollo - by announcer Chick Hearn. Seriously, why is it even necessary to explain this?
I'm not sure quite why people feel the need to parrot dumb online conspiracy theory about subjects that they have zero understanding of whatsoever in the deluded belief that it makes them sound informed and clever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jjtru21
Yes I did...did you? Evidently not.
To reiterate - no one is claiming that aerosols are "tin foil hat stuff" - and this video has nothing to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory (bar the false equivalence on behalf of the perpetrators and believers in that nonsense).
To clarify. The atmosphere is full of "aerosols" both of natural and man made origin. Volcanic aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. This video is about the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, a theoretical branch of geoengineering that has not yet even progressed beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. It tells you that in this video for crying out loud.
SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of these volcanic aerosols as a last ditch measure to arrest global warming. Volcanic aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose, it's likely that sulphates themselves would be deployed. SAI has not even reached the early stages of small scale trail. The field experiment discussed in this video was designated for last year to take place above the Arizona desert and to involve a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere. The intention was to release small quantities of water and later a few kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation and dispersal. However, to date this has yet to take place. This is your SAI as it currently stands...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if in the highly unlikely scenario that SAI was ever conducted, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer-Dobson patterns. Aside from the huge logistical challenges, the environmental impact is unknown and the issue of international policy and governance is practically insurmountable.
For further clarification, the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or contrary to the misleading graphic and your preconception, would not involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified contrails that conspiracy theorists term 'chemtrails' - may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@faithesprit81
"have you heard of HAARP?"
You mean the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, and HF pump facility originally developed to explore submarine communications derived from the Luxembourg-Gorky effect, owned by the University of Alaska - for which you need no security clearance whatsoever to visit.
Yes have heard of it as opposed to allowing a dumb conspiracy video to tell me what to think. Would you like to discuss the science of HF pumps in more detail?
"Do you know what a contrail looks like Vs a Chemtrail?"
A contrail is the visible result of condensed water vapour initiated by the superheated exhaust of a jet engine in conditions of high relative humidity, low ambient temperature and vapour pressure, whilst a chemtrail is simply misidentification of the latter.
"I'd be more than happy to send you some photos which I had taken yesterday here in Portugal over a course of 5 hours in which the haze and artificial clouds remained"
You could do, but it's an unremarkable and familiar sight since such persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@midwayer11
"wow, you must think you,re pretty smart don’t you?"
Not at all - I am irrelevant to this exchange, do try to stay on the topic. Thanks.
"All my points still remain true."
You need to understand that simply saying that over the internet does not make it so.
"I have the pictures, I’ve seen the videos and everything else"
That settles it then.
"I’m not gonna try to argue with a stranger about it. I’m interested in why you want to oppose me so aggressively?"
I didn't mean for it to come across that way - and apologies if it did, but absolutely everything you said is false.
The planes in reality wouldn't have been "side by side" (and yes atmospheric conditions can change in a matter of mere feet). There are no professional testimonies about chemtrails in front of congress. Be honest with yourself, you actually haven't "heard family members of chemtrail pilots and people who are involved in the commercial transport and sale of the chemicals themselves" have you. There are no 'ads for chemtrail pilots' - cloud seeding yes of course, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the contrails that you are witnessing. There are advertisements for crop spraying pilots too - do you term that 'chemtrails' as well? Joe Rogan isn't involved in any cover up whatsoever. He's just an opportunistic podcaster and former UFC fighter that has struck gold with his online brand. One of the reasons that Spotify removed many of his shows was because of the association with conspiracy theory which he has spent much of his career promoting aspects of.
All of your post is opinion, assumption and unsubstantiated anecdotal claims.
"I mean look up and see them spraying the stuff"
You mean the airline contrails that have been observed measured and studied for almost a century that you have been conditioned by the internet to believe are 'chemtrails'? Logical fallacy much?
"Find that congressional hearing. It’s there if you want to see it but you just seem to want to use your time and energy to oppose reality. That’s not helpful."
No it isn't - it doesn't exist. I know exactly what you are referring to and I assure you it isn't a 'congressional hearing'. Seriously, I suggest that you invest your time and energy critically appraising your source instead of misconstruing a You Tube conspiracy video.
"The people who see it and want to expose it do so out of concern for society and the world. You can’t fix something that you aren’t aware of right?"
No they don't - those who peddle this hoax do so for their own personal and financial gain - (has it passed you by how lucrative this racket can actually be?). Those that believe it do so because they are duped into it. Anger and outrage sells and engages, that's precisely why platforms like You Tube knowingly nurtured conspiracy theory for years. Once they have your emotional investment they have your money.
I absolutely guarantee you that I know infinitely more about the origins, the background, the perpetrators and the false equivalence surrounding the chemtrail conspiracy theory than yourself. We can discuss it if you like.
"You try to reinforce ignorance."
The irony, was it intentional? To clarify, you subscribe to a dumb online scientifically illiterate hoax that has managed to convince you that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
I suggest you read your OP back to yourself, both reflectively and honestly.
If you want to discuss any aspect of your supposed 'chemtrails' perhaps commencing with your alleged 'congressional hearing' I would be delighted to do so. Thanks for your reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lenzer50
"no, contrails don’t stay in the air like these do"
Why? A contrail can be short lived, persistent or persistent spreading. Are you equally perplexed by a cloud. How then do you determine the difference between your supposed chemtrails and persistent contrails given that these have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and the best part of a century.
"And there’s always a lot of them crisscrossing each other, unless there are dozens of planes crisscrossing each other all at once."
Transport of passengers worldwide has steadily increased from just over 300 million in 1970 to almost 4.1 billion in 2017. The expansion of air networks is the result of liberal air regulations and the rise of lowcost carriers. Air freight (the transport of goods by plane) too has increased over twelve-fold since 1970. The phenomena of persistent and spreading contrails was first observed in the early years of aviation. The unprecedented expansion of commercial aviation sector has resulted in the increased prevalence of this. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
The sky is full of such commercial air traffic flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sigh. You are referring to part of a conspiracy video called 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon' by an online grifter and con artist called Bart Sibrel.
If you watched the full length original footage that it came from that you are clearly completely oblivious to, you'd discover several things: In the longer footage, you can see that, after a while, the camera backs away from its position where it had been up close to the window so that you can see the square corner of the window with the shape of the Earth clearly in the distance on the outside. You can tell that the Earth is on the outside because the perspective of the view changes between the window and the Earth as the camera moves. This proves several key things about the narrated story: Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was “at the back of the ship” and not up close to the window. The narrator makes a distinct point of this because it is important to the rest of Sibrel’s story. The narrator even insinuates that the astronauts were lying about the camera being up close to the window. The camera backing away from the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was looking through the “round window.” The square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story claims that the shape of the Earth was created by the “round window” (or, in some later stories, that there was a “template” of the Earth on the window that caused the “round” shape of the Earth. The change in perspective between the earth, which is clearly outside of the window glass, and the square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie.
So Bart Sibrel cut out the part of the video in which the camera backs away from the window, shows the square corner of the window, and clearly shows that the shape of the Earth is on the outside of the glass. You can clearly see that he cut this part out because the longer length video is continuous through to where the camera backs away from the window where Sibrel’s version makes a sharp cut at that point and transitions to another view.
The video then transitions to a time after the interior lights of the space ship are turned on. At this point, you can see a blue glow from a window. (The CM had 5 different windows.) Sibrel’s narration at this point tries to convince you that the blue glow is not glare from the interior lights but is actually the Earth as seen from “low Earth orbit.If what you were actually looking at through that window were really “the Earth as seen from low Earth orbit,” all the features that you do see in the window would be moving past the window at nearly 18,000 miles per hour and only a couple hundred miles away. The blue glow comes up when they turn on the interior lights — just as glare appears in a window any time you turn on your interior lights at home. (It’s blue because the Apollo window glass is multiple layers of thick quartz glass with protective coatings).
Perhaps most hilariously, Bart Sibrel puts a header at the front of the video that he has inserted to the original which claims that the video which follows is some sort of “secret.” And he claims that NASA must have sent it to him by mistake. Aside from this obviously being complete horseshit, this claim is utterly hilarious because at the time of release the full footage in full had been available to the public for decades.
Seriously, you couldn't make this up - only he did and gullible people fall for it because they are his target audience and market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realomon
Well firstly, I live in the UK and don't get CNN. Secondly, I don't really watch television. And what does any of this have to do with TV? Much of the garbage that you spout was started by a TV special on the Fox Channel. And meanwhile of course, the conspiracy theory that you worship at the altar of is of course entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Hollywood? But I thought it was supposed to be Shepperton Studios UK. Or was that Elstree or Pinewood? No wait, surely it was Area 51 Nevada? Or wasn't it Cannon AFB New Mexico? Definitely in a desert...Utah? Death Valley? Arizona? - no, hang on, Devon Island Canada! If only you complete goons could make your minds up. I guess it depends upon which dumb online conspiracy theorist that you allow yourself to be duped by?
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood Studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process. And just think, you found all this out for yourself! Clever lad!
Can I borrow one of your childish emojis? Cheers genius. 🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffkerr807
"whatever. Believe what you like."
Known science is not about 'beliefs" - least of all mine and at no stage have I mentioned any.
"I suppose you're an expert in this matter."
I am completely irrelevant, (although my background is applied meteorology and climatology). I can however guarantee that I know infinitely more about the origins, the background and the perpetrators of your crap conspiracy theory than yourself.
"Tell me, do commercial flights usually go in crisscrossing grid patterns?"
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"Do contrails normally stay suspended for hours eventually merging into full blanket coverage?"
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. Any idea how much the material contained in one of these materials weigh? Take a guess - and then tell me the MTOW of the aircraft that are producing them. Think about how it may be that an F16 fighter plane or a small business jet can produce a contrail over a hundred miles in length. The phenomena that you are observing has been witnessed, studied, recorded and measured for in excess of 80 years and the early advent of high altitude powered aviation. It's the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
Here's the science for you - feel free to falsify it. Go ahead.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
"Dont talk to me about junk science"
Don't talk to me about chemtrails then and I won't have to.
"Complete denial is the reason they get away with it."
Says that, then this...
"BTW. The gubmint has already admitted to it."
Have they? Fascinating. You'll have a link at source to this admission of course. I absolutely guarantee what false equivalence you'll come back with.
On the contrary, complete scientific illiteracy and gullibility is the reason they get away with selling you this hoax.
"And there have been court hearings on it."
No there haven't - but again, I guarantee what you'll come back with because I've seen it all before over and over and over again.
"Go bury your head in the sand"
Said the online conspiracy believer.
1
-
@jeffkerr807
"even if they are " normal contrails" you and everyone else should be seriously concerned about it."
I am. Aside from the nuisance on a clear day, they are a testimony to the sheer volume of commercial air traffic in the 21st century and the near exponential growth of the sector following deregulation in the 1970s. The release of carbon as a result is not a good thing.
"Mark my words, in the very near future the official explanation will be that they are blocking the sun to combat climate change."
SRM is a current area of research which is highly unlikely to ever become a reality. Not least due to the environmental unknowns and technical challenges, but also the implications for geopolitical relations and international governance.
"Dude they've been geoengineering and terraforming for decades. Whether you believe it or not."
As I explained, known science is not a question of 'belief' and at no stage have I mentioned mine. With the exception of ground based albedo modification and some very isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening, Solar Radiation Management is entirely hypothetical and the province of research publication and computer modeling. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has not even reached the stages of small scale trial, which would involve a balloon and several kilos of water released 20kms in altitude. The other category of geoengineering - Greenhouse Gas Removal/Negative Emissions Technology such as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation is however underway in the form of many active projects globally. What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails?
Let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of 'geoengineering' were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense such as yourself, are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will assume overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about. I'm sorry, but just be honest with yourself. Why don't you actually learn about geoengineering objectively instead of relying on junk pseudoscientific conspiracy websites? You people comically claim 'authority' over subjects that you are clearly completely clueless about - as your posts are ample testimony to.
"Dont waste your energy responding. Im not interested in anything you have to say."
Of course you aren't - you are an online conspiracy believer and next to religious extremists and fanatics, amongst the most closed minded community of individuals on the entire internet. In fact, it is only a step away from cult membership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"We could go there now, but we never had the technology back then to make it there."
Specifically, what technology was lacking?
"Just look at the lunar module...what POS that looks like it was made by a group of drunk collage students."
An entire branch of specialist expertise called aerospace engineering already have. For over half a century. All of the specifications and schematics are readily available so there is nothing stopping you doing so either. How is it, that a random, insignificant underachieving troll and gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever claims to know better? Go ahead then.
"You expect to believe that was made by some of the best engineers in the world?"
Grumman, and yes it was. Again, what do you know that they didn't?
"Where is all the telemetry tapes and blue prints?"
What do you mean by telemetry tapes? Do you even know what telemetry is? In engineering blueprints are original drafts that do not take into account subsequent alterations and modifications during the developmental and manufacturing process.
"OH, what.........they were all lose they say...................... Priceless."
No one has said anything of the sort. The The blueprints for the Saturn V rocket for example are stored on microfilm at Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia. Regarding telemetry, some magnetic back up tapes from the Apollo 11 EVA, which were never intended for archival use and are now obsolete anyway, were reused. Others from subsequent missions were sold at auction to collectors. All of the telemetry was recorded and archived, but consists of readings, switch settings, biomedical data which has no use today. You can view telemetry from all of the Apollo missions online in real time.
Mate, you haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. You can't even write basic English or compose a coherent sentence ffs. Why are you doing this to yourself? You are a prime example of everything that is wrong with internet access.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Will Survive
"you disputed his claim as if he were wrong though."
He is.
"you seem positive they were contrails despite evidence"
What evidence would that be? Have asked him to provide it. The burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim.
"neither of you can prove what you claim in fact."
Other than the fact that they are identical to persistent contrails that as I said have been observed, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight. You could also assert that contrary to this they are the composed of magic fairy dust - doesn't make it any more valid.
"but chemtrails have been sprayed since since the 60's and years before that."
How interesting, since none of you can agree. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory originated in the 1990s largely through a piece of junk sensationalist 'journalism' by William Thomas and through the late night shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM, a populist commercial radio station that also sells cheap sensationalism to boost ratings and maximise advertising revenue. It was predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails and has burgeoned over the internet through the post truth era and the popularity of cheap online conspiracy theory. Now it seems chemtrails are whatever you want them to be, with its perpetrators and believers assigning all manner of false equivalence and association fallacy to validate their claims.
"so it's VERY possible chemtrails were in the film, NOT just contrails. cool hand luke was released in '67. 2 hippies filmed at Woodstock in '69 can been seen asking, "why are they seeding the clouds?"
So what? At the time Operation Popeye was being deployed in Vietnam and although classified, the subject of cloud seeding had gained increasing attention in the press and scientific circles, particularly through attempts at hurricane mitigation. A couple of acid fried hippies are a reliable testimony? It rained during the festival...hardly uncommon at that time of year in upstate NY. So two paranoid hippies thought that the government had made it rain on a field full of insurgents?
"so it very well may have been cloud seeding spray."
Cloud seeding spray??? Cloud seeding bears no resemblance to a contrail whatsoever. Cloud seeding does not create clouds like a contrail. 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, therefore it is typically conducted between 2 - 6 thousand feet as opposed to the trials that you are referring to that are formed in the upper tropopause and lower stratosphere. There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity. Cloud seeding is neither secretive and has been in the public domain for years. It does not produce clouds nor does it make lasting trails the environmental impact of the negligible quantities of silver iodide used is zero and it's not particularly effective either. What does this have to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory under discussion in this video and the persistent contrails captured in 1967 film?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stylespopping
"Show me some “Chemtrails” in Russia or China."
These people appear to think so...
https://youtu.be/xQhOZPEsGAs
https://youtu.be/EqRFPCRDyOE
https://youtu.be/EqRFPCRDyOE
https://youtu.be/V9j0mBOJl3k
https://youtu.be/gqFd0UVNg5w
"The countries you shared were either EU countries, or Asian countries that are friendly to US interests."
You originally claimed that these trails do not exist beyond the USA.
"Our two biggest enemies politically. Countries that I’ve traveled extensively over that last couple decades. They’re not there."
I assure you that they are...and they are nothing more than contrails. You need two things for chemtrails to "exist" - internet access and commercial air traffic. You will then invariably find people who are susceptible to online conspiracy theory and ignorant of very basic science.
"If this was a “naturally occurring” thing...it would be global, regardless of political affiliation."
Like I say, you will see trails wherever there is air traffic. One of the major problems for during bombing raids of WWII was deposition of contrails and during the 1960s it was realised that the U2 would also reveal its presence in this way. Although contrail mitigation has been investigated by the military, unbelievably the solution to the latter was a rear view mirror so that the pilot could adjust altitude if the ambient conditions were producing contrails.
"It’s the thin cloudy residue that turns into complete blankets of cloudy have over entire cities that have me interested in answers."
Did you read the paper that I linked you to? Here's another. The following study 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
Again, you'll find all the scientific explanations contained within.
"Also try to find video of Chemtrails before 9/11. Most people report that they kicked up nationwide after 9/11."
Most people? Who are most people? Chemtrail conspiracy theorists couldn't even agree upon what day it is. Firstly, the moratorium of commerical air traffic over the United States immediately in the aftermath caused a total cessation in contrail coverage....
https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/
...Leading some scientists to conclude that this affected temperatures (however this claim has now been challenged.)
Secondly, contrail coverage has been documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation. This conspiracy theory originated in the late 1990s through the late night radio shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM - a commercial radio station eager to shock and sensationalise to boost ratings and increase advertising revenue. 9/11 and the growth in internet access saw a huge growth in popular conspiracy theory and as an online industry, this nonsense has burgeoned. The proponents of this hoax now conflate it with cloud seeding and research into geoengineering in attempts to vindicate their claims despite the fact that neither bear any relationship to the misidentification of persistent contrails upon which this fraud was originally predicated.
"unless of course it is naturally occurring but showing up more regularly because of global warming."
There is no relationship other than the fact that contrails are a useful testimony to the appalling carbon footprint associated with the largely unregulated growth in demand and provision of commercial air travel.
"Since the counter argument is humidity and temperature changes."
That isn't a counter argument. The atmosphere is not homogeneous in respect of either temperature, pressure or humidity. Burn a hydrocarbon fuel and the chief products are H20 and Co2. Do this in the regions in which aircraft cruise, (the tropopause and lower stratosphere) and depending on the interplay of these three factors and the ambient air conditions, a contrail may form. in conditions of high RHi, this will persist because the crystals are unable to sublimate back into their invisible gaseous state (water vapour). If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will spread and expand largely through the available atrmospheric moisture budget and fanned by shear, often becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
"So maybe global warming is more serious than mainstream media wants us to know. "
Contrails have nothing to do with global warming, aside from research suggesting that they may contribute/exacerbate radiative forcing at night.
"Either way it’s an observable phenomenon that has been increasing over the last several years. That’s a fact."
Absolutely - and the increased prevalence of this phenomena correlates with the huge growth of the commercial aviation sector. As I said earlier, this is an industry that has undergone exponential expansion with very little in the way of regulation. An industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Carbon emission and contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No it isn't - chemtrails conspiracy theorists have simply told you that. No one informed or in the real world would refer to geoengineering as 'chemtrails', it's merely a way for the perpetrators of this hoax to add supposed legitimacy to their claims.
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation and ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification.
SRM has nothing whatsoever to do with the magnetosphere, rather it is a series of strategies aimed at reducing rising global temperatures and combating anthropogenic climate change. The main initiative under proposal is called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would attempt to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Currently there is no agreement upon the materials that could be employed to achieve this, but sulphates, (which also form heterogeneously in the Junge layer) may be a possibility. Early research suggests that clacium carbonate has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulphate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. However, calcium carbonate does not exist naturally in the stratosphere even though it is non-toxic and earth abundant. Therefore, though we can almost certainly expect that calcium carbonate will not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate, the actual stratospheric reactivity needs to be established, which means laboratory and small scale trials are needed. This was proposed through an experiment involving a steerable balloon launched 20kms into the stratosphere at first releasing a few kilos of water, followed by small quantities of CaCO3 to test perturbation, reflectivity and dispersal. This experiment was denied ethical approval.
SAI will never become a reality. Not just because of the logistical problems, cost and opposition but very simply due to the impossibility of international governance. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers term as 'chemtrails'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cfh4201969
Please, spare me the attempt to do science - you are a conspiracy believer, it will only end in you humiliating yourself - (not that you haven't already).
"perfectly normal levels of dust particles? 😂 Aluminum barium strontium manganese etc do not exist normally in the skies or anywhere else."
To reiterate, because you are clearly struggling here. Dane Wigington comically employed a hand held Dylos air quality instrument which measures the number concentration of particles. They recorded around 1700 ultrafine particles per cubic centimeter which is not only in the low range, but even lower than what you would expect taking a measurement from an air vent. 🤣At what point did he find any of the substances that you refer to?
"Aluminum barium strontium manganese etc do not exist normally in the skies or anywhere else."
Righto - lets start with aluminium shall we? Aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
Background levels of barium in the atmosphere are actually very low. Could you provide your data? I'm not interested in what Dane Wigington told you, the analytical results and the source please. Do bear in mind that I'm infinitely more familiar with this ludicrous conspiracy theory than you are and the false claims made. Just the science if you will.
Because strontium in its elemental form occurs naturally in many compartments of the environment, including rocks, soil, water, and air. it can mobilise through the environment fairly easily, because many of the compounds are water-soluble. Strontium is always present in air as dust, up to a certain level. Again, your data please.
The primary source of manganese in the atmosphere results from the air erosion of dusts or soils. The mean concentration of manganese in ambient air in the United States is 0.02 μg/m3; however, ambient levels near industrial sources can range from 0.22 to 0.3 µg/m3.
You now need to not only differentiate samples from those extant and naturally occurring sources, but demonstrate the causal link between any claimed findings and your supposed chemtrails.
Good...luck...with...that.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't answer my question. Do you know why ICP-MS is significant?
1
-
1
-
@cfh4201969
"ok so the icp-ms is a piece of equipment that can test for elements down to nanoparticles, okay so what."
No - it is an analytical method - a technique which works is by turning the sample into a plasma (essentially a very hot ionised gas, up to about 10,000 degrees C). This breaks down all the substances in the sample into their constituent atoms (ions, to be precise) and then analyses them according to their individual mass. So any substance containing aluminium, whether that is aluminium oxide, or clay, or granite rock, or whatever, will be broken down and give a signal for aluminium ions. Any idea why this is significant? Think hard now.
"You can take your own time and find the patents on all of those things they are readily available. I've already seen them and the government documents."
I am familiar with all the the patents that you refer to - specifically, those that Wigington attempts to pass off as evidence of chemtrails from exhaust atomisers, to smoke generators and even crop dusting devices. Moreover, a patent is not proof of the existence of something, it is simply the registration of an idea, irrespective of how outlandish that may be. Many of these patents that chemtrail websites feature are unadopted because they contain significant flaws. A prime example being- Welsbach Seeding, which you people still insist upon parroting. Also, you made the claim, so the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. The onus does not lie with me or any other party to search for an absent based upon your insistence, arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.
So I'll ask again, with the above in mind. Please may you provide me with the patent number for what you regard to be your singular most compelling and conclusive piece of evidence for the existence of your supposed chemtrails? I'll then explain to you the actual purpose of the device in question. Of course you can't.
"I've already seen them and the government documents."
Sure you have, must have missed those too. Again, could you direct me to them?
"And by the way the plane used to take the samples from the lower atmosphere was a NOAA flying lab"
In the clip that I am referring to the filmmakers flew a learjet into condensation trails. Using a particle meter, they recorded residual unidentified dust particles coming through the vents of the bleed air system at a negligible level 🤣. The NOAA turboprop aircraft that they asked to film in action was flown between 17,000-20,000 ft. and sampled a cloud layer. What did they find? - as you would expect, airborne dust and condensation nuclei. Why is it even necessary to explain this to you?
"And aluminum in its pure form from the bauxite ore is a heavy metal. It's then mixed with other metals and becomes alloys for different purposes. Like 6061-T6 aircraft grade or 7075-T6 like my mountain bike or certain truck wheel spacers I've have made etc"
Aluminium isn't being found in its 'pure form' though. Again, why is it necessary to explain this? Hardly surprising since you think that aluminium is a 'heavy metal'
"Anyways I'm done with your official native BS. Keep lying to the people because the Geo engineering program is becoming harder and harder to hide."
Why are you changing the subject to 'geoengineering'? What 'programme? Geoengineering consists of vastly different methods from carbon sequestering and aforestation to albedo modification. Then there is SRM which is entirely hypothetical. Geoengineering isn't in the least bit secretive. What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails?
"Hell they're even showing us the 12 new "natural" cloud formations."
Nope, wrong again reclassifications. Refinements to our existing taxonomy. Anthropogenic cloud species have been added due to contrails and industry.
"A good friend of mine is an aircraft mechanic at one of the big international airports here. When I ask him about this topic all he can tell me is "we can't talk about it". What he can't tell me is it is correct that these GE high bypass turbo fan jet engines are almost incapable of producing a condensation trail. Because most of the air that passes through is non-combusted."
You're getting desperate now and simply parroting Wigington again and dressing it up in anecdote. High bypass turbines were first used in the 1960s and are actually more conducive to contrail formation. There is still a core combustion process taking place, it's simply that they utilise a larger turbine fan which generates bypass air and increases efficiency. This is actually cooler air surrounding the exhaust so increases the likelihood of contrails.
"Anyway I'm done with your BS."
Yes, so you already said. No use simply saying it.
"This will all be over soon as they can't hide it anymore."
Hide what? Contrails have been observed and understood for the best part of a century.
"You can respond to this if you want but I'm not even going to look at it."
Whether you do or don't, as a conspiracy believer you are amongst the most closed minded and arrogant individuals on the entire internet next to religious/political extremists and cult members - and therefore incapable of challenging your own preconceptions.
"Wasted too much time already."
Well if you will insist on listening to con artists like Wigington and being duped by crap like 'The Dimming'...Your choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@annarussell2547
"my ass."
What about it?
"They attach onto each other and spread out, blocking out the sun."
Yes, persistent spreading contrails.
"blocking out the sun."
That would depend upon your position relative to the trails as a ground based observer.
"Basically, they're trying to reflect the sun back toward space."
Solar Radiation Management, which with the exception of ground based albedo modification, is entirely hypothetical and has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that you are seeing.
"I worked outside for over a decade as a ground water treatment operator in Texas, always watching the sky, it was normal. Moved to Oklahoma and spent '12-'15 there and that's where I really noticed them first."
Then you weren't looking very hard. persistent spreading contrails that have observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"If you watch the sunrise, that's where they start."
I suggest you simply watch the air traffic above you. You can use flight tracking software to do so.
"They follow the sun."
Again, you seem to have difficulty understanding observational perspective relative to your position on the ground.
1
-
@eatpizzle9766
Seriously, you need to understand what SAI actually is. It would take the form of a very fine mist, at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are witnessing and wouldn't even be perceptible to a ground based observer. When the chemtrail conspiracy theory originated in the 90s through the likes of Art Bell's nonsense on Coast to Coast FM and the sensationalist feature by William Thomas, it was entirely predicated upon the erroneous belief that aircraft contrails had some sinister intent based on the ludicrous false premise that contrails must immediately 'dissipate' and that persistent trails had never been observed before then. With the advent of the internet and the explosion of online conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Michael J Murphy and Dane Wigington eager to jump on the bandwagon, quickly seized upon SRM geoengineering strategies and in particular the emerging work of David Keith (SAI). This association fallacy was a lame attempt at affording legitimacy to their claims and was a complete watershed in the chemtrail belief. Both attributed aircraft contrails to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. Because the believers in this nonsense hang on the every word of the perpetrators, most followers of the chemtrail conspiracy theory now falsely associate the sight of contrails with geoengineering, without even understanding what either actually are.
SAI, which would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols is entirely hypothetical and the stuff of computer modelling. I suggest that you look into SCoPEx, which is a proposed trail on behalf of Harvard/The Keutsch Group who are at the vanguard of this research. They aim to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere and releases a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation. Subsequent runs may release negligible quantities of calcium carbonate - which is precisely the point, the materials to best effect this haven't even been determined. This has been delayed for five years seeking ethical approval. SAI is a reckless, ludicrous and frankly dangerous folly. Because of this it will never become a reality. Not simply due to the environmental unknowns, the appreciable logistical challenges and the opposition, but the impossibility of international governance. SAI proposes to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns to envelop the entire planet - the legal implications, far less the implications for global security don't bear thinking about which is why it will remain in the realms of fantasy.
Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve regular jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"hahaha okay bro, nothing to see here"
That hasn't been repeated over and over and over and over again.
"Tell me, if a notorious liar Tells you he doesnt lie, do you believe him?"
Absolutely not, which is why the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax are so amusing.
"OFC It was "debunked", people asked 2 many questions. And epstein/pizzagate was also debunked, all the Media went Off on it, stating it as absolutely crazy."
Ha! Pizzagate???? Jeez, I thought you were gullible but...
"And just for your Information, i have collected plenty of Data/pictures/Videos of this and im 101% sure."
Of course you are - conspiracy believers all over. You mean you've collected plenty of false equivalence, and pictures/videos of regular contrails and unremarkable meteorological phenomena that you also don't understand.
"But Please, Please go on with your Ignorance so you can drag all of us down with you. Im tired of this."
I absolutely guarantee that I not only know infinitely more about the junk video that you have just posted in addition to the origins, perpetrators, and background associated with your crap conspiracy theory than yourself. Try me.
"And you clearly didnt Watch the whole Video"
I have seen every aspect of this bullshit repeatedly. It's the same deception, false equivalence, appropriated misrepresented footage and charlatans batted around your vacuous echo-chamber time and time again. As I said, I absolutely guarantee that I know more about the content of this video than you. Which aspect would you like to discuss in detail? Your choice.
"if u had done that you would have seen that this is questioned from many angles and people with good Reputation"
Good reputation???? Ha! The likes of Kristen Meghan - are you actually being serious?
"yet it is covered up very carefully."
So much so its readily accessible by any gullible fool such as yourself through scores of similarly ludicrous videos mindlessly posted and shared on You Tube. Ok.
"just test it for yourself if u cant believe it if Not seen with your own eyes, its not even that expensive."
Test what precisely. If you are referring to soil, or water then state your precise methodology. How do you differentiate between your samples and existing sources of both natural and anthropogenic origin. In addition to this, the standard laboratory analysis method is ICP MS - can you tell me why this is significant? If you are thinking of atmospheric samples, remote sensing is my background - want to discuss it in detail? Of course you don't.
"And do you even have Eyes? This can be seen everywhere around the World and it increased a lot recently."
Sounds exactly like contrails and the commercial aviation sector to me...oh wait.
"Might not Sink into your Smartphone all thetime, Works Wonders."
I don't bother with a smart phone. And yourself?
"But Yeah, that Maybe already too much for you, better go on Living in a Dream World."
Said the chemtrail believer.
"Its been prooven, not debunked."
Present your singular most compelling piece of evidence then. You're going to need more that a crap You Tube conspiracy video.
"Of course they debunk it, like i said, a notorious liar like governments will never tell you the truth."
What does any government have to do with the microphysics of contrails and the physical laws of the atmosphere?
"so many Incidences where they lied"
Because junk online conspiracy is of course entirely accurate, truthful, reliable, not in the least bit deceptive, manipulative or exploitative, entirely devoid of agenda and has our best interest at heart? Ok then.
"but with geoengineering/HAARP they tell the Truth?"
Research into geoengineering is entirely transparent and has never been secretive. GGR is actively pursued - biochar, aforestation and carbon sequestering; whilst SRM with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical. The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme was never classified which is precisely why you imbeciles know about it in the first place. Would you like me to explain what it consists of, what its actual design purpose was and what it is actually capable of doing instead of listening to some online pseudoscientific conspiratorial horseshit? Again, of course you wouldn't. What does geoengineering or HAARP have to do with the misidentified contrails discussed in this video that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and the best part of a century?
"You Honestly cant be that Naive"
The unintentional irony at this stage is as hilarious as it is staggering.
"Have a nice day anyway"
It's actually the middle of the night where I am, but nonetheless, you too.
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"didnt expect a Proper answer, thanks for that. Finally someone who is willing to discuss and goes into the Points i Made. Thats very rare these Days, appreciate it."
And I appreciate your gratitude and would be grateful for your continued civility. Here's my pledge. I will address all of your comments on a point by point basis - (so long as you stay on point). I may need to split my reply into two, or even three because the damn YT spam filter often indiscriminately and randomly cuts out lengthy posts. I will answer all of your questions - I would appreciate if you would do the same should I pose any to you.
"Evidence i cant present to you properly in the comment section, obviously. Im very hard to convince, im not Sharing this based on nothing. Just know i have taken many samples from air, water etc."
Have you? So as requested you need to detail your methodology. Have you any idea how complex this is? It isn't simply a question of sticking a bowl on your window ledge when it rains. How precisely did you ensure that you discriminated your samples from existing sources of contamination owing to anthropogenic and natural origins? And how do you then establish causality with aerial spraying? Soil samples?? Any analytical laboratory will use the standard test method which is ICP MS - I'll ask you again, do you understand why this is significant? Regarding atmospheric samples - this was my background. Again explain how you conducted this.
If it were me, I would specifically be most interested in the results from airborne differential absorption LIDAR measurements during a defined IOP, PBL illustrating the dynamics and vertical separation of these aerosol layers of your alleged chemical trails. Radiosonde data and scanning backscatter LIDAR comparisons would also be interesting in addition to the information yielded by combined LIDAR scanning electron microscopy and x-ray microanalysis. I would also expect to see a distinct signature of these chemical trails regarding the extent of thermo-atmospheric scattering which can be derived from mono-static SODAR data and optical thickness equations and in association with the extrapolation of the Ångström exponent calculations.
COD data is easily derived from a quantitative COD sensor or spectroradiometer, all designed around a modern compact grating spectrometer (CGS) yielding Three Waveband Spectrally-agile Technique. (TWST). The benefit being that such calibrated instrumentation can examine a narrow segment (0.5 degrees) of the sky directly overhead in great detail, recording the spectral radiance in the visible wavelength regime at 2-8 nm spectral resolution. I appreciate that this is incredibly obvious but it is nonetheless a very thorough method by which to collect data pertaining to the optical depth, layering and back scattering of these supposed chemicals and capture spectral radiance during a defined IOP. Please don't tell me that such a rudimentary and routine approach hasn't been attempted by your chemtrail websites?
You see, given the two decades or so that this supposed spraying has allegedly been in progress and the fact that you maintain that the sky is supposedly full of these chemical trails; appreciating that there are hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails and in view of the sophistication and availability of remote sensing and atmospheric monitoring technology worldwide, there should similarly be a multitude of data gathered in respect of your "chemtrails". Just one in-situ spectrographic analytical study at source will suffice.
Do you have one?
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"Maybe you can tell me, why is there for ex Aluminium, dont you think that shouldnt be the case at all?
And aluminium and other Metals are found everywhere around the World, according to other researchers, some of them i know personally and i Trust them. Its even found in plants and animals. How come that so many people Adress this supposed issue? I dont believe in coincidence."
Aluminium is the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element in the earth's crust comprising 8% of the earth's surface. We are as you say surrounded by it having many natural and anthropogenic pathways into our air, soils and water. No one is finding abnormal levels of aluminium anywhere - your online conspiracy simply tells you that. Again, appreciate that the analytical laboratories that charlatans such as Dane Wigington have taken their pond sludge to will do what they are asked to do and use ICP MS. I'll ask you once more - do you know why this is significant? Aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
"Im not saying every conspiracy theory is right. And im also not saying every Government only lies. the World isnt just black n white.. Please dont assume im a blind Believer, im definitly Not."
Hallelujah - genuinely, you are the first person that entertains the notion of conspiracy theory to realise that. Simply because a government has lied or deceived their voters in the past (and they do), it does not them follow that chemtrails or any random/arbitrarily selected conspiracy theory of our choice of devising must therefore be true.
"And i dont even want to convince Somebody with just the Link, my purpose is more General. Spreading Awareness and get people to do their own Research. That was my Intention."
...Er, yeah. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self proclaimed armchair overnight expertise following squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how do you do yours?
The easiest way is to post empirical data at source demonstrating causality - but there isn't any. We can routinely measure a contrail, but not a chemtrail. Ask yourself why that may be.
"And i dont get it either why you assume i wouldnt Listen to your explanation or what u have to say?"
Because believers in conspiracy theory generally don't. They are incapable of self appraisal, questioning their preconceptions or considering any actual evidence that runs contrary to their regurgitated narrative. In fact next to religious fundamentalists/extremists they are among the most closed minded people on the internet. You are clearly different - and I do appreciate that.
"And Another Tip, if you go on assuming everyone who believes conspiracy theories is dumb or misinformed, less and less people will Listen and that cant be the purpose you aimed at, right? + people looking into all this crazy Stuff show that they are very interested in finding truths."
That was purely a response to your own reply and the deceptive video that you posted, which as I offered to do, I will discuss any aspect of in detail.
"They just throw all this Stuff out there so nobody can differenciate whats right, wrong etc... (both gov and stupid people)"
That's the interent and the post truth era for you. It has afforded a platform to those with nothing informed or worthwhile to say who suddenly find that unlike the real world they have a voice. Many find it hard to differentiate between fact and fake because either they are substituting for the education that has eluded them or are wolly ignorant of science and nature. in this populist age, rational discourse, true objectivity and critical thinking is dying. The internet is also a haven for conmen and manipulators. I refer you back to the video that you posted - albeit clearly with good intent
"Now i want to Apologize, my Comment wasnt appropriate too, Made assumptions on what you Think. This wasnt ok and i want to say sorry. Maybe we can work this out together."
Truly, no apology necessary - but such humility is a refreshing sight to see.
*_"And You are asking what the Government has to do with contrails and the atmosphere? Lol? Maybe they authorize flights, send Weather Balloons (intended 😂) and Collecting Data for themselves (which is np to me at all, itsnecessary)
And howcan u be so sure. They Maybe tell you all this,and its actually reasonable, i get what you say. But why are you sure? Why do you Trust them?"_*
You misunderstand my point. The science of contrails is known, understood and being axiomatic has a voice of its own. No "government" has anything to do with their formation and cannot subvert the physical laws that determine this which are ineluctable.
"And howcan u be so sure. They Maybe tell you all this,and its actually reasonable, i get what you say. But why are you sure? Why do you Trust them?"
I don't trust any "government" - I trust known science. The latter renders the chemtrail conspiracy theory a physical and mathematical impossibility.
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"Maybe you can tell me, why is there for ex Aluminium, dont you think that shouldnt be the case at all?
And aluminium and other Metals are found everywhere around the World, according to other researchers, some of them i know personally and i Trust them. Its even found in plants and animals. How come that so many people Adress this supposed issue? I dont believe in coincidence."
Aluminium is the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element in the earth's crust comprising 8% of the earth's surface. We are as you say surrounded by it having many natural and anthropogenic pathways into our air, soils and water. No one is finding abnormal levels of aluminium anywhere - your online conspiracy simply tells you that. Again, appreciate that the analytical laboratories that charlatans such as Dane Wigington have taken their pond sludge to will do what they are asked to do and use ICP MS. I'll ask you once more - do you know why this is significant? Aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
"Im not saying every conspiracy theory is right. And im also not saying every Government only lies. the World isnt just black n white.. Please dont assume im a blind Believer, im definitly Not."
Hallelujah - genuinely, you are the first person that entertains the notion of conspiracy theory to realise that. Simply because a government has lied or deceived their voters in the past (and they do), it does not them follow that chemtrails or any random/arbitrarily selected conspiracy theory of our choice of devising must therefore be true.
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"And i dont even want to convince Somebody with just the Link, my purpose is more General. Spreading Awareness and get people to do their own Research. That was my Intention."
...Er, yeah. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self proclaimed armchair overnight expertise following squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how do you do yours?
The easiest way is to post empirical data at source demonstrating causality - but there isn't any. We can routinely measure a contrail, but not a chemtrail. Ask yourself why that may be.
"And i dont get it either why you assume i wouldnt Listen to your explanation or what u have to say?"
Because believers in conspiracy theory generally don't. They are incapable of self appraisal, questioning their preconceptions or considering any actual evidence that runs contrary to their regurgitated narrative. In fact next to religious fundamentalists/extremists they are among the most closed minded people on the internet. You are clearly different - and I do appreciate that.
"And Another Tip, if you go on assuming everyone who believes conspiracy theories is dumb or misinformed, less and less people will Listen and that cant be the purpose you aimed at, right? + people looking into all this crazy Stuff show that they are very interested in finding truths."
That was purely a response to your own reply and the deceptive video that you posted, which as I offered to do, I will discuss any aspect of in detail.
"They just throw all this Stuff out there so nobody can differenciate whats right, wrong etc... (both gov and stupid people)"
That's the interent and the post truth era for you. It has afforded a platform to those with nothing informed or worthwhile to say who suddenly find that unlike the real world they have a voice. Many find it hard to differentiate between fact and fake because either they are substituting for the education that has eluded them or are wolly ignorant of science and nature. in this populist age, rational discourse, true objectivity and critical thinking is dying. The internet is also a haven for conmen and manipulators. I refer you back to the video that you posted - albeit clearly with good intent
"Now i want to Apologize, my Comment wasnt appropriate too, Made assumptions on what you Think. This wasnt ok and i want to say sorry. Maybe we can work this out together."
Truly, no apology necessary - but such humility is a refreshing sight to see.
"And You are asking what the Government has to do with contrails and the atmosphere? Lol? Maybe they authorize flights, send Weather Balloons (intended 😂) and Collecting Data for themselves (which is np to me at all, itsnecessary) And howcan u be so sure. They Maybe tell you all this,and its actually reasonable, i get what you say. But why are you sure? Why do you Trust them?"
You misunderstand my point. The science of contrails is known, understood and being axiomatic has a voice of its own. No "government" has anything to do with their formation and cannot subvert the physical laws that determine this which are ineluctable.
"And howcan u be so sure. They Maybe tell you all this,and its actually reasonable, i get what you say. But why are you sure? Why do you Trust them?"
I don't trust any "government" - I trust known science. The latter renders the chemtrail conspiracy theory a physical and mathematical impossibility.
1
-
@saxkacfe2737
"If You want to Spray people on a global scale, you definitly will need some scientific explanation to it and... there it is. And other non-scientifc claims are just labeled conspiracy theory so no one even argues...And in fact it WAS done in secrecy until some people Adressed it."
There is no worldwide "spraying" - those are contrails. That's it. Yes you are correct that small scale dispersal experiments have been conducted in secrecy by the military. I can think of examples both in the US and here in the UK, but these were on or near ground level and have nothing to do with the trails in the wake of high altitude aircraft that have been observed, measured and studied for in excess of 85 years.
"first they said they dont do it it. Then they say, Hey we have this tech now we do it but its no harm. And Now they are putting it in school Books etc.. And if you go back 20+ years they were already talking about Controlling Weather and stuff, bill Gates for example.
Seems very fishy to me."
You are confusing lots of different things here. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is the belief that contrails in the wake of jet aircraft are of a sinister purpose and are evidence of an intentional programme of spraying. This hoax uses all manner of false equivalence and association fallacy such as cloud/seeding or research into geoengineering to qualify it's claims. Let's be honest here, and apologies if this sounds harsh, its believers would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate this ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
"I would go on gut i cant right Now. If u want to Continue our Conversation, im in. And dont get me wrong, sometimes i can be convinced but since nearly no One is even able or wants to communicate and find Solutions or conclusions together about serious issues its hard for me to actually find someone with some knowledge about this. I dont Trust Government sources and i have many reasons to do so, personally and from my Experience regarding other Topics"
Atmospheric science is my background (although I now work in research capability). Without meaning to sound arrogant, I can discuss the science with authority and also guarantee that I know more about the origins, history, background and main perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory than yourself.
Once request though, could you post concise points at a time - succinctly, because I had to split this post into four due to the fact that it was too lengthy to post. Also it is very time consuming.
I suggest that you select what you regard to be the most compelling evidence from the video that you wish to share and I will discuss it/go through it with you.
Thank you again for your civil and courteous reply - so rare on these comments sections and makes constructive debate so much more forthcoming.
1
-
"December 8, 2017 the CIA admitted to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection..."
How do you admit to something that is already common knowledge? Some conspiracy that. Albedo modification in the form of geoengineering strategies such as SAI have always been in the public domain.
And actually, the CIA did nothing of the sort.
I take it you are referring to former head of the CIA, John Brennan and his address to the Council on Foreign Relations, during which he discussed future issues that may result in global instability?...
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts.Brennan is discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a PESTLE framework. Research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"December 8, 2017 the CIA admitted to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection...
This was published four days later lol. Uhhhh"
Wrong again, the speech was delivered on the 29th June 2016. Unless you are referring to something else. Do tell.
Moreover, what does SAI have to do with the belief that a contrail in the wake of a commercial aircraft is evidence of a programme of chemical spraying? - Precisely what this video is debunking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbusinessmonkey
Thank you for your reply.
"Well, the dust under the lunar module remained so free from disturbance"
No it didn't. You can clearly hear Buzz Aldrin during the landing of Apollo 11 say - "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage.
"the astronauts footprints under the landing module seem to depress the dust about 10cm. For me, 10cm of dust removal is a crater (now we have a definition of crater)"
No we don't - we have your definition of a crater. A crater is a large bowl-shaped cavity in the ground or on a celestial object, typically one caused by an explosion or the impact of a meteorite.
10cm is a depression - an imprint, but actually your approximation, which is all that this is based upon is double the depth that the footprints made. Even if you walked into thick mud on earth and sank that far, you wouldn't refer to your footprints as a 'crater' nor would they be comparable to one.
"but the surface seems undisturbed by the space craft landing on it."
Again, "for me", "seems to", "seems" - so merely your opinion based upon personal incredulity.
"They must have used some amazing secret technology to make that happen."
Not really, given that the surface of the moon is covered in regolith which is a dust like blanket of unconsolidated, loose, heterogeneous superficial deposits covering solid rock. And what do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.
The dispersal of dust on the ground is caused not by rocket exhaust, but by the displacement of air. There is no air on the Moon, therefore no significant dust movement beyond that which is observed by Aldrin and captured on the LEM camera.
Very basic physics...but then, you bizarrely term a footprint a 'crater'.
"What do you observe Mossadayassin?"
And there it is - another agenda driven anti-semitic conspiracy believer that despises having their emotionally invested irrational beliefs challenged.
And regarding what I observe, evidence and phenomena completely consistent with the known physical laws and axioms governing the Apollo programme. I also observe a random nobody feeling the desperate need to sound clever by parroting dumb conspiracy theory over the comments section of a video entertainment platform about subjects that they clearly have no knowledge or understanding of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcbusinessmonkey
a/ Are you equally confused by the google alerts process as you are the definition of a crater?
b/ Incorrect. Antisemitism speaks for itself as does belief in dumb online conspiracy theory. The term 'conspiracy theorist' has been used in literature for in excess of two centuries.
c/ Logic, reason and independently verifiable fact are again self-evident and have no need to be weaponised.
d/ Incorrect. The schematics and fine details of the lunar landing module are fully available and readily accessible online. You can purchase literature on the mechanics of the Apollo vehicles. Specific details? You mean thrust settings, the dimensions of the engine bell and the application of some elementary mathematics?
"Before I go"
You've already made two valedictory posts - is that a promise this time?
"I would like to say that I have personally observed the moon behave in a manner that radically defies the standard model. I’ve seen the moon stall in the sky next to horizon for three hours, only to race back into its correct trajectory within 30 minutes.I’ve seen the full moon in the same sector of the sky as the setting Sun. I don’t think the moon is anything but plasma, like the Sun… And that makes it quite difficult to land on…"
Fascinating. Odd that the entire field of astronomy and astrophysics, rocketry and aerospace engineering the world over remains oblivious to these revelations. You should record and publish your findings and data - a Nobel Prize may not be so forthcoming though. Don't forget to tell them the University of You Tube sent you.
Quick tip, look into lunistice.
Some tips on humility -
A smart person can fake being stupid. A stupid person cannot fake being smart. As you are ample testimony to - increasingly, stupid people actually seem to believe they are smart. "I reject reality and substitute it with my own version." - Every conspiracy theorist ever. I substitute it with what someone else without even a foundational knowledge in science says or what "seems to me". Today, the world is full of subjectivists and relativists who actively sneer at the Truth and proclaim that everyone has their own truth. When you start believing your own truth, your own propaganda, your own bullshit, you become a narcissist.
The internet does not substitute for a lack of education - particularly in the case of those such as yourself that lack a basic grasp of reality and choose to inhabit a fantasy world in which the idiot is always right and honest, and anyone who opposes the idiot always wrong and dishonest. A global Confederacy of Cretins is being established, whose doltish values are transmitted by bizarre memes that crisscross the internet at a dizzying speed, and which are always accepted uncritically as the finest nuggets of truth. Woe betide anyone who challenges the Confederacy. They will be immediately trolled.
And yet here you are using a device that allows you instantly share your asinine claims with people all over the world. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method and yet you remain blithely and blindly in opposition to it based upon your own ignorance, impaired perception and conceit and arrogance. Confidence is the prize afforded to the mediocre. You top out the Dunning Kruger scale - imagining yourself as a genius, and geniuses dunces. Such is the inverted reality that you construct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justin2997
"Nobody believes the government and no one cares what they have to say., Simple"
Some do, look no further than imbecilic Trump aficionados during the last presidency or devotees of Valdimir Putin in the Russian Federation. But what does this have to do with the Apollo missions that were cancelled 51 years ago or the scientific, independent and third party evidence in support of them?
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that uninformed claims about the moon landings being faked by some internet grifter or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy, which you will appreciate and understand given your claimed command of the written English.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimsworthow531
"Another disinfo troll smoked out."
Oh for goodness sake, change the record. Firstly, I am in agreement with this video, and simply using the 'reply' feature to respond to your post on a comment section - so how can I possibly be a 'troll'? Secondly as the one posting ill-informed content, making unsubstantiated claims and posting ad hominem logical fallacy, then by the very definition of the term, the troll would in actual fact be none other than yourself.
Secondly, what disinformation? no use simply saying it - demonstrate how.
"You guys have lost this battle of knowledge."
Knowledge? What knowledge, you are simply badly parroting junk internet conspiracy theory. And there you go again - please try to stay on subject, I am irrelevant. Everything I said to you in my reply is independently verifiable. The science behind the research speaks for itself. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Most people know the truth. They trust their eyes, research, and own judgement."
And what could possibly go wrong there?
Incorrect, they trust the perpetrators of this hoax over known and objective science. Research? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"I checked your posts against a list and see you conment on SAI discussions to spread your lies."
Of course you did...that settles it then.
You need to comprehend, that simply saying something over the internet does not make it true. Prove it. You wish to brand me a liar? - then address the content of my post and demonstrate why instead of reacting with childish indignation when someone challenges your claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But they don't. You're simply told that they do.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
And meanwhile online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda?
1
-
1
-
@cubabound2049
"Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry??"
Excellent - you have a search engine...we just need to teach you how to use it responsibly.
Now, given that this is the international test method standard, what do you think will happen if you hand a pile of pond sludge to an analytical service such as Basic Laboratories just as Wigington did?...think carefully now.
"Yes, the USGS has a plethora of information."
In respect of what precisely? Naturally occurring elements in their compound form?
"Dane is a geoengineer"
No, prior to becoming a career conspiracy theorist, Wigington was a contract worker for Bechtel installing solar panels. Wigington has no scientific qualifications or credentials whatsoever. A "Geoengineer"? - Geoengineering is a multidisciplinary field inviting expertise in atmospheric physics, chemistry, aerospace engineering and climate science. Wigington has no such expertise.
"who works with many scientists."
Another appeal to authority. No he works with many conspiracy theorists which he loves quoting on his self-referencing website...if you hadn't noticed, post 9-11 "trutherism", - conspiracy theory is big business. Oh wait...
"I follow the money"
Where did it lead you? David Icke's million pound Isle of Wight Mansion? Alex Jones' $53m estate? or Wiginton's seven acre Shasta ranch? You evidently missed the donation tab that features prominently on the geoengineeringwatch website.
"I tend to look a little deeper."
Then look into the Dunning Kruger syndrome and the Downing effect. You see, as much as you people like to consider yourself to be superior cognitive individuals with a special ability to question the government and mainstream media, in reality you are nothing more than a collective of gullible clowns who believe any cherry picked clickbait confirmation bias your're fed just so long as the words "government conspiracy" are placed before it. To those at the top of the tree that perpetrate this nonsense, you are the low hanging fruit ripe for the plucking. As much as I am an advocate of free speech, I am rapidly arriving at the conclusion that internet access should be both licensed and means tested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Al_Pollock
You think that jet fuel isn't regularly sampled and tested? That a third party in connection with a refinery could make these additions in secret? That the airlines, jet engine manufactures, and aerospace companies would remain completely oblivious to this? That the concentration of these chemicals would be sufficiently low not to compromise performance or the operation of a jet engine, yet capable of producing trails 100s km in length using some mysterious chemical that is able to expand and increase in mass in the same way as - well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Yet, during maximum thrust settings, take off and climb these trails are for some reason not produced when they should be at their thickest?
The chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, recorded, documented, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and the best part of a century.
Finally, there is still air traffic - albeit at a vastly reduced level in terms of commercial passenger carrying services - but air freight is still being flown. Contrails can dim the sun and cause radiative forcing at night, but the weather that you are experiencing is likely to do with a large ridge of high pressure and totally unrelated to the virtual cessation of civil air traffic.
Where are you located?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dalton-jon-f5791
"We are talking about motive means and opportunity to fake it and we don't know if the actual means for the descent existed for that mission but we do know there was a huge motive to do it and to do it before the Russians, which leaves the door open for fraud. There was a strong motive for fraud and that's undeniable."
No, there wasn't - there was a strong motivation to actually place a man on the moon. Faking it would have been impossible, not to mention keeping it a secret for over half a century.
"I don't mind discussing this with anyone except those blinded by pride and in a form of intellectual exclusivity which confines their rationale to points which support their world view. whilst we are all somewhat guilty of this as human beings we can refrain from insult or snark in an effort to come to the truth."
You just described online conspiracy believers to a tee.
"Also this,, The Russian space administration subjected the Apollo 11 photos to an AI analysis this past year and found them to be fraudulent. If you are of a mind that discounts this as Putin propaganda then perhaps link me to a stateside AI analysis which confirms them as real."
This again - really? No they didn't, that was a Russian conspiracy theorist.
AI is not intelligent, it cannot reliably distinguish true from false. for example, if you feed low-resolution, compressed scans of Apollo photos to Google AI together with flawed instructions as one grifter in Russia did, it will find the compression artefacts. It's the old computing adage of garbage in garbage out. It then got seized upon by other conspiracy theorists, circulated on social media memes and lapped up and regurgitated by the gullible believers in this nonsense always eager to parrot confirmation bias without having any understanding whatsoever of the subject that they wish to brand as fake. I have never, repeat never, encountered a moon landing conspiracy believer that is knowledgeable about the science and technology of space exploration or the history of the Apollo Programme. It's all the same old obligatory, prescriptive rote learned conspiracy theory that tells them what to think and say.
Last December AI provided Meteo-France with a forecast of 28° for Strasbourg as it was opening its Christmas market. This is just on example of some of the aberrations that are being thrown up by its reliance upon its new automated AI system. In fact disquiet over the replacement of meteorologists by artificial intelligence and the demonstrable decline in accuracy have resulted in industrial action and a legal case.
The scientific/technological and third party evidence in support of the moon landings however is incontrovertible.
What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sillybutt7
This again? Still? Really?
You can indeed look up information on Kristen Meghan - and if you avoid self-referencing conspiracy chemtrails websites and videos then it might be accurate.
Are you new to this? You mean Kristen Meghan, formerly Staff Sgt. Edwards who on account of her appalling Military record tried to stir up some shit at Robins AFB where she served. Her 'whistle blowing' concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly:
"My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonise me in case I spoke out." Kristen Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate issue I believe she was introduced to the conspiracy theory by her brother over FB. Being an attention whore, and a former USAF employee she was paraded around by the perpetrators of this hoax as an appeal to false authority obviously chasing the lucrative dream of career conspiracy theory. She claimed to have tests but never produced them. Furthermore, the carcinogens she reported on (Chromium Oxide and Strontium 90) have a perfectly innocent reason for being on the base. They're used in the repair of airframes.
Kristen Meghan has for years lived in staid obscurity raising a family in leafy suburban Chicago – however she stills postures online in a desperate attempt to appear relevant and justify her existence. And here is your appeal to authority...
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
She's bills herself as an 'expert on chemtrails, weather control, and synthetic biology' - in reality she is an opportunistic failed career conspiracy theorist, and attempt to salvage an ignominious military career.
Complete horseshit.
In reality, if there were any basis to these claims, there would be hundreds if not thousands of Kristen Meghan's - difference being presenting genuine evidence. It's the same old perpetrators of this hoax and conspiracy theorists - over and over and over and over again. That Dane Wigington is still able to dupe and deceive people is frankly astonishing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dyavorchid
"I actually prefer a standing desk as it is better for my back, or if I'm out walking I'll have a device in hand."
Good on you, I concur, I have one at work.
"Noticeably not a single argument to any of the actual significant points being made other than an ad hominem attack, which is typical for NASA fanboys."
So you accuse me of "ad hominem" whilst committing an ad hominem logical fallacy yourself in the same sentence. Read my response again, I was highlighting elements of your post, not attacking you personally - although your view of yourself as a "critical thinker" is highly amusing. And no, you clearly don't have the remotest idea what you are talking about, otherwise you wouldn't be parroting such nonsense.
"I'm not a rocket scientist"
Well no shit.
"so how could I possibly have aaaany understanding of such complex things as thermodynamics, and astrophysics."
Well just a thought, but you could try learning the actual science instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theorists tell you to think.
"I don't need to be a rocket scientist to be able to repeat a simple experiment to prove a basic law of physics and then use simple mathematics to translate that law based upon the figures given to us by NASA and their ilk. I can then either prove that what we are told about the moon is true or not, and we have proven that... it's not."
Said no actual aerospace engineer, astrophysicist or astronomer ever. Could you refer me to this "proof". Surely these assertions must have been published? I mean you can't be relying upon crap online conspiracy videos can you?
"When reality doesn't reflect what the theory and the numbers are telling us, the theory and numbers are wrong. The moon is NOT 238900 miles away. It is NOT a giant dusty ball of rock reflecting sunlight."
Turns out, reality disagrees with you. Oh well.
"Here's a question for everyone. If the moon, as a dirty dusty ball of rock 238900 miles away is able to illuminate the earth at night by reflecting sunlight, how is it that the Earth as a water covered ball many times larger than the moon is not able to illuminate the moon at all when it is new."
The Earth does illuminate the moon. The part of the Moon lit by the sun appears very bright. But take note how the dark side is still visible even though not lit by the Sun. That is called earthshine. The Earth is much bigger than the moon and has a higher albedo Of course the Earth is going to illuminate the Moonit is very dim by the time sunlight has gone from the sun to the Earth to the dark moon, If you look carefully at the New Moon, you can see what is called “The Old Moon in the arms of the New”. You can see the dark part of the moon dimly illuminated by earthlight. But it is far, far dimmer than direct sunlight.
"When we have a new moon it completely disappears from view. Completely, without a single trace."
No it doesn't.
"Not a single photo has been taken of the moon at this stage and yet it should be at least partially illuminated at some point by the Earth reflecting sunlight onto it."
Yes it has and yes it is.
This can be achieved by using a long exposure photography technique to capture the faint light reflected from the Earth onto the dark side of the Moon. Additionally, some advanced telescopes and space missions have the capability to capture images of the Moon even when it's not visible from Earth.
"Of course the other elephant in this room is that Moonlight is completely different to Sunlight. Laser thermometers measure it cooler than in the shade. It is cool by every definition and whilst sunlight is antiseptic in nature, moonlight is the opposite. As a reflector it shouldn't alter the light at all. let alone inverting the qualities of it."
Moonlight is reflected sunlight. Sunlight being visible and invisible electromagnetic radiation, including heat. The reflectivity of an object is known as its ‘albedo’. This is the measure of the reflection of solar radiation and measured on a scale from 0 to 1; the zero corresponding to a black body that absorbs all the incident radiation, to 1, corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation.
The moon’s albedo is 0.12 which means, the Moon reflects only 12% of the sunlight falling on it. Now you know the reason why moonlight is not warm like sunlight. And actually, this is based upon a false premise - light cannot be cold or hot. Temperature is a thermodynamic state that is applicable to matter. Light is not matter.
You say that moonlight is cold? Actually, the moon also emits thermal radiation towards the Earth but it is significantly weaker than sunlight for the reasons mentioned above. You may feel cold because you are exposed to the night sky and you are radiating heat.
Reading your last post it's not hard to see why you don't understand what a vacuum is and that you regard Bart Sibrel as a legitimate/credible source of information.
1
-
@dyavorchid
"do a YouTube search for - How bright is the moon let's have a reality check Anthony Bear. Short and simple real world experiments, simple mathematics to prove the brightness of the moon. Now please point me to the real world experiment that I can repeat that proves ANY of the rubbish you just spouted."
Anthony Bear? Is this actually serious? As if Bart Sibrel wasn't questionable enough.
No use saying it, what precisely is "rubbish"? Go ahead. This is established physics and reality that you are in denial of.
1/ We can measure the moon's albedo.
2/ Contrary to your claims, the new moon is indeed visible (you can observe this for yourself).
3/ The Earth does illuminate the moon. It's called Earthshine.
4/ Although the moon does emit thermal radiation in the direction of Earth, this is negligible, whilst light cannot be cold or hot. Temperature is a thermodynamic state that is applicable to matter. Light is not matter.
What do you mean "measured colder"?...that makes no scientific sense.
"I would wager that mot a single thing you talk about can be repeated and is pure theory just like everything in the broken model. Gonna fix the three body problem for me? How about the dark matter/dark energy issue that can neither be observed or measured and apparently exists in another dimension yet makes up 86% of all matter in ours. Haha, what a joke."
I'll tell you what is a joke - your deferral to internet grifters and con-artists such as Bear. Sibrel knows that the Apollo moon landings are real, just as Bear knows that the Earth is not flat. They harvest stupidity for profit and their own gain, and you are the target market.
On the subject of theoretical physics, I was very saddened by the recent passing of Sir Peter Higgs. Despite being such a modest and introverted individual, he nonetheless felt a calling and obligation to use the public profile his achievements brought him for the good of science, and he did so on multiple occasions. The particle that bears his name is one of the most overwhelming example of how ostensibly theoretical abstract mathematics can make predictions which turn out to have the most profound physical consequences since Einstein. His work culminated in him becoming a Nobel Prize winner. I respect and defer to that, but much like Neil Armstrong, I also venerate the dedication, humility and the brilliance that made such achievements possible.
You meanwhile are simply a very silly man with online access that doesn't know how to use it responsibly. Yet another village idiot that has found a platform and a voice from behind a keyboard that would otherwise be ignored in the real world and thinks that watching dumb conspiracy videos supplants, substitutes and compensates for the education that has eluded you.
So it transpires that you think that the Earth is flat?
Ok then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noneyall2819
Scientists are irrelevant here - the physical laws and mathematical axioms that govern the duration of a contrail speak for themselves.
But to briefly explain. As I explained, a contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or they may not form at all. The governing factors are the interplay between temperature, humidity and pressure. If the ambient air is of high relative humidity, sufficiently low temperature and vapour pressure, then a contrail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible phase, which is water vapour. If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then it will not only linger, but will expand, spread and grow in mass because the water vapour is almost entirely being drawn from the available atmospheric moisture. In such cases, contrails can become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
Thank you for your civil replies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The reason we haven’t returned to the moon is because we never went to begin with."
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six space agencies, Roskosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions.
"And how do we know that we really have landed rovers on Mars?"
How do you know that anyone has summited K2 or visited Challenger Deep?
"Remember, this government told us that 81 million people voted for Brandon"
Nope, the results told you that. Your previous president said the same. He also told you to drink bleach to cure Covid-19.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GoodGospel_
And you "literally believe" in a magic book that tells us a prophet born by a virgin, walked on water, could turn water into wine but not summon a fig, and rose from the dead two days after being nailed to a tree. Righto then "buddy".
There were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six nation's space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions. Nothing to do with me or what I "think" - this is all independently verifiable - unlike your scripture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@time2see192
"It's unbelievable that with so much evidence available"
Evidence? In the quarter of a century of this hoax not on shred of independent, genuinely scientific or rigorous objective 'evidence'has ever been provided by the perpetrators of this nonsense. Meanwhile conspiracy believers with zero actual knowledge of atmospheric science, aviation or meteorology continue to gullibly consume and regurgitate it the same old tiresome tropes, misconceptions and misinformation.
Evidence? You're going to need more that a crap Dane Wigington video.
"STILL continue to deny the truth, either by totally refusing to do their own research"
Errr, right. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence, association fallacy and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy theory, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"or simply by being incapable of logical sound intelligence once they do see it."
The unintentional irony at this stage is as staggering as it is entertaining.
"I have a playlist on my channel where I've saved just some of the evidence...perhaps you should take or look."
And quelle surprise...turns out it consists of?... junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence association fallacy and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy theory. 🤣
"Or just stay simple, I mean ignorance IS bliss"
I absolutely guarantee I am infinitely more acquainted and knowledgeable about the origins, background, perpetrators and agendas associated with this dumb conspiracy theory than yourself and that there is nothing that you can present to me that I haven't already seen over and over and over again.
"I dont really care."
Clearly you do, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to comment and why you will be compelled to do so again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dexterd1188
"Why does the subject of an obvious spray pattern in the sky of chemicles being sprayed and the government admitting they sprayed bring such a negative response"
Because those '"spray patterns" that you are seeing are simply condensed water vapour in the form of misidentified persistent contrails. Is it really so hard to comprehend that commercial air traffic departs from all over the planet and flies in a multitude differing directions to disparate destinations across the globe in accordance to a range of headings, altitudes routes and corridors? In conditions which are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails why would you not expect, from the perspective of a ground based observer for these trails to appear to overlap and intersect when looking upwards into three dimensional space?
Here - nice X shape when viewed from below.
https://youtu.be/oNGI8fX71fM
Here's why...
https://youtu.be/d9r3H4iHFZk
https://youtu.be/G1L4GUA8arY
Since vertical separation is typically a thousand feet, it is practically impossible to differentiate between altitude from ground level.
"and the government admitting they sprayed"
No one has "admitted" to any such thing.True, there were incidences of experiments conducted by the military in which negligible quantities of agents (some biological) were released in urban areas and subsequently monitored to measure dispersion - but this has nothing whatsoever to a white plume in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere in the wake of a commercial aircraft that chemtrail believers claim to be evidence of a programme of intentional chemical spraying.
Apologies for the length of this, but I do feel that this needs some clarification. The chemtrail conspiracy theory originated in the late nineties, largely as a consequence of Coast to Coast AM - a commercial radio station in the US that still to this day manufactures such hoaxes to boost ratings and thereby generate more advertising revenue. It was predicated upon, and encouraged, the misidentification of regular contrails which were increasing due to the expansion of air traffic, the abundance of high bypass engines (which contrary to the claims of proponents of this theory have a higher contrail factor than regular jet turbine engines) and the tendency for aircraft to fly higher. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has become a lucrative business to some and such hoaxes have burgeoned (particularly in the USA) preying upon the gullible and largely scientifically ignorant. The main perpetrators of this conspiracy theory now tend to intentionally conflate their fraud with localised weather modification (cloud seeding) and research proposals into a branch of geoengineering research known as Solar Radiation Management - or SAI, in a desperate attempt to afford legitimacy to their ludicrous claims. Not that either would bear any resemblance to a contrail in the wake of a commercial airliner in either appearance, nature or deployment.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection exists on paper..that's it. The formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address global warming, that it would ever be employed. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate (that's right, chalk), is hoped to be taking place, possibly in the Arizona desert. Learn more about the SCoPEx project here...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Research into SAI has never been out of the public domain. How does one "admit" to something that has never been hidden or denied?
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground base observer to to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist and the fact that it would likely be conducted in equatorial regions in order to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns. It certainly wouldn't be resemble the long white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic that gullible online conspiracy theorists and believers claim to be "chemtrails". The latter is precisely what this video is debunking - that's all.
1
-
@dexterd1188
"water vapor evaporates within what? A minute?"
???? Water vapour is a gas, therefore it has already evaporated. Contrails are the form of condensed water vapour.
"Let's say an incredible 20 minutes.These vapors last all day."
Why shouldn't they? You are clearly unaware or misinformed about the science underpinning this, so please allow me to explain. Persistent contrails are primarily governed by three factors - temperature, humidity and pressure. At the altitude that aircraft cruise in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere is is very cold and contrails given the correct balance of humidity and temperature can form. In ambient air which is saturated in respect to ice, contrails may not only persist because they cannot sublimate back into their invisible gaseous state (water vapour), but can expand, spread and cumulatively fanned by high altitude shear agglomerate and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus - most of the moisture drawn from the atmosphere. Here's the science...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
And it is measurable...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
This phenomena was first observed in the early years of aviation and has been recorded, documented, photographed and researched since. The unprecedented expansion of commercial aviation sector has resulted in the increased prevalence of contrails. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
"If you were to jog in the Forrest on a chilly morning and turned around to ok see your path. Would you be able to follow your same trail and see the exhaust of your breath hang in the air for 5 minutes?"
Well let's see...if the exhalation from your lungs was equivalent or analogous to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C, emitting a stream of 500°C superheated exhaust; and the ambient air in your "chilly forest" was an ice saturated environment below -60°C and assuming that you were able to run in excess of 500 knots....then yes, you it's probably safe to say that you would.
"The spraying stays up all day the natural exhaust stays up for a couple of minutes."
There is no "spraying" and exhaust contrails, much like a cirrus cloud can, if the atmospheric conditions permit, last even longer.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1
"This argument is like a Trump rally."
There is no argument from me. In fact I am irrelevant to this discussion. Your dispute lies with the known physical laws of meteorology and being axiomatic, have a voice of their own and are demonstrable. Condensed atmospheric water vapour is neither obliged nor duty bound to conform to the arbitrary time limits imposed by a baseless online conspiracy theory.
"Nobody is gonna talk a Trumper down from the tree."
Ironic, since a great many proponents of this theory are clearly Trump supporters. Aside from that, your analogy is another poor one. Donald Trump, is an ignorant, arrogant, brusque and vulgar buffoon, whereas the science that you are rejecting is beautiful and underpinned by the elegant language of applied mathematics which as natures own voice allows us to ascribe our understanding. As I said, such science is axiomatic. Its beauty is in its being.
"You have some strong feelings and so do I."
As I explained, known science is not about my "feelings". I may be moved by the chemistry of the atmosphere - it can be a beautiful thing, but emotions aside, the physical laws which govern this, that you choose to remain oblivious to, are incontrovertible, ineluctable and independently verifiable. If you elect to go through life believing that condensation can only remain visible for "a minute", then don't expect the informed and rational world to mitigate for this or legislate for your ignorance.
"I cant be convinced the spraying isn't occuring because common sense alone shows me it is."
Common sense also "shows you" that the sun goes around the earth. 80% of what people put down today to "common sense" is neither common to others nor ultimately sensible, given hindsight. Common sense describes beliefs or propositions that seem, to most people, to be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge. The trouble is there are extremely few beliefs or propositions that "most people" can agree upon. Known science is not about belief and does not defer to popular opinion.
"I respect ur position bc of ur conviction."
Thank you for your civil words, but as I said, irrespective of me, you are disputing known science.
"I wish u well."
You too.
"God bless u and yours. We'll get through this."
Trust me, there are far greater threats to humanity than condensed atmospheric water vapour as a result of aircraft exhaust. But let the latter in blighting our skies serve as an indicting testimony to the damaging consequences of the carbon footprint associated with the exponentially expanding and largely unregulated commercial aviation sector.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"NASA! Going nowhere since 1958!."
Not quite. Off the top of my head that'll be six manned Mercury flights, ten manned Gemini flights, Two manned Apollo flights into LEO and nine missions to the moon, two manned space stations, (three, if you count American astronauts on Mir), the surface of Mercury, Venus, the moon (including six manned landings), 133 successful space shuttle missions, the surface of Mars, impacts and fly by of Jupiter and Saturn; soft landing on Titan; soft landings on asteroids Eros and Bennu and an impact with Dimorphos, impact with comet 9P/Temple; probes to Uranus, Neptune and Pluto; two probes into interstellar space; multiple satellite launches into LEO and geostationary orbits and space telescopes that have allowed us to peer back 13.5 billion years in time.
"The truth is out"
You mean yet another crap conspiracy video made by someone who was separated from the 'truth' at birth and cynically targets gullible dullards such as yourself?
"The gig is up"
What gig would that be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ericrutledgebetter
"so you noticed he never gave a single shred of evidence as to why he knows they went like not a single one"
? Penn Jillette is irrelevant.The Apollo moon landings are supported by scientific, independent and third party evidence which is demonstrable, objectively verifiable and has a voice of its own. If you wish to challenge the status quo, that which is accepted and demonstrable then the burden of proof is incumbent you to overturn and falsify the established facts. Off you go - I welcome your input.
"But go ahead and keep your head in the sand."
On the contrary, you'll find that I'm not only very knowledgeable about the science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme, but I'll wager infinitely more informed than yourself about the origins, background, protagonists/perpetrators and claims of the junk online conspiracy theory that you unquestioningly and uncritically defer to and that I've heard parroted over and over and over and over again. Naturally, you will wish to avoid all that nonsense that has been consumed and regurgitated and comprehensively been debunked ad nauseam and innumerable times and will instead have you own thoughts and observations to bring to the table, and I invite you do to do so. Contrary to your assumption, I'm all ears.
Go ahead then, what is your singular most definitive and irrefutable conclusive and persuasive proof that the Apollo Programme was faked? I look forward to your original ideas and evidence. Go ahead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Well, I actually watched a Military, I Think he was a Pentagon spokesman, said "Yes the US Military is conducting weather modification". This is happening."
Source? Beyond cloud seeding which was used in the Vietnam War it really isn't.
"This is not weather related material they are dropping on our heads. I do believe that Aluminum reflects sunlight, right, light emits heat?"
Who mentioned aluminium? Aluminium Oxide was suggested as a possible material for the hypothetical concept of SAI which would be intended to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols, but this has never progressed beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. Moreover, it's likely that sulphates or calcium carbonate would be used. What does any of this have to do with aircraft contrails?
"Right? what a way to speed up Global warming, maybe."
SAI is designed to do precisely the opposite.
"If we're doing it, how many other Country's are also doing it?"
Doing what precisely?
"Yeah, let's blame it all on Humans, and their obsession with the Freedom their car brings in the quality of life."
What?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SwatBeatsOfficial
Absolute utter crap. Besides, science and engineering are axiomatic, the disciplines have a voice of their own. And are you seriously attempting to suggest that entire branches of science and specialist fields/disciplines such as aerospace engineering worldwide have been collectively co opted and coerced by NASA?
And yet here you are, using a device that allows you to share that asinine statement simultaneously across the entire world. You live off the spoils of the scientific method, which affords you comfort and explanations for the natural phenomena that surround you. I assume that you post from some sort of device that manipulates electrons around etchings on a slice of rock the features of which can be measured in terms of 10's of atoms, that then wirelessly sends pulses of radiation that are picked up and sent through minuscule glass strands potentially halfway around the world, before the coming back the other way to display on a screen in front of me. Modern software and hardware that was influenced by Apollo itself. The staggering amount of scientific research over centuries to make this possible is something you trust to work, but when the same scientific method is applied to spaceflight or something that doesn't conform to your trammelled warped conspiratorial view, you brand it "science corrupted by agenda politicisation". You can't have it both ways.
And meanwhile, the conspiracy theory that you consume and regurgitate is of course entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
The greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or as you intimate, institutional/political interest. Irrespective of any views upon the power wielded by either peer pressure or private industry, the incidence of fraud and malpractice in science is no more common - and harder to get away with than other professions. This is quite simply because we have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method - which if correctly employed would not only validate any findings, but act as a leveller. And the unfalsifiable junk conspiracy theory that you defer to? Where is the recourse or accountability for that?
You are a complete imbecile.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobbycarlucci6158
Not at all, i am irrelevant. Your contention that the CIA invented the term conspiracy theorist is demonstrably untrue - and if you are interested I can tell you where this lie that is now parroted over the internet originated.
But let's look first at the claim that you have gullibly swallowed.
A cursory search of the Oxford Dictionary reveals that the phrase was used in 1964 - two years before Dispatch 1035-960 appeared:
"Conspiracy theorists will be disappointed by the absence of a dogmatic introduction."
New Statesman 1 May 694/2
You may also wish to find "The Conspiracy Theory of Politics of the Radical Right in the United States by William C. Baum"
Or Karl Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies", 1950. In which he writes:
"what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of the social sciences; I call it the ''conspiracy theory of society'."
All irrelevant though, since the earliest appearance of “conspiracy theory’ in the OED goes as far back as 1909 to an article from the American Historical Review:
"The claim that Atchison was the originator of the repeal may be termed a recrudescence of the conspiracy theory first asserted by Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia in 1880." Amer. Hist. Rev. 14 836 T
We can go back further than that. How about The Journal of Medical Science 1871?
"It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Beade"
Look it up.
And in 1881, the phrase appears in Rhodes’ Journal of Banking: “As evidence of a conspiracy this showing is pitiful, and in any view, the charge is ridiculous, as no conspiracy theory is needed to account for the facts.”
Or from 1890, "Some Kind of Political Conspiracy Mainly Ridiculed"
"The conspiracy theory may be well founded, but then again it may not."
1899, from an article discussing various conspiracy theories regarding South Africa. And an early debunking:
"Mr. Balfour proceeded to discuss one theory of conspiracy and to dismiss another."
You'll find that in 'The Speaker Volume 1, Mather and Crowther.
You can routinely establish all of this for yourself in a matter of minutes. It only takes a brief moment in time and a modicum of critical awareness to check the validity of these things. You people claim to be awake but time an time again are caught napping by these con artists
Would you now like me to tell you where this false claim you are regurgitating originated? Your choice...but then hopefully you'll think twice about making claims that you haven't bothered to substantiate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Although impurities in jet engine exhaust can act as hygroscopic nuclei, the reason that contrails are able to persist and grow is due to the ambient air - no different in that sense to the formation of a cloud. If the air temperature is sufficiently cold and approaching supersaturation, deposition in the form of a contrail will trigger growth. At such point, the ice is not being drawn from the water vapour in the exhaust, but available atmospheric moisture. This is precisely the reason that contrails can expand and increase in mass - often fanned by wind shear and becoming indistinguishable from cirrus cloud. In warmer or drier air, a contrail may not necessarily form at all, or it will be very short lived and sublimate back into water vapour. You can often see the motion of the atmosphere where sections of recently deposited contrails may fade and vanish and on occasions, subsequently reappear.
Commercial aircraft do indeed leave X patterns. The sky is full of civil aircraft and freight, flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
Finally, you appear to be referring to a hypothetical branch of geoengineering research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. This has not even progressed beyond research proposal and computer modelling - although a small-scale trail (SCoPEx), involving several kilos of water and a steerable balloon to be launched kms into the stratosphere was due to take place in 2020. This has been postponed.
1
-
@99David99
"Your reply is accurate except that the higher you go the less ambient moisture there is."
Contrails and cirrus cloud can be formed well in excess of 50,000 feet. Pilots of the Lockheed U2 needed to be vigilant when performing reconnaissance missions at 70.000ft which is why it was fitted with a rear view mirror so that altitude could be adjusted in the event of contrail deposition. Also, you clearly need to understand the physics of relative humidity and its interrelationship with vapour pressure and ambient air temperature.
"Also you are ignoring anecdotal evidence where “normal” commercial traffic is present in the same area and their contrails dissipate in short order when according to you, their contrails should react in the same fashion as the aircraft creating the chemtrails."
"Anecdotal evidence" - you mean the insistence of chemtrail believers based upon personal incredulity? According to me? - nothing to do with me. Meteorological science is independently verifiable and has a voice of its own. The Atmosphere is not homogeneous or isotropic. The factors governing the formation of contrails and the interrelationship between these can changed in mere seconds and minutes. A contrail may be short lived,, persistent, persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all. If you see a trail immediately that does not immediately dissipate at the same time as those that do, you think it is and term it a 'chemtrail' A ground based observer cannot discern VSM, which in most cases is 1,000ft. You may get contrails forming and persisting above of below this separation. Also, oddly not one of you ever comments on the frequently seen phenomena of sections of recently deposited chemtrails fading and vanishing and often reappearing. You people seem utterly oblivious to this. Simply confirmation of the motion of the atmosphere and columns of parcels of warmer of drier air.
"IMHO, the aircraft creating the chemtrails are doing cloud seeding on “steroids”. Just what the chemical makeup of the substance is, I have no idea."
The trails that you are observing are in the tropopause and stratosphere where there are no rain bearing clouds - nothing to seed. Understand that cloud seeding does not create clouds - it needs existing cumulus and stratiform masses conducive to precipitation to inject additional nuclei into in an attempt to induce or intensify rainfall. Precisely why it is conducted at a fraction of the altitude of the contrails that you are witnessing - typically 2,000 - 6,500 feet.
No barium has nothing to do with cloud seeding. All this comes from chemtrail conspiracy theorists that fail to understand a hypothetical area of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (proposed to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols to arrest global temperature rise) - and the misconception that barium, aluminum and strontium would be employed to accomplish this. This has nothing whatsoever to do with cloud seeding which when conducted aerially typically uses silver iodide flares retrofitted to light aircraft. A standard run lasting 90 minutes will dispense 151.2 grams of AgI into the cloud mass. Clearly this does not leave a visible or lasting trail.
"IF that is true, it is incredibly stupid to be spreading that in any concentrations over farmland. Barium’s effect on soils are cumulative and detrimental."
It really isn't - pure internet nonsense. You are simply seeing aircraft contrails, that's all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dane Wigington...is this a joke?
"All you have to do is look up. Look up and look it up."
You'll find that's precisely what atmospheric science and meteorology do.
"It’s always in front of the sun."
Surely, surely, surely, you are able to comprehend that your observation in relation to the sun is entirely dependent upon the perspective relative to your position as a ground based observer? Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"We get these fantastic sunsets but they look like another planet sometimes"
As we always have...and how do you know?
"It Creates a metallic rainbow sometimes."
You mean irisation.
"And if there’s enough moisture it turns the sky grey and featureless."
It's called cloud - and it covers approximately 70% of the earth's surface. The clue's in the word 'moisture'.
"Some planes create lines some times. Other planes will be right along side and not produce a cloud behind it."
How have you established relative altitude in relation to the ambient atmospheric conditions, given that the factors governing the formation of contrails (temperature, humidity and pressure) can change within mere metres? Even taking into account RSM vertical separation is 1,000ft whilst horizontal and longitudinal regulations are five miles.
"Dane Wigington does have evidence."
Trust me, he actually has none. Geoengineering Watch is a fraudulent, pesudoscientific con-spiracy website. All of the content can be routinely debunked.
"Aluminua exists in the earth but not in free form."
???? What do you mean 'free form' and how has it 'been found'?
"Aluminum has to be mined and refined. And this is produced into nano particles. It would look like fine powder like flour. And it can act as the nucleus of a raindrop."
Aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock (and is refined from the latter via electolysis). Aluminium combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China and Mongolia. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides and can serve as CCNs. What on earth do you mean 'free form'? More Wigington nonsense.
"Check this out people. And you tell me what doesn’t check out"
I assure you that I have...Wigington's tiresome old nonsense was comprehensively debunked years ago, yet it is still mindlessly bounced around the chemtrails online echochamber.
1
-
@justincoyer5297
"look up. Dumb fuck."
So the abuse starts immediately then.
Thanks for that, my background is atmospheric science.
"Tell me whats happening. Watch the lines come out of the planes."
Yes, contrails, which have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight.
"Look for other nearby planes to compare exhaust behavior."
Not "exhaust behaviour" simply ambient atmospheric conditions. As I explained to you, temperature, humidity and pressure can change within mere metres. RVS is 1,000 feet vertically and five miles horizontally and longitudinally. What's your point?
"aluminum strontium and barium are sited in aerosol injection weather modification patents."
No they are not. There is no agreement on the materials which would be used to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. SAI is a hypothetical concept that has yet to progress beyond research, computer modelling and small scale trial. The patents that you refer to are simply that - and do not prove the existence of something. Moreover, SAI is designed to be deployed in the mid stratosphere and would not leave a visible trail, far less a large white plume in the wake of a commercial airliner.
"Did you know that defense contractors provide a script for all meteorologists to read?"
This is possibly the most ridiculous claim that I have ever heard a chemtrail believer make. Congratulations.
"All weather personnel have to sign an NDA. A gag order"
Oh Jesus wept, you're really deep into Wigington's nonsense. Regarding the NDAs on Wiginton's ludicrous website, I would be more than happy to explain them to you.
"They made an international law stating you can not try aerosol injection outside of your own country. "
International governance and policy regarding any Solar Radiation Management is one of the biggest challenges to any future implementation. The following paper from the Royal Society reviews the ramifications for global policy making.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2019.0255
"Most gov have openly admitted to weather modification"
Weather modification is the technical terminology for cloud seeding which isn't at all secretive. There are private companies that can be hired for this purpose. How do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied. Cloud seeding has nothing whatsoever to do with either geoengineering or the contrails that you are observing.
"Look up operation popey."
Operation Popeye...again cloud seeding - again, nothing to do with geoengineering or a contrail.
"I’m just keeping an eye out and this one appears to be true."
I really recommend that you steadfastly avoid Dane Wigington then.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/geoengineering-watch/
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jskypercussion
"In the same day at same altitudes I have seen planes spraying long lasting chemtrails behind it and the regular planes were just emitting a normal condensation trail behind it that was disappearing a hundred feet behind the planes. The other planes long trails stayed for at while and eventually began to open up, dissipate, collect moisture and start the hazy overcast. In 3 hours the sky was closed. How do you explain that buddy?"
I don't need to - atmospheric science has the answers. Tell me, are you equally perplexed by daily variations in cloud cover?
The factors that govern contrail formation and the subsequent length and duration of them are relative humidity. air temperature and vapour pressure and the interrelationship between these. The atmosphere is continually in flux and motion and all of this can change within a matter of seconds and mere metres. How did you establish that the aircraft you were seeing were "at the same altitude"? Vertical separation minima is 1,000 feet. Moreover aircraft are separated by five minutes longitudinally and five miles horizontally. An aircraft producing a persistent contrail at FL320 may not do so at FL310 or FL330. The Lockheed U2 spy plane actually had a rear view mirror fitted so that the pilot could detect the incidence of contrails and adjust altitude to avoid detection.
If the ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, a contrail may not only persist but expand and spread because the growth in the ice budget is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture. This is called deposition - no different to the appearance and formation of clouds. If however a persistent contrail encounters or is interrupted by a warmer of drier parcel of air - usually rising or subsiding, then portions of it may fade and vanish (sublimation) and even reappear.
Think about it. These trails contain millions of lbs of material - far in excess of the maximum take of weight of the aircraft producing them. If that wasn't enough of a physical impossibility, what magical chemical can you name that can then expand and increase in mass precisely as you describe?
You are simply seeing commercial air traffic except when you see a persistent contrail, you term it a chemtrail and think that it is sinister.
"Also, my cousin that is an officer in the airforce admitted to me that one time he had to help assist set up the tanks and ejection system in the plane for spraying. Our own military is doing it as well."
Anecdotal - so worthless. He likely knows you believe in conspiracy theory and is pulling your leg. Also, military aircraft have sprayed defoliant and pesticide at low levels in the past - most recently after Hurricane Harvey in Texas.
1
-
1
-
@jskypercussion
"On top of that buddy, like I said before I am watching these jets spray this shit."
No, you are simply watching the same aircraft contrails that the rational world has observed for the best part of a decade.
"I got a Nikon P900 and can zoom right into them. I can see the Military, Amazon, UPS, nd commercial jets doing this."
So have many contributors to this platform, resulting in some spectacular footage of contrails. The difference is, they understand what they're looking at and you don't.
"I can see the Military, Amazon, UPS, nd commercial jets doing this. I have witnessed them on many accounts make their runs, turn it off for 5, 10 or even 30 or so seconds and then turn it back on."
And yet you've managed to miss one of the most common sights that I explained involving large sections of recently deposited contrails apparently fade and vanish at random and even reappear. If you can manage to comprehend why this happens then you can also understand the intermittent contrails that you are describing.
"Also I have seen some jets, not specifically military, make a run towards north spraying, turn it off, turn around, turn it back on, and come back overhead spraying another trail. I have seen them make x's and even 3 side by side only within hundreds of feet apart."
Then aside you'll have no problem posting this supposedly incriminating footage, as others have done with videos of cruise altitude contrails then.
"When I go back through all my photos and boy do I have alot, it's interesting that all my beautiful landscape pictures from the 90's and early 2000's don't have any of those long chemtrails in it. But my more recent photography starting around 2012 has quite a bit of it."
The rational world says otherwise. As I said, persistent contrails have been observed, recorded and documented since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation. Of course they are more prevalent today, due to the unregulated and unfettered expansion of the commercial aviation sector and routes flown.
"Now I do know the chemtrailing program began back in the early 70's. It was in a more experimental phase until it was more recently perfected."
A You Tube video tell you that as well?
"Back then they only sprayed in low populated areas. But now it's common and sprayed over heavily populated areas. Especially the areas up north to cool things down."
Again, history says otherwise. Your spraying coincides with wherever there are commercial aviation routes.
"All the nano metals deflect the sunlight allowing for moisture to accumulate and create the large fronts."
Your word soup won't bluff me. This is my background. As I said, I actually have no idea how you can type that and keep a straight face.
Also amusing, since contrails are often the precursor of an advancing frontal system due to the atmospheric conditions that produce both.
"Anyone else that reads this debate I highly encourage you pay more attention to these jets. You will see what I am talking about. It's time for people to wake up and question everything."
Actually, I'd suggest that a rudimentary knowledge of meteorology and aviation will suffice.
"Take everything with a grain of salt and use your own mind."
Unless it's junk online conspiracy - in which case uncritically and mindlessly consume it and regurgitate it over the internet.
"Don't let a shill influencer like Rogan shape the way you think. There is too much deception out there and MSM and mainstream info misleading society"
Because populist online conspiracy theory and social media is of course entirely honest, unfailingly accurate, not in the slightest bit manipulative or exploitative, completely devoid of agenda and has your best interest at heart.
"Joe Rogan is a master of not showing you truth or actual evidence. He is the master of shaping the way you think about things so you don't have an open mind to think critically about what you have been taught or told."
"Think critically"???? - said the chemtrail believer. Trust me, the shocking ignorance of basic known science is diametrically the opposite to an 'open mind'.
"So that way you are misled from the actual truth or real evidence."
Perhaps you should actually get around to presenting some? instead of relying upon anecdote and appeal to incredulity.
1
-
@jskypercussion
"Once again buddy, you have done nothing to disapprove chemtrailing."
I think you meant to say "disprove".
I have responded to all your questions, your misconceptions and your claims. Furthermore, all the content of my posts is independently verifiable as opposed to being parroted from a subjective self-referenced conspiracy website of video.
As I have explained, the chemtrails conspiracy theory debunks itself through being a physical and mathematical impossibility. Moreover, as the one making the claims, the burden of proof is incumbent upon you, not me. the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to disprove an absent.
"All that cute pseudoscience"
Again, was the irony intentional? Nothing to do with me - as I explained, your dispute lies with the meteorological and aviation science that is axiomatic and therefore is independently verifiable and has a voice of its own...not me.
"doesn't have any real evidence to back it at all, you sound just like wikipedia and the not so fact checkers that don't actually fact check try so diligently to keep society in line so it doesn't think outside of the system and wake up to what the hell is really going on."
It absolutely does. It's called empirical science. As I said, persistent contrails have been measured and studied - your personal incredulity and ignorance has no bearing upon the real world and the physical laws governing contrail formation.
"We are talking about meteorology which is a "science" of "observation". My observation and many others that are actually paying attention can clearly see some man made geoengineering going on in this day and age."
And that observation is achieved by data and measurement. It's also my background.
As I explained to you, the branch of geoengineering you refer to is entirely hypothetical and not only would it need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails that you are witnessing, would be imperceptible to ground based observation.
"Because what we learned and knew about meteorology for a long time has all of a sudden changed dramatically in the past decade."
Really? How?
"We are seeing formations that never occurred before or formed naturally."
Such as?
Incorrect. You are "seeing" phenomena that was always there but you never noticed before your belief in a dumb online conspiracy theory. That you don't understand what you are looking at is manifestly evident from your posts.
"When you got Haarp and other facilities blasting the aluminum enriched ionosphere from chemtrails with various frequency, naturally all these new formations don't look natural when you see the wave lengths going through them with all those fancy ripples of various sizes."
Oh Jesus. Would you like me to explain what HAARP/HF pumps consist of, what they are capable of and are originally designed to do? Because yet again, your reliance upon junk online conspiracy theory is as tragic as it is comical. The natural meteorological phenomena you describe that again, you don't understand, are present in the troposphere. The ionosphere has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterbulloch4328
"go and get a real job you TROLL LOSER."
Why are you still attacking me Peter? you're simply humiliating yourself even further and showing your desperation. All I did was ask you to evidence your claims.
"Oh and that caps comment is TROLL 101 material, they would have taught you that one your first lesson."
It still doesn't seem to be resolved Peter. And who precisely are "they"?
"Also you haven't proven one thing, just like everyone else you just quote shit you've heard or read without EVIDENCE yourself."
I'll explain again, because you seem to be struggling here Pete. The science I referred to is independently verifiable - it is nothing to do with me. The other person asked some questions, I answered them and have addressed every aspect of his thread. Contrail formation and duration is governed by known physical laws - these being axiomatic means that the science is demonstrable self-evident and has a voice of its own. Clear now?
The other thing that you seem to be unable to comprehend is that if you make a claim, then the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. The responsibility does not lie with me to establish, prove or disprove an absent. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the notion of 'Russell's Teapot'.
You stated that the airline industry was contracted to dump toxic waste during flights I asked you what basis you have for this claim. You also insist that your alleged chemtrails are the reason for the decline in insect populations - I simply asked for your data in support of this and causal evidence.
"If you believe you are right PROVE it or just leave nice people alone."
I am simply asking you to prove, sorry, PROVE, the claims you made, that's all. And you people absolutely despise that. How is asking for substantiation trolling? unsubstantiated, ill-informed opinion, and personal abuse in this comments section most certainly is though.
"you just quote shit you've heard or read without EVIDENCE yourself"
Said the chemtrail believer.
1
-
1
-
@peterbulloch4328
"and no matter how many comments I make telling all that I will never reveal evidence especially on YouTube (your boss) information that your company will smear and spread as disinformation about it (what your paid to do) then delete the info so open minded truth seekers never find out the truth."
Aside from being one of the most absurd things I've ever read on this platform form a conspiracy believer - and that really is an accomplishment - what you're basically saying is that you made a series of claims that you can't back up, which is all that I was challenging.
"I just thought of something, maybe Joe employs you (the government) but who cares we all see through you people with your coward stance of "I don't have to prove anything, only you do", just so gutless."
Let's try and explain that again. It's called burden of proof. If you make a claim, then the responsibility lies with you to substantiate it. Like I suggested, familiarise yourself with 'Russel's teapot'. I am perfectly prepared to present the science that debunks chemtrails, however the onus does not lie upon me to establish an absent based upon your own ignorance and personal incredulity. Pray that you never end up representing yourself in a court of law.
"Spouting some so called facts in one of your word salads doesn't mean s*it anymore."
Said the chemtrail believer.
"Everyone knows the authorities lie to the public in every field now, and they are your sources of information?"
No "they" are not. I have at no stage mentioned any "authority". As I explained, the physical laws that you are ignorant of that govern atmospheric science are axiomatic and therefore self-evident and have a voice of their own. Nothing to do with me. Your dispute lies with meteorology and aviation.
"Just laughable, you must be a Kamala fan the way you think is just incredibly narcissistic."
To reiterate, I am irrelevant to this exchange, please try to stay on topic. It's you that insists upon steering back to me.
"How about you reveal your sources, or have they got you scared?"
Atmospheric science, meteorology and aviation. As I said, all of which are independently verifiable. Why don't you actually attempt to learn some basic rudiments of each of them Peter?
Back to your original post. You claimed that airlines are dumping toxic waste during flights and that chemtrails are responsible for insect die off. What is the basis for this and where is your data in relation to the latter demonstrating causality?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterbulloch4328
"I'm happy I've become your obsession"
On the contrary, you are the one that has the personal preoccupation with me as opposed to staying on topic.
"oh anointed TROLL of the year."
How is asking you to evidence your claims trolling? Like I said, as the one making unsubstantiated claims, allegations and resorting to ad hominem abuse, the troll would be none other that yourself.
"The day you learn how to contribute to social media instead of smearing the information shared is the day your conTROLLers will release you from their bondage."
I'm simply asking for you to provide evidence, that's all.
"For someone soooo interested in this topic you have nothing to share and seem incapable of RESEARCH."
Given that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"Then again that would take an open mind (intelligence) and we all know your conTROLLers can't accept that from its lapdogs."
To reiterate. I am inviting you to make your case. Go ahead - I'm all ears.
"Keep repeating your meaningless questions, I've told you I'll never reveal my sources."
Once again, I'm not asking you to reveal your "sources" (see above) - simply quantify and evidence your claims. You stated that airlines are contracted to spray toxic waste during their flights and that this is responsible for the decline in insect populations. What basis do you have for this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What?
You are conflating a lot of different things here and misunderstanding them in the process. Firstly, cloud seeding was first conducted in the 1940s. No one is saying that it doesn't exist, and it is not in the slightest bit secretive or sinister. Aside from large conspicuous state sponsored programmes, such as China or the UAE, there are many private organisations that conduct cloud seeding (also termed weather modification) and freely advertise their services on the internet. Saying that, it is not particularly a widespread practice or reliable and it's very efficacy questionable. Aluminium crystals to help it rain??? Cloud seeding typically involves silver iodide flares which are retrofitted to the wings of light aircraft. The objective is to introduce additional nucleates into existing rain clouds to induce rainfall over a desired area or intensify precipitation. As I said, the results are erratic at best. It does not leave a lengthy or lasting trail if at all, and it conducted at comparatively low altitudes for obvious reasons. The quantity of material involved is negligible and the immediate environmental impact zero - (although you have to question the implications of attempting to artificially divert or induce rainfall).
You seem to have confused this with a hypothetical branch of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax have seized upon in a lame attempt to add legitimacy to their claims. SAI, would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in a last ditch effort to slow or arrest global warming to buy time. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose - aluminium oxide was one initial suggestion due to its reflectivity - but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing.
So neither cloud seeding or the wholly unrelated hypothetical branch of geoengineering have anything remotely to do with the misidentified contrails upon which the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon. Persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh ffs...this again? Really? It's the same things over and over and over and over again.
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate clumsy turn of phrase "destroyed". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this...again?
1
-
1
-
@ThaTurdBurglar
"you simply haven't looked..."
Oh but I assure you that I have, and genuinely, without meaning to sound arrogant, I absolutely guarantee that I am infinitely more familiar with the origins, history, perpetrators and false equivalence of these junk online conspiracy theories than yourself - in particular one of the most ludicrous, chemtrails.
"There are thousands of patents regarding chemical spraying from an aircraft, with applications from weather modification to communications technology, to carbon offsetting, to warfare, to biowarfare etc.. maybe dozens of applications, some substantiated with real world use - like operation popeye, agent orange, operation seaspray, tuskeegee etc etc.. it's all there in the patents with great detail."
All false equivalence/association fallacy and none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that the chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon. Moreover, again, I guarantee you that I am familiar with each and every one of them. Furthermore, a patent is not proof of the existence of something, merely the registration of an idea irrespective of how outlandish that may be. Many of the patents presented by chemtrail believers are unadopted and almost invariably, the conspiracy believer doesn't even understand them in the first place. Also, no one is denying the existence of cloud seeding, carbon offsetting, defoliant spraying or military dispersal experiments - again, what does any of this have to do with a contrail?
"To start, maybe read up things released by the usgov, like this - https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-sprint-us&source=android-browser&q=owning+the+weather+by+2025"
This, again - really? You mean an essay by a group of students commissioned by the USAF as an assignment, to “examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future." "Owning the weather by 2025" - you mean the one that clearly specifies at the start that it does not reflect official government policy, and that the weather modification and control scenarios described within it are “fictional representations of future situations/scenarios”? That 'Owning the Weather by 2025'? Instead of relying on junk conspiracy websites to tell you what to think, why not do this for yourself?
"Don't forget about the biowarfare connection very relevant to today, where initial experiments were done from 1937-1945 by nazis spraying aerosolized hoof-in-mouth disease (and others) by aircraft over herds of cattle & reindeer in Siberia- not only for "research" but also to induce "famine" conditions on their soviet enemy. A small amount of this has been uncovered thru foia requests and declassified operation paperclip documents surrounding nazi virologist Erich Traub - (who is PARAMOUNT to understanding modern virology & immunology"
Again, what does this have to do with trails in the wake of jet aircraft in the tropopause and lower stratosphere?
"All information surrounding these topics have been greatly obfuscated and obscured, for very good reason!"
No it hasn't...which is precisely the reason that you know about it. The deliberate deception and misrepresentation is on behalf of the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory in the way that they appropriate and dishonestly frame such false equivalence.
1
-
@ThaTurdBurglar
"I am greatly disappointed in your approach in this conversation.. mainly assumption that you know me or you know what I am seeing. Simply, you do not."
With respect, that being the case, then perhaps you shouldn't yourself have said this to me:
"You simply haven't looked"
...twice. Or in respect of this video:
"This wanker is framing this like all conspiracies are theories.. without acknowledging factual conspiracies"
Which he isn't...but I'll come back to that.
"mainly assumption"
The irony - was it intentional?
"that you know me or you know what I am seeing."
I don't presume to know you and you never made any mention of what you are seeing. Do tell.
"I never said anything about contrails, that's you projecting a straw man"
To clarify - again. The chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of contrails. Understand now? That's precisely what this video is about. Yet my pointing out your reliance on false equivalence is a "straw man"? Really? You were the one that introduced these irrelevancies and this association fallacy - not me.
"However the volume of such patents, their specificity, the paper trails regarding those named, and documentation of their real world use - citing such patents/technologies are more than enough to confirm their existence. Period. You can't deny existence of chemtrails thru history."
It strikes me then, that your chemtrails are simply what you want them to be. If you wish to refer to cloud seeding, smoke generating machines, military dispersal exercises, exhaust atomisers, chaff, aerial application of defoliants herbicides and geoengineering research (which many of these patents are) as "chemtrails" - then more fool you. Perhaps we can also add sky-writing and fireworks to the list. No one is denying the existence of these technologies or practices and they aren't in the slightest bit secretive. However, to reiterate, the chemtrail hoax, which this video is debunking, concerns the erroneous belief that the visible trails in the wake of high flying jet aircraft are evidence of a nefarious programme of chemical spraying. Irrespective of your false equivalence, they are nothing more than condensation trails largely produced by commercial aviation.
"Even if it COULD be proven that there is absolutely no such thing as chemical spraying from aircraft"
There is though - and you have listed some examples for a range of purposes. But as I explained to you, none of them have anything to do with the contrails that are misidentified by chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?
"Then you simply cannot disprove the fact that there are many # of men who have given immense energy/resources/thought into the possibility - often with nefarious purpose (warfare - chemical or biological, electromagnetic or other etc) which alone should be a wake up call - and reason for vigilance on this issue."
Absolutely not. What I can categorically tell you however, is that they have nothing to do with the contrails that chemtrail believers are witnessing - irrespective of whatever they choose to ascribe to them.
"So please whatever you do don't poo poo, be constructive. Such an educated individual as yourself should know the importance of integrity when discussing such important subjects."
I do - furthermore, I understand the importance of intellectual honesty, objectivity and genuine scepticism critical thinking - and such lazy association fallacy is completely the reverse. Moreover if you elect to pass off a fanciful essay, clearly identified a work of fiction, as a legitimate government document, then don't react with indignation when challenged.
"Now, what was that about the increasing reality of things like carbon offsetting and weather manipulation?"
We can discuss carbon offsetting if you wish - although I have no idea what relevance it has to this video. GGR (or negative emissions technology) involves such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation - what's your point?
"Weather Manipulation" is a commonly misapplied term, (usually in relation to cloud seeding) and a misnomer. Manipulating the weather is technically impossible. We can attempt to modify it at the local/micro scale but controlling synoptic/global weather is nothing more than fanciful science fiction. That's not to say that athropogenic activity has not altered weather patterns as a result of climate change, but that is very different to the notion of harnessing and controlling them.
Incidentally, may I just say that I greatly appreciate your civil and courteous reply and the fact that you genuinely are seeking constructive discourse. Thank you - a rarity on these pages.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"How about when they admit Chemtrails themselves."
Brennan - again??? Seriously?
This is the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. As part of this he referred to an area of geoengineering research called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, which is entirely hypothetical. It has never been secretive and the research has been well publicised to generate funding and support. How do you 'admit' to something that has never been denied?
In the miniscule possibility that it were ever to be implemented, it would have significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance which would be impossible, there are many unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can provide you with a full transcription of the speech if you wish.
What the hell does research into SAI have to do with aircraft contrails anyway?
1
-
1
-
@TheSecrecyOfFrequency
I know - it happens to us all on this page. It's almost impossible to post links. Maddening.
Proves what point precisely? I'm familiar with many of the sources that you are attempting to post. Like I said, the geoengineering content at the Paris Agreement examined such consideration of ethics, cost and logistics, environmental implications and above all the problems surrounding international governance.
Geoengineering consists of two branches - GGR (or Negative Emissions Technology) - examples being, carbon sequestering, aforestation, biochar, ocean fertilisation. Obviously, some of these strategies are already in progress. The second heading is Solar Radiation Management - examples being, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (that Brennan was referring to), Space Reflectors and Marine Cloud Brightening. With the exception of ground based albedo modification, all of this is hypothetical. There have been some limited field exploration of marine cloud brightening and there is a small scale trial planned for next year into SAI involving a steerable balloon launched 20kms into the stratosphere and a few kilos of water (and possibly calcium carbonate if all goes well), to establish dispersion, perturbation and reflectivity (look up SCoPEx). It's likely that, given the severity and urgency of global temperature increase, the only viable solution going forward will be DAC which is very costly. SAI would never in reality be implemented or undertaken - the main barrier being the impossibility of international governance and legal ramifications, not to mention the environmental unknowns.
Again, what does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and believers term 'chemtrails'?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What about that moon rock given to holland and turnes out to be wood"
What about it? The supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been briefly exhibited was kept in storage for two decades until it was later discovered to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. The Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts. You could have established this for yourself but I guess it's easier to parrot the same old dumb conspiracy theory off junk social media.
"no crater off jet engines"
Jet engines? On the moon? Is this actually serious? The rocket descent engine on the Lunar Module was throttleable and was only producing around 2,700lbs of thrust at the point of touchdown. This was sufficient to pick up dust and blast it laterally, but the surface of the moon is solid rock beneath. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Moreover, if you do want to mention jet engines, in comparison the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, does not make a crater when it lands - even on grass!
"no stars"
There are no stars visible in the footage and photographs on the surface of the moon due to aperture and exposure settings and the fact that it was the lunar daytime.
"astronauts on wires jumping to there feet from face down position"
Nope - wrong again. Propelling themselves upwards in 1/6th gravity. Incidentally, you needed to employ the determiner their as opposed to the adverb, there.
"in all the missions not one astronaut thought to take a picture of earth not one"
Another demonstrable falsehood. There are multiple images of the Earth captured in the Apollo footage and film, from cislunar space, lunar orbit and the surface of the moon.
"all photos of space are cgi nasa admits"
CGI in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? Why are you lying? NASA have 'admitted not such thing. They use composites and colour enhancement which is completely different.
"it goes on and on"
No, let me help you here. What goes on and on are imbecilic gullible conspiracy believers simply because you fools are ignored in the real world whilst the internet gives you a platform to air your lack of education, ill-informed stupidity and scientific illiteracy.
Mate, you are absolutely clueless. If you think that your naively consumed and regurgitated conspiracy theory about subjects that you demonstrably know nothing whatsoever about makes you sound informed and clever, you need to understand that all you are accomplishing is your own humiliation. It may make you feel relevant and special but since you can barely compose a coherent cogent sentence, I suggest that you have more pressing concerns to attend to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sassssky
Cloud seeding is not "controlling the weather". The technical term is weather modification, because it is conducted on the micro/localised scale. Moreover, the science behind it is still disputed and the results unreliable. Furthermore, although in rare cases liquid propane has been used, this is because it quickly expands into a gas and can produce ice crystals at higher temperatures than other seeding methods. So strictly speaking, it doesn't involve spraying at all. Typically cloud seeding will utilise silver iodide, but also potassium iodide and occasionally dry ice.
What it looks like? Nothing like a long white plume in the wake of a jet aircraft. Cloud seeding is deployed by wing mounted flares fitted to small/light aircraft. Because it does not create clouds, but rather injects additional nucleation into existing stratiform/cumulus cloud masses already conducive to precipitation to induce rainfall, it is typically conducted between 2- 6,500 feet - a fifth lower that the contrails that you are observing as a consequence of commercial aircraft cruising in the tropopause and lower stratosphere.
Finally, although a commercial enterprise and despite several high profile instances of its use such as the Beijing Olympics, cloud seeding is not at all widespread or commonplace - so it is very unlikely that you have "seen it".
1
-
1
-
1
-
You Tube was facing imminent brand damage for propping up and nurturing online conspiracy theory. If you hadn't noticed, this is a profiteering racket attracting unscrupulous grifters and con artists. When you have sick people exploiting and making money out of the Sandy Hook shootings and the eventual serious ramifications that unfolded through QAnon then there is a serious problem and the lame argument that this stuff is "a bit of fun" or "harmless" is complete nonsense. Wait - you regard Alex Jones/Infowars as "in-depth"? Is this actually serious? If justification was ever needed for your 'choice' to be taken away from you.
I actually don't believe that it should. The issue is with the advent of the internet, not only do we have exploitative agenda driven opportunistic individuals harvesting the gullible and stupid, because that is their target market. We also have extremely dumb people availed with online access that don't know how to us it responsibly and have zero will or capability to independently verify the disinformation that they are fed, which the becomes misinformation where people would rather believe what they read on social media or regard Reddit as 'research', as opposed to actually learning about the topic itself. The internet has given every radical, extremist, nutjob and imbecile that would ordinarily be condemned and dismissed in the real world a platform and a voice - and idiots tend to shout the loudest. Free speech is the noose by which these fools eventually hang themselves, and I live in a forlorn hope that we have reached, or at least are approaching “peak bullshit”, when younger generations, who have grown up with the internet, can see through the twisted morass of nonsense they see online, having been inoculated against it through early exposure. The internet should be edifying and illuminating but where it can support and education, it certainly doesn't substitute or supplant for one.
If you wish to cherry pick and prop-up your preconceptions, a search engine will do that in seconds. All of the material that you mention can be found though a cursory search on Google - and guess who owns You Tube genius?
If you are missing your confirmation bias that much, then you always have alt-right conspiracy sites such as 'Rumble; and 'Odysee' or DuckDuckGo to reinforce your agenda and beliefs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonasolaiowe5514
Intense? What are you talking about? And what does geoengineering have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails.
You don't even know what geoengineering is. The only reason that you have even heard of the term is because of the junk chemtrails conspiracy videos and websites that you have been duped by.
Geoengineering is a very broad area divided into two branches - GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR encompasses strategies such as aforestation, biochar, ocean fertilisation and carbon sequestering. Its future likely lies in DAC although this is expensive and is likely to be resisted by all but the most wealthy countries. SRM on the other hand, (with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening) is entirely hypothetical. You have been fooled into believing that one branch of this, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is not only underway, but accounts for the aircraft trails that you are seeing, which are nothing more than aircraft contrails.
To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory originated in the mid 1990s through and article by William Thomas and Art Bell's junk radio show on Coast to Coast AM. It claimed that the visible lasting trails behind aircraft are actually of sinister intent ranging from such ludicrous assertions as mind control, depopulation and to screen the return of Nibiru (Planet X). With the advent of the internet and the explosion of online conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Michael J Murphy and Dane Wigington eager to jump on the bandwagon, quickly seized upon SRM geoengineering strategies and in particular the emerging work of David Keith (SAI). This association fallacy was a lame attempt at affording legitimacy to their claims and was a complete watershed in the chemtrail belief. Both attributed aircraft contrails to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. Because the believers in this false claim hang on the every word of the perpetrators, most followers of the chemtrail conspiracy theory now falsely equate the sight of contrails with geoengineering, without even understanding what either actually are.
SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Again, SAI is entirely hypothetical and has yet to graduate to small scale trail. is currently purely the stuff of computer modelling. I suggest that you look into SCoPEx, which is a proposed trail on behalf of Harvard/The Keutsch Group who are at the vanguard of this research. They aimed to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere and releases a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation. Subsequent runs were proposed to release negligible quantities of calcium carbonate - which is precisely the point, the materials/'chemicals' to best effect this haven't even been determined. This trial has been delayed for five years seeking ethical approval and will likely never happen. SAI is a reckless, ludicrous and frankly dangerous folly. Because of this it will never become a reality. Not simply due to the environmental unknowns, the appreciable logistical challenges and the opposition, but the impossibility of international governance. SAI proposes to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns to envelop the entire planet - the legal implications, far less the implications for global security don't bear thinking about which is why it will remain in the realms of fantasy. Chemtrail believers need to understand what SAI actually is instead of listening to conspiracy theorists. It would take the form of a very fine mist, at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are witnessing and wouldn't even be perceptible to a ground based observer...and right now, it doesn't exist outside of mathematical modelling and paper based proposal. As explained, it's likely that the solution to global temperature increase is the GGR strategy, DAC, but this is a very expensive which even wealthy developed nations are reluctant to pursue. SAI does not exist beyond paper based proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve regular jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. There is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails. I'd suggest that with respect, if you choose to refer to 'geoengineering' as 'chemtrails' then do not expect to be taken seriously outside of the online echo-chambers that perpetuate this nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm guessing that English is not your first language or that you dictated this into your phone?
Any permanent settlement on the moon would need to be shielded. The main hazard in the absence of a magnetic field is actually radiation. This was no hazard to the Apollo astronauts during their brief stays on the moon, who received a measured average of 60 microseiverts an hour. However, any prolonged stay would necessitate shielding, probably a combination of water and rock which is why any moon base would likely be underground. The moon is bathed in cosmic rays, but the real danger comes from CMEs/SPEs. The Apollo programme coincided with a solar minimum, but they still took a huge risk with all nine missions to the moon. Data gathered over four years from the Chinese Chang'e 4 lander has shown that radiation on the moon can spike to potentially harmful levels to human habitation.
The very large craters that you see on the moon were the result of sizeable impacts that may amount to an extinction event here on Earth. Of course, since there is no atmosphere, the moon is far more vulnerable to meteorite and asteroid impact. However, since the vulcanism on the moon practically ceased 3 billion years ago, and has been geologically dead for some 1 billion years, unlike the Earth, these features are not largely erased as they are on Earth, but remain on the surface as evidence of bombardment throughout that period of time.
1
-
1
-
Oh Jesus, this again? How many times? It's the same things over and over and over again. What "truth"? Peterson was a chemtrail believer - and it's not a UN meeting is it.
You are referring to an old video that was deceptively framed by a perpetrator of the chemtrail hoax and is still over a decade later batted about your vacuous echochamber as supposed evidence of chemtrails. Supposedly she was addressing the UN - only she wasn't. This was simply a 2007 conference on Climate Change organised by the UN, not an actual UN session. Peterson did not work at the UN, or have any connection to the UN at all. Peterson is a retired crop loss adjuster (a type of insurance agent working in agriculture). She worked for the USDA in Mendocino, California. Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defence Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC was simply the name of her personal web site. And contrary to your claim, Peterson did not mention "chemtrails", rather misappropriated weather modification (cloud seeding), regular aircraft exhaust and some NASA sounding rocket experiments.
And despite becoming an unwitting spokesperson for this fraud the late Ms.Peterson later (in 2012) entirely distanced herself from the hoax and explained that she did not think there was any good evidence to show that any trails were anything other than normal contrails:
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminium coated fiberglass by military aircraft." Rosalind Peterson 2012.
Note - it's 'Rosalind' - you couldn't even parrot that correctly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Conspiracy theories like , government spying on everyone, phones/laptops recording passively , proven government tests of diseases and toxins on civilians, glyphosate(Round up) causing cancer, gulf of Tonkin misinformation to start Vietnam war....you mean like these?"
None of which were conspiracy theories though. Also, there is no proven causal link between glyphosate and cancer.
So simply because governments lie and have historically acted in secrecy, then this affords legitimacy to "chemtrails" or any other random conspiracy theory of your choice of devising?
"Honestly most people are too egocentric, programmed and/or stupid to understand chemtrails."
The unintentional irony in that statement is quite simply staggering.
"It influences the planet's natural weather zones/patterns by using HARP arrays(did you research where they are?)"
Clearly you didn't. It's HAARP. Moreover, it has been inoperable for the last two years due to refurbishment. This "research" you mention. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"to focus heat spirals to channel the energy apart or together therefore being able to amplify (not create) or dissipate weather energy."
😆 😅 😂 🤣 You people and your illusory superiority, nothing if not consistently entertaining.
HAARP is an HF pump and an ionospheric research tool. It has nothing whatsoever to do with weather in the troposphere. Stop badly parroting junk online conspiracy theory in an attempt to make yourself sound clever. Could you detail precisely what the HAARP facility consists of, and then in your own words explain, with reference to physics, precisely how it..."focuses heat spirals to channel the energy apart or together therefore being able to amplify (not create) or dissipate weather energy".
In your own time.
Cue the inevitable indignation and personal abuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jeez. Seriously, just a small amount of independent reading and learning would dispel your personal incredulity. When does a rocket leave a 'blast crater'? It's all science fiction and artistic licence.
Firstly, the surface of the moon is covered in a substance called regolith which is a dust like blanket of unconsolidated, loose, heterogeneous superficial deposits above solid rock.
Secondly, why should the descent stage "leave a crater"? What do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. That is considerably less than the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does NOT make a crater when it lands - even on grass!. Do VTOL aircraft ever make a crater?
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
@gerrytolbertjr.6246
"You’re just indoctrinated and reading stuff you’ve been taught out of a book. You have no idea what’s on the moon surface"
I am irrelevant. You asked a question I provided the answer. You don't like it because it challenges your belief in the conspiratorial narrative you have been fed. We know full well what the lunar surface consists of. This is all independently verifiable.
"did you know some of the rocks that they brought back we’re literally petrified wood?"
This again. Really? And your point about being 'indoctrinated' when you are simply badly parroting junk conspiracy theory? You are referring to the Dutch national museum, the The Rijksmuseum. The piece of petrified wood in question was simply in the personal belongings of a Dutch diplomat and was found along with a NASA card after his death. It was simply assumed that the two items were related and alerted the media. They were not, in fact, related at all. The Dutch media and curators never did the proper research to determine the origin of the exhibit.. Had they done even cursory research, they would have found that NASA never gave out un-encased specimens. There are hundreds of moon rocks and samples from the Apollo missions distributed to countries around the world and geologists alike.
"Why haven’t we gone back?"
A lack of political and public will, the fact that it was motivated by the space race, and the main factor, the sheer expense - which is why the Apollo Programme was cancelled - and the Space Shuttle Programme which meant the impetus was low earth orbit. All that is about to change with the advent of Project Artemis and the Space X/Starship programme .
"I’m not saying that it has to be a huge crater in the ground, but there would be some sort of evidence of dust, or surface trauma, there’s literally no evidence that a space craft had landed in that spot; but a footprint stayed?"
How do you know? - by your own self-defeating logic, you haven't been there. I explained the physics to you - whilst contrary to your claims the surface dust was greatly disturbed on each of the six landings. But, if anybody expects a mere 3000 pounds of thrust out of a 20 square foot engine bell to cut a crater into the layer of compacted regolith and rock - as per your original comment, they're not only completely ignorant of the physics of the Apollo programme, but divorced from reality in general.
"So go ahead and repeat your mumbo-jumbo and try to sound smart, just because you put a bunch of numbers and name a few elements doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about."
Nothing to do with me, it's simple physics supported by the mathematics which by nature is axiomatic. The fact that you don't understand it means that you shouldn't be commenting, whilst your personal incredulity has no bearing upon reality or scientific fact.
"Most of the time, the answer that’s the most obvious, is the real answer."
The principle of Occam's Razor, you should apply it to your junk conspiracy theory before you parrot it.
1
-
1
-
@scottlomas5509
"It's in nasa documents going back tens of years here thay state that through high level spraying of metal particulates along with EMF waves that thay could control the weather and even make weather patterns"
Present it then at source. Go ahead. Good luck with that.
"their are so documents from the USA military where thay state thay own the weather"
Sigh...no there are not. You are simply being duped by crap chemtrail conspiracy websites. "Weather as a Force Multiplier" - want to discuss it? I've seen all of this false equivalence before.
"and then give you all the information showing you how thay control the weather and yep spraying the skies is a massive part of Geoengineering."
Sigh. "Controlling the weather" is a physical impossibility and no, spraying the skies is not a "massive part of geoengineering" it's a very small one and the SRM strategies that you refer to are entirely hypothetical.
"Bill gates even states he's going to be spraying the skies to block the sun to fight global warming"
No he hasn't, he has leant his support to a strategy called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is purely the province of research proposal and computer modelling.
"ffs what do you think that will look like??"
Replicating the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols at 20km into the stratosphere? Nothing like a contrail at half that altitude - do you think you can venture why that might be?
"Jets spraying shit like thay already do maybe?"
You mean contrails, the same contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied for the best part of a century and since the dawn of high altitude powered flight? No one is 'spraying shit' - you have fallen for an online hoax predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails.
"Its not hidden information ffs thay tell you their doing it."
Absolutely not, which is the only reason that scientifically illiterate chemtrail clowns know about it in the first place. Because, let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about - as your posts are ample testimony.
Now present your claimed NASA documents at source. Go ahead then. Good luck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MG-tl6yz
"it's obvious your not here to answer questions but attack my stance with zero facts while ignoring my question."
As I explained, your dispute doesn't lie with me, rather basic physical laws governing atmospheric science and the fundamentals of powered aviation. Moreover, as the one making the claim that these contrails were not present prior to the year 2000, then the burden of proof is incumbent upon you, not me. However, I am very happy to answer any questions that you may have.
"If you can help show me proof you could change my stance but instead you attack me."
I'm not attacking you at all - I simply challenged your claim.
"Tell me where to find these pictures or videos or someone who has this documented????"
There are many, many pictures of persistent contrails throughout the 20th century, that much is independently verifiable. Unfortunately, this page block links. However, persistent contrails have also been documented and studied.
In 'Flight to Arras' the legendary French aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 50 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
"That's all I want , don't need your opinion I have my own"
Known science is not about "opinion", yours or mine, and at no stage have I offered one. As I stated, since your contention lies with the science, I am irrelevant to this exchange. The physical laws of the atmosphere are axiomatic and therefore have a voice of their own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sigh.
Simply because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it isn't true.
The LEM needed to enter orbit, so no, although it lifted off, it did not "travel vertically". The CM was not travelling at 8,000 mph. Where on earth are you getting this from? So you don't understand orbital mechanics and therefore it's fake?
If you are referring to MH370, it was a Boeing 777 200-ER, not a 747. Civil radar doesn’t work the same way military radar does… civil radar hits the plane, the planes IFF responds and the position is plotted on a screen. Turn the IFF off and you disappear from civil radar. The primary transponder was turned off, and the backup didn't activate. once an aircraft is more than 240km (150 miles) out to sea, radar coverage fades and air crew keep in touch with air traffic control and other aircraft using high-frequency radio. Independent analysis of raw satellite data released by inmarsat indicates that the aircraft was flown to the Southern Indian Ocean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@highcard3027
"I'm still curious how they got through the Van Allen Radiation Belt."
They are belts since there are two, with a third that is transitory. Why are you "curious" about something that you clearly know absolutely nothing about and have only heard of by virtue of crap online conspiracy theory?
How about you ask yourself the following questions? -
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then perhaps obtaining the answers will sate your supposed curiosity? But let's be honest here - you aren't curious at all, otherwise you would have done so yourself instead of relying upon what dumb online conspiracy theory tells you to think.
"Then there is Buzz, and Armstrongs comments."
What comments? Can I suggest that you contextualise them instead of consuming online quote mined nonsense like a gullible moron? Incidentally, you mean "there are" not "there is" and 'Armstrong's needed apostrophising as such.
"2 died from "Accidents" after criticizing NASA"
No, wrong again. The Apollo 1 crew (Grissom, White and Chaffee), perished in a ground test due to the 100% oxygen rich atmosphere being ignited by a stray spark and the new capsule being full of flammables and an internal opening hatch which they were unable to escape through due to the cabin pressure. Hundreds of employees criticised the programme, Grissom was not alone - and many were far more vocal that he was. Indeed, a major redesign of the spacecraft was already in progress and NASA’s post-accident report stated openly that “deficiencies in design, manufacture, installation, rework and quality control existed in the electrical wiring... No design features for fire protection were incorporated... Non-certified equipment items were installed in the Command Module at time of test.”
"In Hebrew, Nasa means To Decieve"
No it doesn't. The Hebrew letter shin ש (the "s" in nasa) represents two different phonemes: 's' and 'sh' . The two are distinguished by a dot above the left-hand side of the letter for 's' (rendering the letter as "sin") and above the right-hand side for 'sh' (rendering the letter as "shin"). The letter shin has a dot on the right side indicating that the letter is pronounced "sh" and therefore rendering the word "nasha", not "nasa." Therefore, it is "nä·shä'. The letter s in nasa (dot above the left side of the letter) is pronounced like the s in side and means to "lift up". There is a rare verb in the Bible - “השׁיא” which means to deceive, but it’s pronounced HEY-SHEE. The verb ”נשׁא” as it appears in the dictionary does not appear even once in the Bible, and anyway as explained, it is pronounced NASHAA. It is completely not in use in modern Hebrew, and it is so rare that 99% of Hebrew speakers won’t even this verb exists.
Incidentally - it's 'deceive' not 'decieve'.
"Do your Own Digging. Or,,,Just believe the MSM Fake News lol"
Because the dumb online conspiracy horseshit that you have just moronically and naively parroted is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Clever lad!
1
-
1
-
Fascinating. Hollywood you say?..so what about Shepperton, no wait, wasn't it Elstree...no, no, definitely Pinewood UK. Hold on, I thought it was Cannon AFB New Mexico? Or surely Area 51 Nevada? No, hang on, what about the Utah or Arizona deserts? Nope, definitely Devon Island Canada! You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood Movie" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
1
-
1
-
Oh jeez. Just a small amount of reading and understanding would prevent you from typing this nonsense. The surface of the moon is covered in regolith which is a dust like blanket of unconsolidated, loose, heterogeneous superficial deposits covering solid rock.
Why should the descent stage "leave a hole"? What do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. That is considerably less than the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does NOT make a crater when it lands - even on grass!. Do VTOL aircraft ever make a crater?
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pvn2474
We can talk now. Perhaps you we can commence with precisely how the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME got on the lunar surface? In your own time, when you're ready.
Appreciating that "doing your homework" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+John daLoire
"assuming that you use a clean glass jar in order to collect the rain water, how do you think aluminium is getting into the rainwater?"
You wouldn't use a "clean glass jar", you'd obviously utilise purpose built sanitised collection containers.
However assuming you did - assuming that there was no contamination from the lid or vessel the question you should be asking is why would you not find aluminium in rainwater? Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides. If you were to allege however that is is a consequence of chemtrails you would not only need to demonstrate a causal link but you would also need to detail the robust methodology to not only ensure discrimination of your samples but to differentiate them from existing sources of both anthropogenic and natural origin. Moreover, repeated tests over the past 40 years have shown the same or even higher levels of aluminum, consistent with that which is found in aeolian dust of crustal origin. Here's one such paper: A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE COMPOSITION OF PRECIPITATION IN S.E. ONTARIO, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol 4, 1967 Notice, the figures for aluminum in rain above are 0.52 to 1.12 ppm, which is 520 to 1120 ppb, mcg/L or ug/L - that's three times higher than the findings in the risible 'What in The World Are They Spraying". I suggest that you read the conclusion - and the methodology would also be insightful to you.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/e67-077#.WjlxplSFiRs
And here's one from 1973
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698176902560
Surely spectrographic analysis via ground based remote sensing would be preferable - interesting that this entire field of science worldwide deployed in a variety of sectors and settings has remained oblivious to chemtrails particularly those involved in atmospheric and air quality measurements. Alternatively what about direct sampling at source? Plenty of analytical data obtained through this into contrails, such as this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuZhkaJzSHE&t=1s
Here's the related journal published peer reviewed paper...
http://rdcu.be/p699
Where are the comparable parallel studies into your chemtrails?...
Precisely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you declare something to be fake but then have questions? Sounds to me as though you aren't remotely interested in the answers.
1/ Cost. Manned missions to the moon are exorbitantly and to some, prohibitively expensive. This is precisely why the Apollo Programme was terminated prematurely in 1972. Nixon never liked it, it wasn't his brainchild and due to the lack of public and political will the unsustainable funding necessary to continue to send crewed missions to the moon was immediately cut and with it, the heavy lift capability abandoned. Nixon's baby was the commercial promise of the space shuttle, which in the event never delivered in terms of costing/returns or launch cadence. After which, the emphasis shifted to the construction of the ISS. Neither place a man on the moon. Similarly other space faring nations have favoured unmanned deep space exploration which is far, far cheaper and entails less risk. Crewed missions have also focussed upon low Earth orbit and duration over exploration.
2/ What on Earth are you talking about? Space X have conducted multiple missions delivering crews and payloads to space utilising the reusable Falcon boosters on the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy. Are you confusing this with Starship?
Lading a craft with substantially less mass in the absence of an atmosphere and in 1/6th gravity is a completely different proposition to landing a rocket booster on Earth. Yes, the LM was tested prior to Apollo 11 - both the ascent and the descent stages. Apollo 5 carried out the first validation, Apollo 9 was crewed whilst as part of Apollo 10 - the dress rehearsal - Stafford and Cernan descended to within 60,000ft of the lunar surface. The LLTV was also instrumental in the training of the astronauts as was the simulator in which crews amasses hundreds of hours.
the USSR's Luna 16 was the first robotic mission to land on the Moon, collect samples of dust and rock, and return those samples to Earth. This was followed by Luna 20, Luna 23, Luna 24. This amounts to 226.1 grams (0.5 lbs)whilst the Chinese have returned almost 4 lbs. This is the entirety of samples brought back by unmanned missions throughout the history of space travel. In contrast, Apollo returned 382 kgs (a third of a ton) of moon rock in the space of three and a half years - something that could only have been accomplished in such a short space of time by manned landings. Incidentally, seven rovers have been historically successfully placed on the moon.
'Belief' and personal incredulity has no bearing upon demonstrable reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Joe you are so fucking dumb...."
Said the chemtrail believer.
...Here we go.
"there are patents on alum particle dispersion"
Present just one - your best example, I'll tell you what its purpose is. Also, surely you are able to comprehend that a patent is not proof of the existence of something? - merely the registration of an idea, irrespective how outlandish or impractical that may be.
"amd many jets are set up w them."
No there aren't - unless you are referring to military fighters dispersing chaff as a radar countermeasure?
"Everyone knows a CONTRAIL OF WATER VAPOR, DISSAPATES IN MINUTES"
Do they? Try telling visiting a meteorology station or a college of atmospheric sciences and telling them that - don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you. Firstly, a contrail is not water vapour - water vapour is an invisible gas. Secondly, perhaps you could explain why your randomly imposed time limit doesn't apply to a cloud? Make it easy for me - simply explain why a contrail must "dissipate in minutes", detailing the physical processes that determine this. Go ahead then.
"BUT "LOADED" CHEM TRAULES ARE RELEASED THEY HANG IN THE AIR ALL DAY"
You mean like the contrails in the following paper which tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments and was found to persist for a period of around 18 hrs, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
"THEY DO MODIFY THE WEATHER! ITS CALLED CLOUD SEEDING YOU DUNCE!!!"
Cloud seeding has absolutely nothing to do with the chemtrail hoax - it doesn't create clouds, does not produce a lasting trail, is applied on the micro/localised scale and is actually not that widespread a practice.
"NEVER EVER BELIEVE A BRITT ABOUT ANYTHING CONCERNING AMERICA OR CONSPIRACY THEROY'S! HE STILL WORSHIPS A QUEEN MONARCH.... SHILL 4 SURE"
"Britt", theroy's" ???? And you think that you sound credible yourself?
How do you know Mick West is a monarchist? I assure you, there is a very strong proportion of the UK populace that are abolitionists and pro-republic. Besides, Mick West lives in California.
Incidentally, your caps lock seems to have jammed.
1
-
1
-
@kalleklovvn9262
"Yes, it is"
Right - so that 321 foot 70 ton rocket sitting on launch pad 38a at Cape Canaveral primed for launch this month - is a hoax? ...simply because it is contrary to your claim that "we don't have the technology right now." Ok genius. Nothing gets past you.
"Science has become a religion designed for the tax cattle. Its our belief and it has endless integrity so we will follow it and believe it."
And yet here you are using a device that lets you instantly share this moronic claim with people all over the world. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method.
Known science is not a 'religion' - religion implies 'belief' and science is not about that.
Known science is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms and so these need to be established and discovered. Having done so these are by nature irrefutable and ineluctable.
Science is open to all. When you boil a kettle or stir sugar in your tea, what happens? That's science. Are you denying that? When you switch on your laptop...it's science. How can that be a "religion"? Science is always open to questioning and falsification - religion is not.
In the absence of education and understanding, it's a lot easier to hide behind a conspiracy theory than it is to learn the mathematics and applied science involved. Your opinion is worthless.
That's because you have no understanding of those disciplines - rocketry, aerospace and propulsion engineering, astrophysics - specialist fields that support the validity of the Apollo Programme.
The reason you've chosen that conclusion is because you like to imagine that you are among the few people who are smart enough to see through a huge secret that has fooled the vast masses of your "inferiors". Through sheer gullibility and a large helping of illusory superiority, you get off on deluding yourself that you're one of the small minority too clever to be fooled. But you can't even demonstrate this supposed intellectual prowess when challenged to do so, which make it transparently obvious that your claims amount to nothing more than empty ego masturbation and resentment of qualities such as accomplishment, achievement, knowledge and expertise that has eluded you throughout your life. Precisely why, the engineers responsible for Project Artemis have dedicated their lives to their respective specialisms whilst you waste yours mindlessly trolling comments sections and gorging on junk conspiracy videos.
You people brand yourself 'truthers' yet remain abject strangers to the 'truth'. In fact, in the post-truth era that we inhabit that has enabled such ignorance to thrive within your internet bubble and social media, nothing could be more diametrically the opposite than the believer and perpetrator in online conspiracy theory.
That's not just a 'religion', it's a cult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jwol11741
Your video links.
John Brennan as a guest speaker, the theme of his address to The Council on Foreign Relations (a thinktank) being "Transitional Threats to Global Security" during which he also addressed possible future technologies that don't even exist yet. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, in the unlikely event that it would ever be deployed as a last ditch solution to combat climate change, would have geo-political ramifications and pose significant implications for governance. Brennan also broached anti-ageing technology.
Here's the full transcript to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does research into a SAI have to do with a contrail? Particularly given that it exists solely in the form of paper based proposal and computer modelling, hasn't even reached the stage of small scale trial, wouldn't be visible as a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the contrails under discussion in this video?
Your second conspiracy video for some reason laughably feels the need to claim to be "100% undebunkable". Known science is axiomatic and as a self-evident reproducible and demonstrable ineluctable reality, speaks for itself without such crass proclamations.
So as I explained before this is a refueling operation, followed by separation. Initially the aircraft are flying together, with similar power settings, so the exhausts are similar, and they both leave contrails. Then the lower plane (the AWACS/E3) separates, moving away by greatly decreasing power, so the contrail stops. Then when there's enough separation the power is restored, and the contrail resumes.
https://youtu.be/Xa-2PqlgJuI
I suggest that you read the following...
https://elib.dlr.de/9247/1/aerscitech-2000.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Last thursday i saw 2 planes fly side by side, one smaller than the other
the small one had a very short condensation trail, in fact after a certain length the frozen trail was disappearing, the sun makes it evapourate.
the bigger plane was like most planes, leaving behind a massive chemtrail that lasted for the whole day up there in the sky."
How did you establish relative altitude and the size of the aircraft. You say one was smaller, it may well have been significantly higher. Moreover, RVSM is only one thousand feet, atmospheric conditions can vary within mere metres.
The sun has nothing whatsoever to do the duration or length of a contrail. A contrail is merely a form of artificially induced cirrus. The governing factors are temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of lbs and last an entire day. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
"its like when you wake up and you see 5, 10 trails going in different directions, it wasnt happening 50 years ago."
I assure you that it was...
1940:
https://hurricane501.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/contrail_chaos_3440631b.jpg
1944:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l76qzSEzREM/Uv1he_7qpXI/AAAAAAAAAPY/bp3hs-kCOd4/s1600/77.jpg
"now everytime you go outside you see them, even if the air traffic from airports is lower than it was in the past"
Commercial air traffic has increased exponentially together with routes flown. Of course contrails are more prevalent.
"and only recently they have been included as a type of cloud! yes, all the types of clouds that have existed since the beginning of time and that your grandparents knew, only now include "contrails" as a type of cloud.
how convenient"
Cirrus Aviaticus are a form of homogenitus - an artificial or anthropogenically generated cloud type. Of course they haven't "existed since the beginning of time". They have been acknowledged since the early advent of aviation and are now officially classified.
1
-
@MARK-gp9hb
"first you didnt explain why the smaller plane (or higher plane as you think it was) had a shorter trail."
I did precisely that. The length and duration of a contrail is a function of temperature, pressure and humidity at a given altitude. Vertical separation is typically 1,000 feet and these factors can vary within mere metres. It may be that the aircraft that appeared to be smaller to you was flying through warmer drier air - there may be a temperature inversion, there may be a differential thrust setting. Many, many reasons.
Since contrail mitigation was impossible and still is today (which is why stealth aircraft produce them) - the Lockheed U2 spyplane was originally fitted with a rear view mirror. In the even of contrail formation the pilot could then adjust altitude either by ascending or descending accordingly. Didn't do Gary Powers much good unfortunately.
"i said 50 years ago it didnt happen like today because its true"
No, I agree it didn't. Commercial air traffic and associated routes have expanded tenfold since then. Of course contrails are more prevalent.
"and those pictures you posted only prove planes have been releasing chemicals since those times, while trails have indeed increased in the recent years."
No, they are testament to the fact that when you burn a hydrocarbon fuel at altitude, if the conditions are conducive a contrail will form and persist in the case of supersaturation in respect to ice where most of the contrail is drawn from the atmospheric moisture budget. Very basic meteorological science which as I have explained to you has been understood since the early advent of aviation. This is an in-situ analytical study of a persistent contrail at source using optical array spectrometry dating back 47 years.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Do feel free to refute the scientific content.
"third, when i said only recently they have been classified as clouds its because its true, look at old and new textbooks, now they include plane trails, in the past they didnt"
So what...there are many species of clouds that have been observed for time immemorial that have been newly classified. As I explained, contrails similarly had no such classification and revisions to the International Cloud Atlas were made accordingly by The World Meteorological Society to also include anything of anthropological origin. Industry has produced such clouds for two centuries.
"fourth, you are just ridiculous if you think air traffic has increased just because it must be due of techological advance and whatever you may think."
No it is due to demand and commercial expansion. Air traffic and routes flown were a fraction of what they are now 50 years ago. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 20 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2017-10-24-01.aspx
"if you check the number of flights of even big airports you can see that the number got quite lower."
Source? Citation necessary.
"dont make stuff up if you dont have the data, everybody is able to read wikipedia and spit out the same stuff, but few are able to do their research."
Here are the data, together with sources provided.
http://www.bitsofscience.org/graph-global-air-travel-increase-6848/
More than double the level of 1995:
https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-09-06-01.aspx
"another important fact that i would recommend you research is the chemicals found by some italian researchers in a liquid that was dripping out of airplanes.
mostly toxic and even radioactive and those are possibly being sprayed all over and falling down on your head.""
Link? No online conspiratorial nonsense. Original study and data at source please.
"finally many governments have declared that they would like to control the weather by spraying chemicals in the sky for military operations and instruments that require certain weathers."
No they haven't. The military has used cloud seeding but weather modification - (the legal and technical terminology) is conducted on the micro-scale. Administrations and politicians may have expressed a desire to control the weather - but this is not possible on the synoptic and global scale. Spraying chemicals has nothing whatsoever to do with such rhetoric. Proposals for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which hypothetically aims to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols have been in the public domain for many years and have nothing whatsoever to do with the trails that you are observing in the wake of commercial aircraft or governments beyond impact assessments and potential issues of policy and governance.
"so chemtrails are a possibility and many people have some proofs, thats enough to make it a problem."
There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the trails that you are seeing in the wake of civil aircraft cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere are anything other than the product of condensed atmospheric water vapour. Chemtrails are solely the province of pseudoscience, baseless lay conspiracy theory and irrelevant online echochambers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting
I'm not sure if you're actually attempting to be serious here, having a joke and simply trolling, or are genuinely that ignorant.
Firstly, the supposed rock was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been exhibited for two decades was later discovered to to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government. You could have verified this for yourself.
Secondly, the goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts.
Thirdly, in 1972 BRGM in France were one of the first independent laboratories to examine a moon rock returned from the Apollo missions. Since then, and throughout the last 50 years, samples from the Apollo manned landings have been distributed throughout an entire branch of science called geology, worldwide for the purpose of petrological analysis.
For example, take a look at the work of geophysicist Jenika Greer et al. at Chicago University, using APT to analyse grains of sample 71501 from Apollo 17. Or planetary scientist Erica Jarin who specialises in the analysis of explosive volcanic deposits on the lunar surface. Her work was based upon samples returned from Apollo 15 and 17. Meanwhile, planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are spearheading a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArizonaGunsDave
"In 1969 it would have been a physical impossibility to go through the radiation belt."
Said no particle physicist, astrophysicist, radiobiologist or aerospace engineer ever. Incidentally, they are belts, since there are two, with a third which is transitory. You can't even parrot that correctly.
"Neil Armstrong could barely control the lunar module in test flights here on earth and crashed it multiple times in training and yet, he landed it perfectly on the moon?"
Incorrect again. The Lunar Module wasn't capable of being flown on earth - it was a spacecraft and was tested during Apollo 5, Apollo 9 and taken down to within 60,000 feet of the lunar surface by Tom Stafford and Eugene Cernan during Apollo 10. You are referring to the LLTV, a vertical take-off vehicle that used a single jet engine mounted on a gimbal so that it always pointed vertically. It was adjusted to cancel 5/6 of the vehicle's weight, and the vehicle utilised hydrogen peroxide rockets which were configured to best simulate the behaviour and characteristics of the actual LM. In May 1968 at Ellington AFB in TX, a stuck thruster meant that Neil Armstrong was forced to eject during a training exercise. Aside from this, the LLTV performed hundreds of take offs and landings and alongside the hundreds of hours spent in the simulator at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston and was an invaluable training vehicle for the Apollo astronauts.
"There was no debris left on the feet of the module as it landed and moon dust was not present anywhere even though the thrusters were activated"
Why should there be debris? What "thrusters"? The radial disturbance of regolith was entirely consistent with 2,400lbs of thrust from the DPS in 1/6th gravity and a vacuum.
"there where photos that showed the crosshairs behind the subject which is a physical impossibility if the photos were real"
No it isn't. The same thing happens here on Earth. Crosshairs, known as fiducials or reseau marks are etched on this glass plate. This superimposes the crosshairs directly on the original shot. Brightly lit objects make the crosshairs appear fainter. When these images are copied or scanned some of this detail is lost completely, giving the effect that the crosshair is behind the object in certain shots.
"the pictures on the moon were perfect yet there was no view finder on the camera AND the astronauts big bulky suit made it almost impossible to take photos and yet they were perfect"
No they weren't. A total of 8,400 pictures were taken by the 12 Apollo astronauts that walked on the moon. A large proportion of them were unusable.
"the flag waving"
When disturbed by the astronauts.
"the overlayed images of Nevada compared to the alleged moon landing geography being the same"
Nevada is it this time? You goons can't get your stories straight. And what do you mean "moon landing geography"? Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; or the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley?
"it was broadcast live all over the world and yet we can barely broadcast a live stream consistently today all over the world and we did this in 1969 to the millions of people with tube televisions????"
Television broadcast and streaming is not the same thing. Major sporting and political events were also broadcast live around the world and into homes in the 1960s - what's your point?
"Also, the technology used was less than that of a modern iPhone"
iPhones do not send crewed missions to the moon. However, if you are referring to computers, the purpose built AGC did, using pre-etched rope core memory supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. Would you like me to explain their operation and capability to you?
"AND the fact that we have not gone since is further proof that it was a complete lie"
Or simply that the premature cancellation of Apollo meant the loss of the heavy lift capability by which to send crewed missions to the moon, whilst the emphasis changed to LEO with the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS - deep space exploration being the preserve of unmanned probes and robotic landers.
"add to the fact that the cold war and the space race against the Soviet Union was at an all time high so making up the moon landing was the best we could do considering the Soviets were the first to put a man into space and put a satellite into space"
And yet having a fraction of the budget of Apollo and being hugely set back by the untimely death of Korolev and the consistent failure of the N1, they were unable to land a man on the moon.
"Just stop already, stop!"
I seriously suggest that you do. Your response is the usual farrago of the same old obligatory, predictable, gullibly consumed and regurgitated junk conspiracy theory, personal incredulity, ignorance and outright falsehoods.
Why do you people do this to yourselves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"we all know Fry is a clever chappie - a bit of research by him on these particular points might, however, result in a humbling experience for “our Professor”.
Er - right. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Firstly, heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun - and the film was shielded from this. The temperature extremes that you mention are surface temperatures - extremes. Objects take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar daytime is 15 earth days. This is why all of the Apollo moon landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. The temperatures that you mention were never experienced.
Contrary to your claims, Hasselblad did significantly adapt and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. They also collaborated with Zeiss to produce a custom lens for the lunar cameras. The lens couldn't be used on a regular camera because Hasselblad removed the mirror mechanism and the viewfinder, The moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that were used were well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, as explained, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection.
Regarding the film itself in more detail - firstly radiation. X rays, which can be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit and on the surface would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. The environment at the Moon is more likely to have high energy effects, and there actually are signs of radiation in some of the images, if you look carefully.
Regarding vacuum. A fallacious and flawed experiment found on the conspiracy website Aulis and frequently shared and referenced by conspiracy believers attempted to demonstrate the effect of this upon the film used by the Apollo missions...except is wasn't. The Kodak ektachrome used E-100 is off the shelf, whereas Apollo used ektachrome EF (S0168) and ektachrome MS (S0368) both of which were developed expressly for use in space utilising different emulsions due to higher UV and eliminate blue haze. In the 'experiment', the E-100 film was tested in a vacuum chamber for four days, before being pressurised and then a vacuum again. Yet if we take Apollo 11, the film would only have been in a vacuum for the duration of the EVA, which was around two and a half hours. The longest total EVA was Apollo 17 at 22 hrs for the three performed. The experiment also neglected to contain the film. The heat extremes that it was subjected to were as explained, never experienced. They also used the E6 process to develop the film as opposed to the E3 process used by NASA and ignored the fact that a calibration chart was used for adjustment at the end of the process, to correct for issues with the colour. The conclusion of the experiment actually illustrates that the colour shift was compromised not due to vacuum itself as they claim, but pressurisation cycling between a vacuum and atmospheric pressure and extreme heat which the Apollo film never experienced. Also, the LM and CM were pressurised by pure oxygen to 4.7 psi as opposed to the 14 psi nitrogen/oxygen that we experience on earth. The most absurd thing about this 'experiment' is that is was conducted by three people - the ludicrous self-appointed 'Apollo Detectives'. They set out to prove that film won't survive in a vacuum - but when you factor in all of their inaccuracies, it proves exactly the opposite.
It sounds like you've mistaken watching a Gary Fong video on You Tube for actual research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh dear - the predictable train wreck when conspiracy theory meets and tries to do science. Another graduate of the University of You Tube.
"The condensed trails (contrails) are frozen at first; then they melt."
Not in an ice saturated environment they do not. In the low temperatures of the tropopause and the lower stratosphere where airliners cruise, if the ambient conditions are such in respect of temperature, pressure and humidity then condensed water vapour in the form of ice is unable to sublimate back into its invisible gaseous state (water vapour) and will not only persist but can spread - often with the assistance of vertical and horizontal shear) becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus. There is a large volume of research into the extent of radiative forcing associated with this. If you wish to contend otherwise then feel free to falsify the science contained in the following papers - Good...luck...with...that!
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/550c/b87d270f60c81c40b6446909342d388e26a0.pdf
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/~pa1c/JAS57_464-480_2000.pdf
You're also going to have an awkward job accounting for a naturally occurring cirrus cloud.
"Why is the CIA spraying us with toxic aluminum and barium particles from planes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDRjKpt3gXY"
They are not. Why is your deceptive You Tube conspiracy theory video telling you they are? - and why are you sufficiently gullible to uncritically accommodate such crap?
During his address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts.For example Brennan also speaks of anti aging processes - by your logic these technologies are also employed.
Brennan is discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a PESTLE framework and with particular reference to the geopolitical ramifications. Research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan says that the CIA are currently "spraying us with toxic aluminum and barium particles from planes". Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
"Toxic Barium In Chemtrails - Its An Experiment On The People
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8AOae22AfQ"
No it's not - it's yet another crap You Tube chemtrails conspiracy video hilariously featuring amongst other things such as "fake snow" KLSA's eleven year old botched sensationalist "investigative" news report in which the reporter Jeff Ferrell famously confused his measurements and publicly humiliated himself. The actual video clearly shows 68.8 μg/L (micrograms per liter), or 68.8 ppb (parts per billion). . . . 68.8 millionths of a gram per litre corresponds to 68.8 parts per billion. . . . Ferrell overestimated the amount of barium in the test report by a factor of 100. . . . The test result was not ‘three times the toxic level set by the EPA - it was around thirty times less than the EPA’s toxic limit.
"The "debunkers" compare this to the "fake Moon Landing hoax," but then Buzz Aldrin recently admitted we never went there."
Sigh - No he said nothing of the sort. In November 2014, the Huzlers web site published an article claiming Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin had recently admitted to such...
https://www.huzlers.com/buzz-aldrin-admits-apollo-11-moon-landings-fake-simply-set-see-tweet/
Immediately, links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news report. However, that article was just a spoof from Huzlers, a web site that offers users the ability to “Create your own news prank and trick your friends by sharing it” and has a history of publishing fabricated news stories.
The Huzlers site also carries a disclaimer on its pages noting that “Huzlers.com is a combination of real shocking news and satire news to keep its visitors in a state of disbelief.”
Amongst it's current headlines..."Donald Trump tackles wildfires by banning wildfires. He is truly making America great again". Or - "Florida man arrested fro hanging off traffic light and shitting on passing cars below".
"I am not one to accept every conspiracy theory that comes along"
You sure about that?
"and neither do I think it's a good idea to stop asking questions given the level of deception in today's world"
So you rely on "answers" from straplined monetised clickbait conspiracy, confirmation bias, homemade You Tube videos and satirical sites which are straight over your head. All of which you regard as legitimate objective sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seriously, Brennan again? Have you actually bothered watching this? This is the former head of the CIA John Brennan in a voluntary address to the CFN (a thinktank) entitled 'Transnational Threats to Global Security' in which he discussed future issues and emergent technology that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the future misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as some of the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress.
There are Solar Radiation Management strategies that have been proposed to tackle climate change, but (with the exception of ground based albedo modification) these are entirely hypothetical, Chief amongst these is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which exists solely in the realms of research and computer modelling. No materials have been determined yet, but one suggestion involves the use of sulphates to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. A planned trial called SCoPEx involving a steerable balloon to be launched 20kms into the stratosphere would release a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation - and possibly CaCO3 during subsequent runs. This has been consistently delayed however due to ethical approval. SAI will never be conducted or become a reality - not simply due to opposition, logistics and environmental unknowns, but the impossibility of international governance. Solar Radiation Management/SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with misidentified aircraft contrails or the subject of this video, would need to be conducted at double the altitude and wouldn't even result in a visible trail.
Most significantly, SAI has never been secretive. The proponents of this are very keen to publicise their work and share their findings to attract support, potential backers and crucially funding. How precisely do you "admit" to something that has never been denied?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HexagonFL
The lunar sample building at Johnson Space Center is the chief repository for all the Apollo samples. This is where pristine lunar samples are prepared for shipment to scientists and educators. Nearly 400 samples are distributed each year for research and teaching projects - so this is ongoing and you can look into this yourself.
There are hundreds of peer reviewed publications over the last half a century that you could search for yourself. More recently, "Fresh look at Apollo Moon rocks reveals Solar System secrets" Witze, A (2019) Published in 'Nature' - a four star paper published in a Q1 journal which has an impact of 100. There's a very innovative project pioneered by researchers at the University of Chicago using atom probe tomography to analyse grains of sample 71501 from Apollo 17. The PI is geophysicist Jennika Greer, the paper is titled 'Atom probe tomography of space-weathered lunar ilmenite grain surfaces' and was published in 2020. To this day, Apollo samples are continuing to be analysed by geologists to provide important clues into the origin and evolution of the Moon. Planetary scientists at The Open University in the UK are at the forefront of much of the current work, and have been producing a microscope collection of over 550 rocks collected during the Apollo missions. You may also wish to look into the work of planetary scientist Erica Jarin who has specialised in the understanding of explosive volcanic deposits on the lunar surface which is why her work was based upon samples returned from Apollo 15 and 17.
As explained, after lunar rocks arrived on Earth, geochemists the world over analysed them for isotopes that decay over well-understood timescales and found that the moon samples were far older than most terrestrial rocks—between three billion and 4.5 billion years old. One of the first to receive these was the BRGM laboratory in France, the geoscience initiative affiliated with the French Geological Survery and one of the independent institutions selected across the world to take part in studying the components of various lunar samples. One of the world's authorities is Andrew Tindle a British geochemist who has conducted studies of the lunar mineralogy and petrology of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 Rocks.
All such sample studies are authenticated by the field of geology. So what are you going to suggest next, that NASA has managed to dupe or collectively co opted and coerced an entire branch of science for over half a century?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickoliver2059
"Hi ya troll"
So you immediately start on the offensive? How is asking someone for substantiation trolling? Why are you people so averse to being asked to evidence your claims? This is a comments section - if you can't handle replies, particularly being asked to back up your statements, then don't post.
"no I`m not going to start with Strontium"
Of course you aren't because as you and I both know, there's absolutely no basis for your claim.
"I am only going on what I`ve read over the years"
So you are simply repeating what chemtrail conspiracy theorists and their websites and videos told you? You saw it online, so it must be true.
"What the hell is it doing in chemtrails anyway? god only knows"
Logical fallacy anyone?
Has it at any point occurred to you that it isn't, and that your chemtrails don't actually exist?
"Seen as you`re so knowledgeable"
Read my reply again. At no point did I claim any knowledge whatsoever - i simply asked you how you have established that in your alleged chemtrails... "besides aluminum , there is barium , strontium and a heap of petroleum based nano particles" It turns out that you haven't.
"why don`t you fill me in on why the wildfires only happened on the West coast of America and the East coast of Australia"
You can't back up your claims when asked to do so, so in common with your conspiracy believing ilk, you deflect and return a question with a question based upon your own personal incredulity. There has been an increase in wildfires across the planet. Geographically, in regions that are naturally prone to them this has intensified due to climate change and global temperature increase. It will continue to do so. The situation is also exacerbated by urban encroachment.
"I`ll tell you something else I`ve seen"
I'm sure you will - without bothering to understand that either. Go ahead, the suspense is killing me...
"straight after those fires happened in Australia , there was a release of a couple of photos of Lear jets with bloody bulging attachments ( Lazer ? ) screwed onto the noses of said jets , 24 altogether , parked up at two Air Force Bases , one base near Canberra , the other I think was in the State of Victoria ! Surely they didn`t use these to start the wildfires which devastated NSW, we`ll never know"
Why is it that anything you can't comprehend has to be of sinister intent? You seem to be completely oblivious to the chaos that nature is capable of wreaking.
In fact we do know. What you likely saw were meteorological research aircraft configured for measurements of atmospheric properties, air motion, turbulence and fluxes, air-sea interactions, atmospheric chemistry and aerosols and cloud physics instrumentation. Specifically, they will be fitted with temperature sensors a platinum wire reverse-flow temperature sensor, an E.G.G. dew point sensor, a hot-wire liquid water content (LWC) meter and a cloud water collector together with an range of scientific instrumentation, radars and recording systems for both in-situ and remote sensing measurements of the atmosphere, the earth and its environment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LaymanGamin
"known science is guessing and "theories" bro."
No it isn't. that's precisely why it is "known". When you log on to you computer and post your comment - that's known science, when you put detergent down the toilet, that's known science. When you stir your coffee, that's known science. Similarly, when combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel results in superheated encountering frigid air at a lower vapour pressure and high relative humidity, the ice crystals that condense are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour) resulting in a persistent contrail. If the air is supersaturated, then the trail will expand and grow in mass drawing on available atmospheric moisture, the resultant clouds becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus - again, that's "known science". That scientifically illiterate imbeciles then term these as chemtrails is not.
To clarify, "known science" is not guesswork, it is falsifiable, empirical, data driven, reproducible and thereby understood.
Yeah, "theory" - heard all of this all before.
There are two senses of "theory" which are problematic. These are the senses which are defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” and “an unproven assumption; conjecture.” The second of these is occasionally misapplied in cases where the former is meant, as when a particular scientific theory is derided as "just a theory" implying that it is no more than speculation or conjecture. One may certainly disagree with scientists regarding their theories, but it is an inaccurate interpretation of language to regard their use of the word as implying a tentative hypothesis; the scientific use of theory is quite different than the speculative use of the word as you apply it.
Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts. For example, atmospheric physics theory that goes back to the late 1800's and early 1900s established that small amounts contributions of carbon dioxide can warm the atmosphere.
I also notice that some people tend to confuse or conflate "hypothesis" and "theory." A hypothesis is an idea that is offered or assumed with the intent of being tested. A theory is intended to explain processes already supported or substantiated by data and experimentation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@radornkeldam
“Baffling... I can never understand the attitude of people like you. It's really tragic. Even if I get angry at how the likes of yourself mislead others”
To clarify – you speak of misleading but posted and are defending two Dane Wigington videos??!!
“in the end, everyone chooses what to believe”
Know science and objectivity is not about “choosing to believe”
“and you've clearly made your pick...”
To whom to afford credence? Entire branches of meteorological and aerospace engineering - supported by applied mathematics and known axiomatic incontrovertible physical laws? - Or a fraudulent online charlatan preying upon scientific illiterates populating a video entertainment platform peddling a baseless online hoax that had managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? Tough choice that. As you say, your choice. You are the target audience.
“I would say "enjoy it while it lasts", but that would be too cynical. So, I'll just say bye.”
Before you go – your second video…aerodynamic contrails, dishonestly appropriated satellite imagery,/remote sensing data of contrails, ballast barrels from test aircraft, oil dispersal firefighting systems, bulk fuel cargo and auxillary fuel tanks aside – are you actually willing to maintain that the images @2:07 – 3:05 are depicting spray nozzles??? As if the pictures of the pylon drain tubes weren’t hilarious enough, the exhaust plugs featured off the CFM56-7BE "Evolution" and CFM56-7BE engines are utterly hilarious.
Why do you do this to yourself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Nothing this guy says makes any sense. With this guy's beliefs, all airports should be surrounded by them cloud trails when planes break through them invisible clouds. But that's not true."
What "beliefs"? Why should they? What on earth are you talking about?
"Idk what they put up there, but something don't seem right."
Why?
"And who knows, maybe they created some sort of chemical that will flout when above a certain elevation."
What?
"And they have been working on weather manipulation for decades."
Manipulating the weather is impossible. You can however attempt to modify it on the micro scale - cloud seeding being one such example.
"but from what I understand. Bill Gates wants to block out the sun."
Bill Gates provided funding and leant vocal support to research into the hypothetical strategy of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic emissions to arrest global temperature increase.
"The governments works on so much shit, the average person can't even comprehend."
The average person thinks that they can because an online conspiracy theory video told them so.
"Faucci is being investigated and tried for his connections and funding of the very lab that the COVID virus is believed to have come from. Where they study gain of function."
Incorrect. The funding was not remotely linked to gain of function whilst SARS-CoV-2 is not 'believed' to have come from a lab at all, rather natural zoonotic origin.
"Amazing how he also became the face of the vaccines for it. I wonder how many politicians made investments into the vaccines, and why they now want to keep their documents closed from public knowledge for 75 years."
Politicians have vested interests in many areas of industry and tech.
"Fact of the matter is, globalists all over the world are working together, have installed themselves into high power positions in every country that matters, and are working in co'op to force their agenda on the whole world. The NWO is no longer a conspiracy, when you see it playing out, and them saying the words to match."
How's that coming along right now?
1
-
@brianlewis420
"typical tactic of a leftist. Break it up and focus attention on parts of something, well shadowing the bigger picture."
You mean addressing every point in your post? Typical conspiracy believer, joining the dots without the big picture. Reading between the lines...while forgetting to read the lines.
"Leftist"? What? at no point have I mentioned any political affiliation. Why does everything have to be so black and white to you people, why so binary? so polarised and divided. What happened to discourse, the dialectic?
"Instead of picking it apart and focusing all your energy on asking who, what, where, when and why. You should try focusing some of that energy on putting things together."
When everything that you parrot is demonstrably incorrect? Righto - what could possibly go wrong.
"By the way you answered this, with attempts to discredit all of what I said, with a whole bunch of why's and nothing of real substance. Except for your one attempt to discredit foucci's gain of function funding claim. Which your completely wrong on. Because it came right from his own mouth, what kind of studies he was funding. And it is the lab in wohon China, the city that the virus also started in, that he was funding. But the fact all your doing is saying what mainstream media says."
Firstly, it's 'Wuhan' and there is compelling evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 made the zoonotic leap elsewhere but was bought in via the huge fuck off wet market there that you appear to be conveniently overlooking which was the focus of the superspreading event.
Regarding Fauci, it was the popular press that spread these misconceptions you clown. That, and the r/w media that you evidently devour. It appears that as I suspected, your sources originate with the r/w US media and the allegations concerning Fauci's involvement stem from Republican Senator Rand Paul. It is beyond reasonable doubt that China is conducting experiments into 'gain of function'. Dr Fauci, as well as being an adviser to President Biden, is the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH). This body did indeed allocate grant money to Eco-Health Alliance, an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Half a million dollars as I recall. However the research in question has been demonstrated not fall under 'Gain of Function'. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary. I guarantee where it will come from.
"Tells me, your prolly paid to combat internet narratives the globalists don't want people thinking. How much do they pay hourly? Is it good money, or are you still living in mommy's basement?"
Original then.
Yes, you seem very fond of unfounded assumptions. I couldn't give two shits what you think - but if you elect to post such garbage over a comments section then don't get all indignant if and when someone challenges you.
Grow up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly, climate change and rising global temperatures is independently verifiable and the erratic weather that you are referring to is a cause of it. These extremes are only set to get worse.
Secondly, contrails are frequently a precursor of an advancing front. They are a consequence of the changing weather, not the cause of it.
Finally, contrails do not as you say 'evaporate' - they sublimate. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading, or it may not necessarily form at all. It's duration and length is chiefly a consequence of the interrelationship between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure.
The contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lootskywater4328
"chemtrails are left from bioengineering shmuck
"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Bioengineering? You sure about that? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You can't even parrot your false equivalence successfully.
I'll ask you again, what does cloud seeding have to do with the contrails discussed in this video? - or if you like, your 'chemtrail' hoax?
"they weren't discussing contrails they were discussing chemtrails."
....And your logical fallacy is?
"Condensation trails dissapate where as chemical trails do not."
Of course contrails dissipate - as every cloud must do. Whether they are short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or form in the first place is a function of the interrelationship between temperature, humidity and vapour pressure. Incidentally, I think what you meant to say was 'dissipate.'
Could you identify the precise chemical that when released as a cloud does not dissipate and is able to expand and increase in mass just like, well no shit...condensed atmospheric water vapor? Could you also name the aircraft with the requisite MTOW to lift and carry this payload of materials? Any idea how much one of these persistent trails you're looking at weighs? Of course you haven't.
"You can't even follow the conversation"
This "conversation" - what do you think they are demonstrating that your supposed chemtrails actually are in reality? Take your time with that one. I'll give you a clue, they have nothing to do with "bioengineering" or "cloud seeding".
"so I wouldn't expect you to know the difference"
Finally!!! You can be the first since no chemtrail believer has managed to actually answer the question. Could you detail your precise methodology to allow differentiation between your alleged "chemtrails" and those persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years? Go ahead.
"Do some homework"
Errr, right. Appreciating that "homework" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube chemtrail videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites, do feel free to share, how did you do yours?
"before you decide to turn your assignment's in"
And what's this week's topic? "Bioengineering"? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Quick tip. If you really feel the need to claim academic and intellectual superiority, two suggestions. Perhaps actually "do your homework'' yourself before making claims about subjects you clearly haven't the first clue about. It also helps if you can master the rudiments of basic written English - starting with punctuation and the correct use of apostrophisation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marvinmehr
Seriously, you don't have any questions at all - and you aren't remotely interested in the answers. All that you have done is badly parroted the same old, predictable gullibly consumed and regurgitated conspiracy theory that has been addressed and debunked over and over and over again about a subject that you clearly know nothing about whatsoever.
"When the ship left the moon who was video taping following the craft and zooming in and out?"
Ed Fendell at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston using the lunar rover GCTA. This was attempted with Apollo 15, but the tilt mechanism jammed. The departure of Apollo 16 was partially covered - but the rover was parked too close to the LM. The ascent of Apollo 17's Challenger upper stage was captured perfectly thought - which is what you are referring to. It was necessary to compensate for the lag in communications in order to keep it in frame.
"Also why no moon dust flying around from the propulsion system?"
Because the ascent stage was launched from the descent stage.
"Why are shadows wrong?"
They aren't. That is simply the claim of online grifters and con artists. You can observe precisely the same supposed irregularities here on Earth. If you want to be more specific I would be happy to address it for you.
"Why the flag blowing in the wind, I thought a vacuum wouldn't have wind?"
It isn't though. It moves when disturbed or when the pole was rotated by the astronauts and continues due to the conservation of momentum in a vacuum. It also moves as a consequence of the PLSS venting or in the case of Apollo 14 footage, the depressurisation of the LM.
"Van Allen belt, how is it possible for a human to go through that?"
Firstly they are 'belts' in the plural, since there are two, plus a third which is transitory. Secondly, be honest with yourself, the only reason that you've even heard of them is through the crap online conspiracy theory that tells you what to think. Thirdly, assuming you have the remotest shred of integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from asking such a question in the future in the complete absence of substantive knowledge.
"Camera guy waiting on moon to record astronauts walking on moon for 1st time?"
Seriously? Ask yourself if you truly believe that NASA staged a hoax of such mind boggling intricacy and complexity and upon such a vast scale, but they overlooked such a glaring and obvious error? That in over half a century entire branches of science, specialist fields and disciplines such as aerospace engineering, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalists, private sector enterprise, opposing independent nations, and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet have failed to notice this? Meanwhile some conspiracy video on You Tube and a cretinous community of gullible believers on their nonsense have? Or could it be that they actually understand the process allowing the descent stage MESA bay to deploy and activate the Westinghouse camera that captured Armstrong's descent down the ladder and first steps and you do not? Honestly, how stupid does it get?
"I'm sure I have more questions, but you can start answering those."
I'm sure you do. Perhaps try to make some observations of your own instead of relying on dumb conspiracy theory to tell you what to think. Moreover, everything that you typed has been answered innumerable times for decades.
1
-
1
-
@marvinmehr
So you could have established all the answers to your "questions" yourself, in addition to gaining even the most fragmentary knowledge about a subject that you instead arrogantly dismiss as fake without obtaining even that. All of you so called questions have been asked over and over and over again and addressed innumerable times. Again, if you bothered to learn anything about the history, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme then you too wouldn't need to ask them.
"When the ship left the moon who was video taping following the craft and zooming in and out? Also why no moon dust flying around from the propulsion system?"
No one was 'video taping it'. The departure of Apollo 17 was captured on the GCTA mounted on the parked lunar rover and controlled on the ground by Ed Fendell in Houston. They had tried with Apollo 15 but the upward tilt mechanism failed. For Apollo 16, the rover was parked too close to capture the full ascent. However, Apollo 17 and the launch of the upper stage of Challenger was caught perfectly - although it was necessary to compensate for the delay in signal in order to time it right.
"Also why no moon dust flying around from the propulsion system?"
It was launched from the descent stage which reduced this. And yes there was dust disturbed as you can see from the footage obtained by the data camera in the LM window. Apollo 11's flag was placed too close to the landing module and was knocked over by the exhaust when Eagle left the moon.
"Why are shadows wrong?"
They aren't. They are entirely consistent with the lighting and terrain. Why are you allowing dumb online conspiracy theorists to tell you what to think?
"Why the flag blowing in the wind, I thought a vacuum wouldn't have wind?"
Again, why are you simply parroting online conspiracy theory. The flags move when disturbed by the astronauts and continue in motion due to the conservation of momentum in a vacuum. They are also affected by the PLSS venting and in the case of some footage from Apollo 14, the depressurisation of the LM.
"Van Allen belt"
They are belts, since there are two, with a third that is transitory. You can't even get that right. And let's face it, the only reason that you have heard of them in the first place is because a daft conspiracy video or social media meme told you about them.
"how is it possible for a human to go through that?"
At high velocity, in a short space of time and through the sparsest regions.
Allow me to demonstrate what I mean when I implore you to actually learn about a topic. If you have a shred of integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid asking such an ignorant question on a public comments section with no actual prior understanding of the subject. But no, "your opinion" (or rather that of ridiculous online conspiracy theorists), matters more to you.
"Camera guy waiting on moon to record astronauts walking on moon for 1st time?"
Seriously, this is about as dumb as it gets. So you believe that NASA was capable of faking something of such staggering complexity, intricacy and scale but overlooked such an obvious error? Meanwhile in over half a century, entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, independent nations, 10,000 private sector space companies and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet failed to notice this, yet some random conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube did?
Use a search engine and type in lunar module descent stage, MESA bay, Westinghouse camera, Neil Armstrong's first steps.
"I'm sure I have more questions"
I'm sure you do. Perhaps you can actually listen to the answers this time?
"but you can start answering those."
I already did, on another thread. So why have you cut and pasted them again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ogretowman8695
"Okay I'll educate you"
If it's all the same to you I'd rather continue to refer to independently verifiable science than relying upon a salivating conspiracy addled lunatic rabidly pounding their keyboard over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
"In nature aluminum is bound to bauxite"
Aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and as you say, bauxite rock (and is refined from the latter via electolysis). Aluminium combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
"Aluminum has been directly related to Alzheimer's ."
Said no credible study or specialist ever.
https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/risk-factors-and-prevention/metals-and-dementia
Who to afford credence? The Alzheimer's Society informed by neuro-specialists, consultants, practitioners and decades of evidence based medical research, or 'Ogre Towman' - an impressionable, credulous conspiracy believer parroting internet woo that subscribes to an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory. Tough one that - let me think about it
"Now about nano particulate , it's so small that it will go through the skin , cell walls and even the blood brain barrier . Our bodies don't even recognize it as a foreign body . If you noticed on a lot of new vitamins it will have nano this or nano that and people think it must be good . Wrong , it goes where it wants to and our body cannot use it ."
As I said, nanoscale colloidal alumina particles are all around you. Why wouldn't they be? If you light a candle you are ingesting harmful nanoparticles. "Nano" seems to be the new buzzword for dim witted conspiracy theorists such as yourself.
"Do some research before the internet gets closed down and you will see ."
That priceless, excruciatingly embarrassing moment when a chemtrail believer mentions 'research'. You mean crap You Tube videos made by online fraudsters, cherry picked confirmation bias, quote mining and self-referencing pseudoscientific chemtrail websites? - Think I'll pass on that.
"Oh I forgot to tell you where it's coming from , well it's from geoegineering to help stop global warming by reflecting the Sun's heat . Geoegineering = chemtrails ."
Association fallacy anyone?
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which David Keith is the main proponent of - would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. Aluminium??? Keith posited that Al2O3 was a possibility but currently here is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, this year, an experiment is scheduled involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing mere kilograms of water and possibly calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to measure dispersion and perturbation. Here's your SAI as it currently stands.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. As I explained, the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
"Nothing wrong with my caps lock ."
Sure about that...looks like you broke it.
"The reason why aluminun is all around us is from decades of spraying"
Nothing to do with being the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element in the earth's crust then?
Repeated tests over the past 40 years have shown the same or even higher levels of aluminium, consistent with that which is found in aeolian dust of crustal origin. Here's one such paper: 'A preliminary Study of the Composition of Precipitation in SE Ontario', Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol 4, 1967. Notice, the figures for aluminium in rain above are 0.52 to 1.12 ppm, which is 520 to 1120 ppb, mcg/L or ug/L - that's three times higher than the findings in the risible 'What in The World Are They Spraying". Take a look at the conclusions - and an understanding of the methodology would also be insightful to you.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/e67-077#.WjlxplSFiRs
And here's one from 1973 demonstrating similar results...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698176902560
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@real-eyes-realise-real-lie8888
This again? Seriously? How many times? Here, let me help you.
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Human beings cannot go beyond low Earth orbit. It wasn't possible in 1969 and isn't possible today."
Said no branch of science or specialist field of expertise ever.
"There are many many different variables and problems both known and I'm sure unknown to consider as to why it's impossible. "
Present just one. Your singular most irrefutable reason supported by independent credible academic sources. Go ahead.
"The real feat and accomplishment was in convincingly faking it all . They had the best minds in science and engineering and technology and special effects and photography and planning and did the best job covering every base as humanly possible and fooled most of the world."
And despite the fact that the Apollo Programme was fully transparent, that every document, schematic and mission plan including all the data has been available worldwide and forensically scrutinised - every switch setting , every circuit breaker - every rive, nut and bolt for over half a century...and no one noticed. Except of course, a cretinous community of scientifically illiterate, gullible conspiracy believers on the comments section of You Tube.
"Many today still believe it. And those people really take it as an offense to science and their intelligence so I understand. I personally feel that they did a great job faking it. Plenty of intelligent people believe and claim that the Moon landings are real."
Indeed. That'll be entire branches of science, specialist fields and disciplines the world over such as aerospace engineering, rocketry, computing and petrology, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalists. Russia (the Soviet Union infiltrated the programme), over 10, 000 private sector investors and organisations and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet. Yet you, a random nobody on the comments section of You Tube know better? Also, known science and technology are not a question of 'belief'. That would be the junk online conspiracy theory that has told you what to think.
"NASA is a government intelligence agency and it always has been."
No it isn't. It is an independent civilian agency of the US government. To reiterate, Apollo was not secretive or classified. People involved at every level were free to come and go and there were no NDAs. Stakeholders, contractors and partnerships were privy to every aspect of the operation and it was fully infiltrated by the Soviet Union.
"The fact that they can put technology on the Moon and Mars is impressive however polluting these planets with this stuff is not... as well as how so much time money and effort has been spent on outer space while we have problems on Earth and in the Ocean that are direct threats to all Earthlings. It also seems immoral and criminal especially when looking at the poor and homeless populations which continue to expand."
That is a very pertinent and difficult issue. Certainly the scramble for resources on the moon which will happen later this century is going to call for very prudent international governance. Regarding space travel, it is our destiny, exploration is hardwired into humankind. If we are to endure, then we need to find ways to get off this rock because nature can consign us to a fossil record overnight.
"The fact that astronauts and engineers are working towards and "hoping that in our lifetimes we figure how to get human beings beyond low Earth orbit and back safely" today says so much..."
Could you provide a full source for that quotation?
"The Moon messed me up..." - Buzz Aldrin"
It certainly did. He found it very difficult to adapt to a normal life afterwards.
"I've convinced myself that I've been to the Moon." - Neil Armstrong"
This again? More quote mining. Why do you lack the will to place this into its intended context instead of relying upon what online conspiracy theorists drip feed you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timw7300
Do you people actually watch this rubbish or is it simply the confirmation bias of the strapline that draws you in?
So you present a link to possibly the most obligatory chemtrail conspiracy video, posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, produced by the main perpetrator of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, featuring fellow advocates of the chemtrails conspiracy theory about the chemtrails conspiracy theory as evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory???
I find it astonishing that this is still being batted about the vacuous echochamber so many years later. This is Dane Wigington's farcical Shasta hearing. None of the contributors are actually "Pilots, Doctors, or Scientists" - rather selected cronies assembled for this "hearing" organised by Wigington himself and associated with his lucrative fraud . Here's a challenge - list the credentials, individual fields of expertise, publications in relation to chemtrails and in the case of the clown in the fancy dress outfit that thinks a contrail cannot persist - individual flying hours/airlines flown for. When you fail to do so, come back and I'll tell you who they really are. Here's a start. In the case of the first "testimony" - Iraja Sividas (who ludicrously thinks that a contrail should be analogous to your breath on a cold winters day), I can tell you that (at the time of this footage) was a local mathematics teacher from Redding CA. Moreover, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" requires no credentials whatsoever to join.
You said the following remember?
"So why do so many Govt., agencies admit to spraying chemicals if it doesn't happen?"
What government agencies are you referring to and could you link me to these supposed "admissions" to chemtrails in the form of original quotations at source?
Confirmation bias at the ready...3...2...1 and cue John Brennan.
Off you go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romeolarenzo3929
"It cost india a mere 75 million dollars to recently land on the moon. Are you seriously suggesting we can’t afford it"
No it cost India 75 million to place an unmanned lander on the moon, which is not what we are discussing here. Furthermore, the entire programme cost in the region of of $2.6 billion. And no, that was simply a strawman fallacy on your part - I did not say anything of the sort. To reiterate, Apollo was cancelled in 1972 due to the retraction of funding because Congress wasn't willing to pay for it anymore. The allocation of budget was diverted to low Earth orbit, the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS, whilst deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned probes and landers that are substantially cheaper and carry far less risk. Crewed missions to the moon are far, far more expensive in part because they require a heavy lift capability. Although the Constellation Programme produced Orion, Project Artemis was only approved in 2018 at a fraction of the funding of Apollo.
"Apparently we accidentally destroyed the tech , but how do you accidentally destroy 25 billion worth of research and development."
Actually most of the technology still survives. This stems from one astronaut, Don Pettit, who speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. Again, the premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the cessation of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, and as I mentioned, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a piecemeal budget compared to Apollo.
"I’m saying this all respectfully"
I understand and you have my appreciation for that.
"it just doesn’t add up at all."
It really does if you learn about the science, technology and history of spaceflight/Apollo as opposed to listening to junk online conspiracy theory.
"I’m sure there’s a reason to why we are known as the empire of lies."
All governments conspire and have a history of deception. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that suggestions of a faked moon landing or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A syllogistic logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No one gets "uptight", simply weary of debunking the same junk conspiracy claims over and over and over again. And Sibrel? Right, because nothing says honest and accurate like a convicted felon, former taxi driving cult member, stalker and proven liar and fraud with no specialist expertise on the subject whatsoever.
It doesn't show anything of the sort. What is does prove is that Bart Sibrel deceives gullible dullards such as yourself. If you watched the full length original footage that it came from that you are clearly completely oblivious to, you'd discover several things: In the longer footage, you can see that, after a while, the camera backs away from its position where it had been up close to the window so that you can see the square corner of the window with the shape of the Earth clearly in the distance on the outside. You can tell that the Earth is on the outside because the perspective of the view changes between the window and the Earth as the camera moves. This proves several key things about the narrated story: Sibrel’s account specifically states that the camera was “at the back of the ship” and not up close to the window. The narrator makes a distinct point of this because it is important to the rest of Sibrel’s story. The narrator even insinuates that the astronauts were lying about the camera being up close to the window. The camera backing away from the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was looking through the “round window.” The square corner of the window also proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story claims that the shape of the Earth was created by the “round window” (or, in some later stories, hilariously, that there was a “template” of the Earth on the window that caused the “round” shape of the Earth. The change in perspective between the earth, which is clearly outside of the window glass, and the square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. So Bart Sibrel cut out the part of the video in which the camera backs away from the window, shows the square corner of the window, and clearly shows that the shape of the Earth is on the outside of the glass. You can clearly see that he cut this part out because the longer length video is continuous through to where the camera backs away from the window where Sibrel’s version makes a sharp cut at that point and transitions to another view. The video then transitions to a time after the interior lights of the space ship are turned on. At this point, you can see a blue glow from a window. (The CM had 5 different windows.) Sibrel’s narration at this point tries to convince you that the blue glow is not glare from the interior lights but is actually the Earth as seen from “low Earth orbit.If what you were actually looking at through that window were really “the Earth as seen from low Earth orbit,” all the features that you do see in the window would be flying past the window at nearly 18,000 miles per hour and only a hundred miles away. The blue glow comes up when they turn on the interior lights — just as glare appears in a window any time you turn on your interior lights at home. (It’s blue because the Apollo window glass is multiple layers of thick quartz glass with protective coatings.)
Perhaps most hilariously, Bart Sibrel puts a header at the front of the video that he has inserted to the original which claims that the video which follows is some sort of “secret.” And he claims that NASA must have sent it to him by mistake. Aside from this obviously being complete horseshit, this claim is utterly hilarious because at the time of release the footage in full had been available to the public for decades. Seriously, you couldn't make this up - only he did and fools such as yourself fall for it because you are the target audience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrWuChung
"I don't give a rat's ass about your education"
In which case, don't pass comments like this:
"The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, yet refuse to investigate."
As I simply said, atmospheric science is my background - but I am irrelevant because the known science of contrails is axiomatic and thereby speaks for itself. The fact that you choose to disregard this accounts for both your incredulity and your puerile belief in chemtrails. However aside from understanding the physical processes of contrail formation, I also guarantee that I know infinitely more about the origins, the perpetrators, the history and the background to your absurd conspiracy theory than you do.
"Listen to Kristen Mehgan testimony on YouTube." She witnessed firsthand."
Seriously?? How many times. It's the same thing over and over and over and over again with you people. Kristen Meghan, formerly Staff Sgt. Edwards, owing to her appalling Military record (and amongst other things such as being caught fellating her boyfriend on duty) tried to stir up some shit at Robins AFB where she served. Aside from her own 'blowing', her 'whistle blowing' (entirely a diversionary tactic) concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly:
"My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonise me in case I spoke out." Kristen Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate issue I believe she was introduced to the conspiracy theory by her brother over FB. Being an attention whore, and a former USAF employee she recognised an opportunity and was relentlessly paraded around over a decade ago by the perpetrators of this hoax as an appeal to false authority obviously chasing the lucrative dream of career conspiracy theory. She claimed to have tests but never produced them. Furthermore, the carcinogens she reported on (Chromium Oxide and Strontium 90) have a perfectly innocent reason for being on the base. They're used in the repair of airframes.
Kristen Meghan now lives in staid obscurity raising a family in leafy suburban Chicago – however she stills feels the need to posture on social media in a desperate attempt to appear relevant and justify her existence. And here is your appeal to authority...
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
She bills herself as an 'expert on chemtrails, weather control, and synthetic biology' - in reality she is an opportunistic failed career conspiracy theorist - an attempt to salvage an ignominious military career.
1
-
@MrWuChung
"In addition, the government has admitted to engaging in geo-engineering on multiple ocassions."
What 'government'??? No it hasn't. Geoengineering has very little to do with any government bar the occasional hearing about future policy, potential environmental impact and the ramifications of these proposals for international relations. And what precisely do you mean by 'geoengineering'? GGR (also known as negative emissions technology) is actively pursued through such strategies as aforestation, biochar and carbon sequestering, Solar Radiation Management on the other hand is entirely in the form or hypothetical research proposal with the exception of ground based albedo modification. Geoengineering in any of its forms has never been secretive or hidden. How precisely do you admit to something that isn't denied? What does any of this have to do with the persistent contrails that you are witnessing and have been observed measured and studied for almost a century?
"Even China announced that it would cause rain before the 2008 Olympic marathon to clean the smog, and it did."
That's cloud seeding you imbecile, which has nothing to do with geoengineering or the contrails that you are seeing. Cloud seeding (also termed weather modification) does not produce a lasting trail, does not create clouds and actually, in spite of organisations online freely advertising their contracts and services and some high profile state sponsored schemes such as China as you mentioned and the UAE, is not actually a widespread practice, is highly erratic in its results and its very efficacy questionable. It works by introducing additional nucleation into rain bearing stratiform/cumulus cloud banks and hence is conducted at a fraction of the trails that you are seeing in the tropopause and lower stratosphere (typically ,2,000 - 6,5000 ft). Light aircraft are retrofitted with silver iodide flare racks. Liquid substances have on occasions been sprayed from larger aircraft - saline solutions and even liquid propane, but this does not result in a trail. The Chinese have also used rockets and artillery
"Remember what I said about chosen ignorance.
"
Indeed and so should you - it's a great shame that you people lack the critical awareness to enable humility, self-appraisal and reflection and introspection. You've just completely humiliated yourself and demonstrated that you haven't the first clue what you are talking about.
Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering or even cloud seeding were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
You finally notice contrails because the internet told you they are chemtrails, you don't understand them and as opposed to seeking your explanation in science you look to a ludicrous online internet conspiracy theory. You then have the audacity to arrogantly tell people more informed than yourself to "look up". It's as comical as it is tragic really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigfist255
No it is not 'bull'. The deployment of the Apollo retroreflectors enabled far more precise measurements to be undertaken. Also, if you are claiming that they were placed there by unmanned landers, you then need to explain the ALSEP experimental packages that by design were conceived to exploit the benefits of manned deployment and thus could only be assembled, cabled and configured an astronaut. Go ahead explain the presence of the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME.
"the Greek mathemation measured the distance in 270bc"
Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C) devised a novel method of finding the moon's distance, by careful observation of a lunar eclipse. However these and subsequent measurements were approximate and have nothing to do with the increased accuracy yielded by the Apollo retroreflectors. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
What's a 'Mathamation'? Oh, you mean mathematician you utter dimwit.
"but you keep believing the propaganda."
Because of course the online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly regurgitate is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Carry on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sharapova593
"type this on youtube you dummy 'cia Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' it takes 2 minutes to find information about it"
No, it takes two minutes to find a click-bait crap conspiracy video featuring ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does Stratospheric Aerosol Injection have to do with persistent contrails which have been observed, recorded, documented and studied since the early advent of aviation? And your point about "dummy" was precisely what?
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. Indeed, later this year an experiment is scheduled involving a steerable balloon launched 20km above the Arizona desert and mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
SAI it would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond hypothetical research proposal, would not form a trail or involve large commercial aircraft cruising in the troposphere and lower stratosphere, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"Also David Keith talks about geoengineering there you go"
Indeed he does...
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
...there you go.
1
-
@sharapova593
Firstly, why are you people utterly unable to express and condense your thoughts into one cogent reply instead of multiple posts?
Secondly, why are conspiracy believers oblivious and utterly in denial of constructive replies? I asked you to highlight where John Brennan advocates, endorses or confirms that SAI is in progress. I demonstrated that David Keith denounces the chemtrails conspiracy theory and detailed the hypothetical science of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, all of which you have completely disregarded.
Thirdly, I asked you what hypothetical research proposals into SAI has to do with persistent contrails?
To address your latest replies, which you are utterly incapable of doing yourself...clearly you are new to this and are easily satisfied by internet conspiracy theory, unable to see beyond cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias and self-referenced pseudoscientific websites...and you have the audacity to say this...
"You living in denial there is nothing i can do about it"
Classic conspiracy believer afflicted by illusory superiority.
"What about Kirsten Meghan is she a click bait crap conspiracy?"
As I said - you're new to this. Kristen Meghan??? Are you serious? The obligatory go to wannabe career conspiracy theorist? Do you really think you are the first occupant of your online echo-chamber to ask this? Doesn't it get tired even for you people? Kristen Meghan...again, ten years on???
There's no pea in her whistle in the the first place - far less blowing it. Although Staff Sergeant Edwards was caught fellating on her boyfriend in the industrial shop/workcentre at Robins AFB (which is pretty much at the route of everything.)
Appeal to authority fallacy aside, what is she actually saying? "Clouds used to be puffy and now they are feathery"??? Really?
Like I say, are you new to this? because it’s the same thing, over and over again. This is Kristen Meghan, formerly Staff Sgt. Edwards who on account of her appalling Military record tried to stir up some shit at Robins AFB where she served. Her 'whistle blowing' concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly:
"My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonize me in case I spoke out." Kristen Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate issue I believe she was introduced to the conspiracy theory by her brother over FB. Being an attention whore, and a former USAF employee she was paraded around by the perpetrators of this hoax as an appeal to false authority obviously chasing the lucrative dream of career conspiracy theory. She claimed to have tests but never produced them. Furthermore, the carcineogens she reported on (Chromium Oxide and Strontium 90) have a perfectly innocent reason for being on the base. They're used in the repair of airframes.
Kristen Meghan now lives in staid obscurity raising a family in leafy suburban Chicago – however she stills postures online in a desperate attempt to appear relevant and justify her existence.
So this is what you would regard as legitimate scientific authority??? Laughable.
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
She's billed as a supposed 'expert on chemtrails, weather control, and synthetic biology'. That is a quote right from the start of one of her main speaking appearances. So, why didn't she divulge where she got her advanced degrees in said subjects from? Where is her peer-reviewed research published at? From the get go, this is an utter embarrassment. "Clouds used to be puffy, but now they are feathery?" What?! Where is the data?
Utter joke.
"What about this man, is he mentally ill?"
Very possibly. Again, are you serious? Do you think that this has neve been flogged to death by you people? You appear to regard random You Tube conspiracy theory videos as legitimate sources of valid data. On May 12th, 2014, at a German Peace Demonstration in Dresden, a person who claimed to be a former aerospace engineer (later identified as "Jens") gave a brief talk, claiming to have have installed "chemtrail" spray equipment on planes. But his story fell apart after he presented his "evidence". The plane he claims to have worked on in 2008 was an 2003 icing test plane, retired in 2005. Ridiculous.
"Stop shilling please"
https://hatepseudoscience.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/155563c33065bcce2169f5e3aca73c99.jpg
"maybe you should watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEUg8uLoZNY"
Micheal J Murphy???? So you present a link to possibly the most obligatory chemtrail conspiracy video, posted by a believer in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, produced by the main perpetrator of the chemtrail conspiracy theory, featuring fellow advocates of the chemtrails conspiracy theory about the chemtrails conspiracy theory as evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory??? Murphy?? - again are you serious. You realise that there is a sequel to this bollocks, intended to be followed by the final instalment in the trilogy - "An Unconventional Shade of Grey"? Unfortunately after making an unfulfillable pledge to hire a light aircraft and sample these supposed trails at source (something that none of you fools have managed to do in the two decades of this ludicrous conspiracy theory) Murphy embezzled the crowd funding proceeds on crystal meth and was last heard of living out of a parking lot in So Cal.
"All these people are crazy !"
No - just cleverer and more cynical than you, and cashing in on gross stupidity, utter scientific illiteracy, innate gullibility and impaired critical awareness. If you hadn't noticed, conspiracy theory in the post-truth era is big bucks, a highly lucrative industry. These are simply opportunistic wannabes riding on the coattails of millionaires such as Icke and Jones. To those at the to of the tree you are simply the low hanging fruit, ripe for the picking..harvesting stupidity. You don'd discover this, this junk comes looking for you. You are the target audience and in your bid to feel clever, empowered, significant and relevant, you don't realise it.
"Tell me this is normal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRNTujoV3xg"
In an ice saturated environment, contrails are not only unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase, but will persevere and spread. To those informed about meteorological science, yes, this is completely normal.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l76qzSEzREM/Uv1he_7qpXI/AAAAAAAAAPY/bp3hs-kCOd4/s1600/77.jpg
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2e2bef9f7bf79dfae36fc0669651578f.jpg
https://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Chemtrails-as-contrails-by-the-WMO-and-RAF-1024x913.jpg
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffkugel4912
"So...who was waiting for them to arrive to make the film?"
No one. Are you actually attempting to suggest that NASA/the US government staged a global hoax of this complexity and scale, but managed to overlook this? Seriously? As you say, it was simply animation, created by TV networks in the interest of continuity given that for obvious reasons it was impossible to film the arrival of the LM on the moon. Why are we even having this conversation?
"Last time I checked you couldn't call earth from space on a wired telephone. So...the president couldn't have been talking to them."
So the last time you checked you weren't able to verify that it was possible to patch a telephone to a radio which has been done since the early twentieth century? Yes, that's right...radio transmission. Newsflash...bloke called Marconi, 1895. Landline + existing microwave network + extremely large f**k off antenna = conversation with astronauts on the moon. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"We may have been to the moon but what you saw on t.v. all those years ago was done on a soundstage. Sorry."
A "soundstage". And to think, no one noticed...nine times, six landings and one inexplicably hoaxed failure. And where was this supposed "soundstage"? Hollywood? And what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Nevada? The Utah or Arizona deserts? Devon Island Canada? Shepperton UK? You goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some "soundstage" to convincingly replicate uncut the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Not knowing about something doesn't make it not exist."
You chose the wrong person to make that statement to. I can assure you that I do. I am a qualified meteorologist and my field is remote sensing. And yourself?
"They created HAARP knowing this technology could be used for many applications, including manipulating weather patterns."
Absolute nonsense. HAARP consists of an observatory and an adjacent 28-acre field with 180 HF antennas, each 72 feet tall, with a maximum transmission power of 3600 kilowatts, about 75 times the power of a commercial radio station, but only a tiny fraction of the strength of the natural solar radiation striking the same part of the ionosphere at which HAARP is aimed. Although the observatory operated continuously, the HF antenna array is activated only rarely for specific experiments, which averaged about once a month.
HAARP has no potential to affect weather. The frequency of energy that HAARP transmits cannot be absorbed by the troposphere or the stratosphere, only by the ionosphere, many miles higher than the highest atmospheric weather systems which was the basis of its inception.
Communication and navigation signals are sent through the atmosphere for a broad range of civilian and military purposes. Guided missiles rely on digital transmissions which can be affected or jammed by a whole variety of natural and artificial causes. GPS and encrypted communications all need to be able to make it to their recipients in wartime, regardless of the atmospheric and electromagnetic conditions. The study of these effects is the primary reason that DARPA, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Navy contributed to HAARP's funding. In addition, by bouncing signals off the ionosphere at at altitude of 100km, HAARP has been able to create Extremely Low Frequency, or ELF, waves as low as 1 Hertz, which could potentially be used for worldwide communication including reaching submarines, though at an almost uselessly slow data rate.
Note that the maximum ELF signal amplitude produced by HAARP has been measured at less than one ten-millionth of the Earth's natural background field.
HAARP's maximum frequency is 10 MHz, and the dielectric heating effect of a microwave oven requires 2.5 GHz, or 250 times higher than HAARP. Dielectric heating also requires reversing the polarity of the field more than a million times a second, one thousand times HAARP's fastest frequency.
HAARP was decommissioned in 2014 and subsequently purchased by the University of Fairbanks. In February, studies of atmospheric effects on satellite-to-ground communications resumed, in addition to optical measurements of artificial airglow and over-the-horizon radar experiments took place. These were available for the public to follow in real time.
There's nothing remotely secret or even classified about HAARP. No security clearance is needed to visit and tour the site and they even host summer barbecues for visitors.
"I've seen the documents, some of the original creators of the technology talk about its potential for modifying weather... "
Citation necessary...direct quote please...particularly about the supposed potential to steer hurricanes.
"NEXRAD can generate radio waves at the same intensity and act like mini-HAARPs."
????????? A doppler radar network???? I'll remind you, my profession is remote sensing - that's my specialism, that's my field. Now explain to me supported by applied physics how a doppler radar can affect the weather.
"Look into it if you want, or dismiss it out of hand, your choice. I'd wager you will dismiss it without giving the idea consideration"
Give it consideration? It's my background. Watching conspiracy videos on YouTube is not "looking into something".
Actually, the NEXRAD HAARP/hoax is "old news". It dates to the late 1990's being attributable to a Roy Hoagland. It got debunked back then but has be resurrected in the main by Begich and youtuber Dutchsinse who surprise surprise, sells products and merchandise associated with it.
It's becoming abundantly clear why you have also been hoodwinked by the chemcult.
Now put your conspiracy theory aside for a few hours and objectively read up on the real science behind this - "Look into it if you want, or dismiss it, your choice". I'd wager you will dismiss it without giving the legitimate science consideration
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You've done a great job just cutting and pasting the official narrative from rationalwiki.org. I don't consider that the authoritative source on what HAARP can or cannot do. "
Firstly it was largely tongue in cheek and secondly what would you like to disagree with about the contents? Thirdly, what do you consider an authoritative source on what HAARP can or cannot do? Could I see it? And fourthly, what would you like to challenge about my own response?
"Being a meteorologist doesn't mean you are an expert on the effects of EMF on the atmosphere, or on all forms of man made weather modification."
And parroting online conspiracy theory does?
...I can however tell you that a doppler radar cannot steer a storm.
"I would put more faith in people who actually worked on the HAARP project."
They have open days, Why don't you visit? You can also Q/A via email and skype.
"There is much we don't know about natural weather systems, but evidence suggests they are effected by electro magnetism more than we once understood."
What does this have to do with HAARP and NEXRAD and your original comments that "they" can steer and guide storms by harnessing EMF?
"I don't blame you for your mainstream thinking and training,"
What is your own occupation?
The science that I have learnt and apply is demonstrable, testable independently verifiable and you benefit from it on a daily basis. What specifically would you like to challenge about the content of my post? Moreover, the "mainstream thinking and training" that you scorn takes years of dedication and commitment as opposed to a evening on YouTube. It also taught me the scientific method, through which we constantly appraise our knowledge base. What have you done to challenge your preconceptions?
Please explain how HAARP a low frequency transmitter array and NEXRAD a network of S - Band Doppler weather radars can influence and steer storms. Your answer will be supported by established physics and academic empirical evidence.
"I don't even blame you for mindlessly copying and pasting from rationalwiki articles"
I didn't copy anything from rationalwiki I posted a link. Is mindlessly and uncritically parroting the conspiracy theorists that this lampoons preferable then? Again, what would you like to challenge about the content?
"but I think you should do more research before thinking such a copy and paste debunks anything."
What do you wish to challenge about my written response? How did you do your "research" beyond gullibly regurgitating a succession of You Tube conspiracy videos? Could you produce it then?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I'm not sure which is worse, the people who are truly ignorant, or those who just pretend to be. "
I'd say the latter. Those at the top of the tree that perpetrate this nonsense do so cynically and for their own agenda. The gullible and scientifically ignorant that are hoodwinked by it do so innocently and are simply low hanging fruit ripe for the picking.
"Why is it that none of these geniuses who try to convince everyone that all chemtrails are just contrails, cannot explain why "contrails" that last all day in the sky didn't exist 20 years ago and beyond???"
They did. Persistent contrails are nothing new, why do you believe otherwise? Granted, they weren't as prevalent but then in the last twenty years commercial air travel and associated routes flown have grown exponentially whilst the IATA expects passenger demand to double over the ensuing two decades.
This paper from 1972 studies the phenomena of persistent contrails and explains the mechanism behind their formation.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Do feel free to dispute or challenge any of the science contained within.
"The same jets with the same engines existed then, and anyone who paid enough attention would, in fact, see contrails form, and when they watched for five more minutes, they were GONE."
Incorrect. Their duration was a function of localised atmospheric conditions as it is today; being ambient temperature, pressure and humidity. Familiarity with what is known as the "contrail factor" would be beneficial to you.
(Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.)
"Yes, that IS a contrail. You can see them being formed, and then lose their form, all in five minutes."
Now explain why you believe this to be a universal occurance, citing physical laws and principles of atmospheric chemistry to support your contention. Again. please do feel free to refute the demonstrable science contained within this peer reviewed journal published paper of which there are hundreds more.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The ignorance and stupidity that exists today is frightening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVyje8kazEQ"
Stated without the slightest hint or suggestion of irony. You couldn't make this up. So you post a You Tube chemtrail conspiracy theory video, made by a perpetrator of this conspiracy theory about this conspiracy theory as proof of this conspiracy theory? Genius. Let's take a look at it shall we?
Unfortunately for you my field is the science of remote sensing. Your video contains an image of a meteorological research aircraft and at 0:41 the instruments depicted include a Rosemount total temperature sensor, a platinum wire reverse-flow temperature sensor, an E.G.G. dew point sensor, a Johnson-Williams (JW) hot-wire liquid water content (LWC) meter and a cloud water collector. The rest of your video contains a farrago of dishonestly assembled footage capturing regular contrails, fuel dumps, firefighting tankers and laughably, the obligatory pictures of water ballast barrels connected by pump mechanisms designed to shift the centre of gravity during test flights.
Watch here -
.https://youtu.be/IxMSoxzYhG8
Read here -
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/peek-inside-boeing-747-8/
So your posting of this video is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and a consequence of your own incredulity. All that you have succeeded in illustrating is that you clearly have no comprehension of aviation or meteorological science and in addition to your innate gullibility, that you are a very silly man with a search engine that doesn't know how to use it yet likes to brand others as "ignorant" over the internet.
Even more ridiculous at 5:46, is the doctoring of an image taken of the hugely publicised ALPA protest at Wall Street over benefits and pay deceptively altered to depict a supposed chemtrail protest by pilots. Here you go...
http://dailym.ai/2cPtZaU
Moreover, a friend of mine who flies for Continental and was among the marchers posted pictures in Instagram the same day of the event.
This raises the following two questions:
1/ Why do the perpetrators of this belief feel the need to deceive you?
2/ How have you allowed yourself to be duped by the laughable and risible contents of a YouTube conspiracy video?
A further question for you, and note, one that not a single online conspiracy theorist has managed to answer. What is your occupation? You attempt to refute the physical laws of the atmosphere...and your background and credentials are?
And your point about the frightening "ignorance and stupidity that exists today" was precisely what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RealidadeDaTerra
Your comment is shadow banned.
384,400 km to be more precise - and yes, there was a delay. Like I suggested, you really need to stop mindlessly consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory about subjects that you have no comprehension of. The communication signal speed is the same as the speed of light. The moon is 384,400 km away. The speed of light is 299,792 km/s. This means, even considering additional time delays through relays and equipment that would equate to a fraction over 3 seconds.
However, this was only in one direction. Since the recording of the conversation took place on Earth, and Nixon was also on Earth, as soon as the astronaut’s voice is heard, Nixon can and does answer immediately and we hear it immediately and without delay. The time delay is only apparent when Nixon finishes a sentence… we don’t hear a reply from the astronauts for about three seconds… about 1.5 seconds for Nixon’s voice to get to the moon, and another 1.5 second for the astronauts reply to return to the Earth.
There are also edited versions of the exchange on some documentaries that have removed this lag.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"Your science, your science."
It's not "my science" - it's nothing to do with me since it can be objectively verified and if you had the slightest understanding of it you wouldn't have posted such nonsense in the first place.
"Wake up"
Never ceases to amuse, that ones that still insist on parroting this dumb cliché are the ones that slept through science classes.
"you are just a child."
Said the naive believer in puerile online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brotherpaulv
"yes I have seen the raw footage, what you are claiming makes no sense."
Then demonstrably, you haven't as you claim seen the full original footage and you prefer instead to be duped by a proven liar and fraud and an opportunistic con artist whose target market is abject stupidity.
If you watched the full length original footage that it came from that you are clearly completely oblivious to, you'd discover several things: In the longer footage, you can see that, after a while, the camera backs away from its position where it had been up close to the window so that you can see the square corner of the window with the shape of the Earth clearly in the distance on the outside. You can tell that the Earth is on the outside because the perspective of the view changes between the window and the Earth as the camera moves. This proves several key things about the narrated story: Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was “at the back of the ship” and not up close to the window. The narrator makes a distinct point of this because it is important to the rest of Sibrel’s story. The narrator even insinuates that the astronauts were lying about the camera being up close to the window. The camera backing away from the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story specifically states that the camera was looking through the “round window.” The square corner of the window also proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. Sibrel’s story claims that the shape of the Earth was created by the “round window” (or, in some later stories, that there was a “template” of the Earth on the window that caused the “round” shape of the Earth. You actually couldn't make it up, except he did.
The change in perspective between the earth, which is clearly outside of the window glass, and the square corner of the window proves that this part of Sibrel’s story is a lie. So Bart Sibrel cut out the part of the video in which the camera backs away from the window, shows the square corner of the window, and clearly shows that the shape of the Earth is on the outside of the glass. You can clearly see that he cut this part out because the longer length video is continuous through to where the camera backs away from the window where Sibrel’s version makes a sharp cut at that point and transitions to another view. The video then transitions to a time after the interior lights of the space ship are turned on. At this point, you can see a blue glow from a window. (The CM had 5 different windows.) Sibrel’s narration at this point tries to convince you that the blue glow is not glare from the interior lights but is actually the Earth as seen from “low Earth orbit.If what you were actually looking at through that window were really “the Earth as seen from low Earth orbit,” all the features that you do see in the window would be flying past the window at nearly 18,000 miles per hour and only a couple hundred miles away. The blue glow comes up when they turn on the interior lights — just as glare appears in a window any time you turn on your interior lights at home. (It’s blue because the Apollo window glass is multiple layers of thick quartz glass with protective coatings.) Perhaps most hilariously, Bart Sibrel puts a header at the front of the video that he has inserted to the original which claims that the video which follows is some sort of “secret.” And he claims that NASA must have sent it to him by mistake. Aside from this obviously being complete horseshit, this claim is utterly hilarious because at the time of release the footage in full had been available to the public for decades. Seriously, like I siad, you couldn't make this up - only he did and fools such as yourself fall for it because you are the target audience.
a cropped earth as seen through a "porthole" window from low orbit would easily reveal the 17,500mph orbital velocity of the capsule with its changing surface features, just as we see the earth "moving" underneath the ISS from its video feeds. Instead, what we see from the Apollo 11 capsule is a static view of the whole earth, totally consistent with a viewing distance of 100,000+ miles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danbarker8895
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is a suggested branch of Solar Radiation Management/Geoengineering which is intended to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols should a last ditch attempt to arrest global temperature increase ever be required. SAI is a hypothetical concept which has not progressed beyond research proposal and computer model, would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails you are seeing, and would not even result in one. I suggest that you look up the SCoPEx project which is coordinated by the Keutsch Group/Harvard for more understanding of what SAI actually is and how in its infancy this idea is. The experiment would be the first significant small scale trail and would involve a steerable balloon launched 20 kms into the stratosphere, releasing a few kilos of water (and subsequent flights, possibly a similarly negligible quantity of CaCo3) in order to evaluate perturbation and reflectivity. No need to be scared, SAI will never be employed, not simply due to the huge environmental unknowns, but the impossibility of international governance.
To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. The perpetrators of this hoax have intentionally used false equivalence of this branch of research in a lame attempt to validate their claims.
Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) it therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails
1
-
1
-
1
-
And there is is again. Is it the critical capability or simply the will that you lack in order to independently verify these nonsensical claims - or is it simplest to just parrot junk off social media in the mistaken belief that it makes you sound informed and clever? The goodwill gifts in 1970 and 1973 went out to the people of 135 countries, the 50 states of the United States, and to U.S. overseas territories. BRGM in France were one of the first independent laboratories to analyse a moon rock from Apollo 11. Since then, moon rock samples have been examined worldwide by mineralogists, geologists and through petrological analysis the world over.
The supposed rock, (not rocks), was a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman. When Drees died in 1988, the 'rock' was donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum without verification, and having been exhibited for two decades was later discovered to to the curator's great embarrassment to have been petrified wood. It had nothing to do with NASA or the US government.. The Goodwill rocks given by NASA to the Dutch government are accounted for in other Dutch museums throughout the Netherlands and encased in Lucite as were all moon rocks officially distributed around the world as gifts.
Seriously, you could have discovered this for yourself had you one iota of objectivity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why are you people incapable of consolidating your vacuous thoughts into one response? Both your comments are shadow banned. I will summarise below.
"Seeing is believing and I see contrails and chemtrails everyday.normal contrails from planes disappear fast and chemtrails persist and spread..."
Fascinating. Could you explain why detailing the physical laws that determine this?
"Everyone can see them and you are the only one who doesn't???"
Yep. The persistent spreading contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.Unfortunately, instead of learning about meteorological science and aviation, you allowed a dumb online conspiracy theory to tell you that to think.
"your government already admitted chemtrails spraying so I don't know what you are talking about?"
Source? - full quote and context please. Thanks. You understand what association fallacy is yes?
My government? There are 195 sovereign states - which are you referring to?
"There is a secret nozzle inside jet engines that sprays whatever they put in the added containers.."
A secret nozzle? - but nothing gets past you genius. Containers? You mean those test aircraft ballast barrels that chemtrail conspiracy theorists appropriated to deceive the gullible and critically impaired such as yourself?
.
"You are just another pawn spreading misinformation"
Said the online conspiracy believer.
No, I simply asked you what geoengineering in any of its forms has to do with aircraft contrails. You are unable to answer my question.
"while most of the people know the truth already..."
Of course you do - you saw it on the internet and you put it in your name, (original then), so it must be true.
"Give it a rest."
Said the one trolling this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaellyne8773
🤣None of them say that at all. I find it amusing that in your desperation for confirmation bias combined with your limited powers of comprehension you think that. Simply repeatedly saying something online - (such as half of Americans think that the moon landings are faked, or that you are an military veteran and ex pilot) - may reinforce your delusions, but it doesn't make it true.
Since the technology for manned spaceflight was left to lie fallow with the cancellation of Apollo, the development of the space shuttle and construction of the ISS, we lost the capability for crewed missions beyond near earth orbit. To send man to the moon, you need a giant fuck off mega-bucks rocket like the Saturn V. Hence the development of the SLS, and SpaceX's Starship.
After a successful WDR on the launch pad, last month, the SLS was rolled back into the VAB for final preparations and pre-launch readiness. It's been sitting there for all to see. The window for Artemis 1 is between August 23rd and September 6th. If all proceeds well, Artemis 2 will be a manned orbit of the moon - reminiscent of Apollo 8 - whilst Artemis 3 will be the mission that lands on the moon.
When this does happen, your coping mechanism will be denial and to retreat into your fantasy world (y;know, the one in which you're an ex USAF pilot), and simply claim it was fake. It's tremendously sad as it is humorous really.
1
-
@michaellyne8773
That's because they weren't designed to go to the moon. And actually you're wrong again. Apollo 4-6 were test flights of the Saturn V, Apollo 7 tested the Command module in near earth orbit and 9 accomplished the same the LEM which was undocked and flown15 miles from the CM to test the systems and descent engine.
The Van Allen Belts again? The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO.
The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth.The VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible but admittedly, doubtless beyond your comprehension, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory as did the PMP.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts.
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen (2004)
The VABs trap charged particles - alpha and beta radiation. Do you know why this is significant? Of course you don't.
1
-
1
-
@michaellyne8773
I thought you weren't going to type anymore? By all means, keep it coming, you are most amusing.
"no! Making a fool of you get it right before you make nonsensical statements!"
Use punctuation before you make nonsensical statements. Ha! - like I said, the irony.
"You just can't accept that you are debunked"
I welcome it - you simply haven't managed it. And as I said, nothing to do with me. I quoted James Van Allen himself. It would perhaps help in your bid to debunk if you didn't rely on parroting junk online conspiracy theory from an ex cab driver that's already previously been comprehensively debunked. Why don't you have a go at falsifying one of the thousands of peer review journal papers that support the physics of the Apollo Programme?
"and I don't say that lightly! They don't allow you to vote do they? You can say what you like but it doesn't change the truth!"
You can say what you like, it doesn't make it true. Did you know, the Apollo astronauts actually were accomplished pilots?
"In an interview, Donald Pettit —a NASA astronaut— mentioned that he’d go the moon in a nano of a second but they no longer have the technology to do that. All the technology from the Apollo mission has been destroyed, and it is a painful process to build it back again."
Indeed. As I explained to you, after the Apollo Programme was cancelled and the final mission in 1972, the technology was left to lie fallow and the manufacturing processes abandoned. The funding was pulled and the Space Shuttle project took precedence. Hence Project Artemis required an entirely new rocket - the SLS - and Orion has been built using contemporary technology. Once this is fully tested, mankind will return to the moon. For fifty years, we have been unable to send manned missions beyond near earth orbit. Now, happily that is all soon to change.
"And I wonder why they lost all the data information?"
They didn't - I wonder why you think that? Ah yeah, Bart Sibrel told you that too.
"I'll give you a clue shall I?"
Oh do tell, the suspense is killing me.
"Because the Apollo missions were faked!"
That settles it. Thanks genius! 🤣Because you said so. Didn't you also say that you were an ex military veteran and fighter pilot? The words take, pinch and salt immediately spring to mind.
You still haven't been able to answer my question. The VABs consist of highly changed energised particles trapped by the earth's magnetic field. Do you know why this is significant?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have watched it - several times. If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems so plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it.
I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Astonishingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
I then recalled that it's made by the vile Massimo Mazzucco, a professional con artist and cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timparziale8762
"They are exactly the same after removing the outer crust."
Could you explain the process behind this 'removing the crust', produce evidence for your claim and explain how petrological analysis wouldn't identify this. Of course you can't.
Any meteorite found on Earth is altered profoundly by its high-speed, searing plummet through the atmosphere. As a result, its surface is partially melted, eroded and smoothed. Once on the ground, it is affected by weathering and chemically altered by interaction with air. It would be impossible to erase this. Apollo rocks are instead jagged and pristine, and their surface exhibits microscopic holes produced by the highly energetic impact of micrometeoroids. Also, the outer layer of Moon rocks contains large amounts of helium-3, which is exceptionally rare on Earth. This layer is also affected over time by the particles of solar wind as rocks lie on the lunar surface. Removing this outer layer would remove these features, and this would be immediately evident to any geologist.
"NASA picked up 800lbs of Moon rocks from Antarctica in 1967. They got caught and said they were just there on vacation."
Source? Who 'caught them'? How would they be able to find that quantity of samples? Meteorites in Antarctica are few and far between - lunar meteorites that happen to land there are even rarer. Even today, NASA’s Antarctic meteorite collection only consisted of 25. It would have been impossible to collect enough lunar meteorites to fake the 382 kg (842 lb) of Moon rocks brought to Earth by Apollo astronauts which correlated precisely with the geology of the landing sites. 2
You are simply mindlessly parroting the same recycled conspiracy theory that we've all heard before in an unwitting attempt to make yourself sound informed and clever. Given the same old recycled junk that you consume and regurgitate about subjects you clearly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about, all you accomplish is your own humiliation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@psilocybinvibin502
Made your mind up?
So commercial airline pilots are unbeknown to them, not only carrying thousands of tons of chemicals but unwittingly spraying these from their flightpaths on a daily basis. Moreover, no one - ATC, ground staff, fuelling crew, loadmasters, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, aerospace engineers, airport management, sector analysts, atmospheric scientists...have noticed. But you know this, because you read it on the internet?
Ok.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandonlaragirl
"I'm willing to put my money that you also believe the government I mean why would the government ever lie to us"
A lame strawman. At no stage have I suggested that governments wouldn't. And what do you mean by "the government"? Past or present? Also, there are in excess of 200 governments worldwide.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are there to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy.
"The government" is irrelevant. The scientific, technical, historical, documented, independent and third party evidence that you are wholly ignorant of is manifest and has a voice of its own. Know science is not a question of 'belief' and at no point have I mentioned mine.
Genuine question for you. Do you have anything vaguely approaching or resembling and original thought or observation ever even occasionally entering your vacuous cranium or do you simply rely upon what ridiculous online conspiracy theorists tell you to think about the world?
"and you got all of your vaccinations, is that correct?"
No, unsurprisingly you are wrong again - and what sort of twisted world do we now inhabit in the west in which freaks like yourself use vaccination in the pejorative sense? What's wrong with you?
"All your vaccinations"? What does this even mean? To return to your question, I'll tell you one vaccination that I never required - small pox. Do you think that even your feeble minded conspiracy theory addled brain can figure out why? Hardly surprising that you are easily occupied and entertained by your puerile emojis.
Wait, you have a playlist devoted to Art Bell!!! That's even funnier. I willing to bet that you believe all conspiracy theorists. Why would conspiracy theorists lies to us?
See how ridiculous your initial statement was? Of course you don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Who can say when our government almost Always lies to its citizens?"
The veracity of the moon landings have nothing whatsoever to do with 'your government'.
"Ever hear of the Van Allen Belts?"
Yes indeed - and so has an entire branch of science called astrophysics, the aerospace engineers that design craft to pass through them, and James Van Allen himself that they are named after whose calculations of the energies within enabled safe passage of the Apollo astronauts. Let me guess. You heard of them because - an online conspiracy theorist told you so?
"Or how even astronauts in low earth orbit see flashes of light with their eyes closed from cosmic rays?"
Yes, first observed during the Mercury astronauts in the 1960s and likely caused by fast-traveling cosmic rays are which are creating Cherenkov radiation within the eye that's detected by retinal cells. What's your point?
"Cosmic rays that are many times higher in the Van Allen Belts on the way to the moon."
What on earth are you talking about? The inner belt traps cosmic rays and the outer, charged particle radiation from the sun in the form of alpha and beta radiation. In cislunar space and on the surface of the moon the main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere comes from CMEs and solar particle events. 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. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. On the lunar surface galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by faraway supernova explosions, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate of 60 microsieverts per hour. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but any prolonged habitation would necessitate shielding. GRCs do however present huge implications for long duration deep space exploration.
"Then the claim that the USA doesn't have any idea how to do it now"
Because some online conspiracy theorists with zero knowledge of the subject said so? Project Artemis says hello.
"and the lander wasnt proven to work"
Again, complete nonsense. The LM was tested in space during Apollo 5 and 9 and flown down to within 60,000ft of the lunar surface during Apollo 10.
"and the government had a film crew ready in case they didnt make it."
Again because conspiracy theory says so?
Source?
"But then again i still think they just didn't look hard enough for wmd's in Iraq."
Why the tangential non-sequitur? And actually, historically Saddam Hussein did have potentially have WMDs as evidenced by the massacre of his own Kurdish people in Halabja.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ask the basic questions."
Whilst not being remotely interested in the answers?
"Why no photographs from ISS,spaceShuttles. All we have are these weird fake globe composites."
There are hundreds of thousands of photographs from the shuttle programme and the ISS - what on Earth are you talking about? Composites are used to combine multiple images together in order to show things that cannot be seen with a single photograph.
"Would you put it past our 1960's Gov/democrats to fake it?"
It simply was not technically possible to do so. Also, although the Apollo Programme was conceived and developed under Democrat terms, it actually took place during Republican administration.
"Me, i don't care. i don't trust or care about anything that requires GOV trust."
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that the alleged moon landing hoax or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TrentGustus
"do a little research"
My background is climate and I work in research capability. What 'research' would you like me to do?
"they experimented in California"
Experimented with what precisely - and who are "they"?
"the government admitted it"
Admitted what?
"second they are trying to geo-engineer the weather"
Did you even read my reply? So as predicted, you're are indeed another one that thinks that hypothetical geoengineering concepts such as SAI is evidence for a dumb conspiracy theory that misidentifies aircraft contrails? Geoengineering in any of its forms has nothing to do with the trails you are seeing and aims to effect climatic change not the weather.
"gates has been investing in it. If he's investing in it, you think he's put money in it and they haven't sprayed anything out of an airplane?"
Again, as predicted, you are using the association fallacy of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft trails you are seeing which are contrails. Bill Gates has leant his support and provided some funding to the Harvard research initiative, but as explained SAI is entirely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond proposal and computer modelling.
"I certainly don't think it's all that popular, but if they've already done it, studying in it, investing in it, they're doing it somewhere."
No. SAI, with the exception of the aborted SPICER project in the UK, has yet to reach the stages of small scale trial. It would aim to reproduce the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols so would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the contrails that conspiracy theorists erroneously term 'chemtrails'. It wouldn't even leave a trail and would be imperceptible to any ground based observer. Look up the Harvard/Keutsch Group SCoPEx project. This aims to launch a small steerable balloon 20km into the stratosphere and release a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation. That's your SAI - and they've been waiting 5 years to get ethical approval just to do that. SAI will never become a reality, not simply due to the opposition, the approval, the environmental unknowns and the logistics, but the sheer impossibility of international governance.
What does any of this have to do with a ludicrous conspiracy theory centred around the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
1
-
1
-
@TrentGustus
"The "Science" of climate change is no science at all since it can't stand scrutiny"
Incorrect, it is measurable, demonstrable, axiomatic and undeniable. Your scepticism about climate change does not make the science of climatology invalid.
"It's political.. not science"
Incorrect. There are sustained efforts of a coalition of business lobbies, politicians, maverick scientists, charlatans and contrarian internet attention-seekers to politicise it and to discredit and derail the notion of anthropogenic climate change – efforts that continue even today, as the world literally burns. The data is irrefutable and speaks for itself.
Global temperature increase, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and increasing weather extremes do not do politics - there is no agenda. The solution is in part political, but is also incumbent upon this generation and the next.
"if it were science.. the IPCC would support all study on climate without agenda.. but we'll never have the IPCC or climate scientists telling us "everything is ok" because that doesn't make them any money"
Please don't take offence to this, but there are occasions, even in the comments section of You Tube that someone floats a notion so ludicrous, or submits something that is so transcendently stupid that one is perplexed by the sheer variety of overwhelming valid counterpoints that simultaneously present themselves. In such times you find yourself left to suffocate in the overwhelming paralysis of indecisive bewilderment, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlight, which suffers for its immobility when any action would be preferable to none.
"the "business" of climate change requires that problems must be found in order to get and keep getting funding.. It's "non-science"
What does your ignorance and incredulity have to do with the disciplines of atmospheric and meteorological science/climatology? You can't write off an entire branch of science simply because you think that climate change isn't real. Has it occurred to you at any point when you make these arrogant statements, decrees and pronouncements, that you might not actually possess the requisite knowledge and education to back them up? Is this what you do in the real world with people that you meet? (Assuming that you engage with reality). And why are you desperately changing the subject from your erroneous claim that aircraft contrails are 'chemtrails'?
May I ask you a question, and one that I very much doubt that I will receive an answer to. What is your profession/line of work?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sspbrazil
"No, he IS a great bass player"
Not really - and you'll find that capitalisation doesn't make it any truer.
"especially a reggae bass player"
He's from Brixton, he loves dub. What's a "great reggae player"?
"no, he is not Jaco Pastorius, but he is still a GREAT bass player."
Why?
"As for Dylan and Strummer, It makes them great singers in my book, they do not sound like anyone else and that is unique and precisely what makes them great."
Neither did Tiny Tim.
"Music is personal"
Agree.
"i care less for exact technical ability than I do adequate technical ability"
Depends on the genre. Tell that to a classical or jazz musician.
"The Clash got better and better"
Have you actually ever heard "Cut the Crap?
"and so did Paul on bass"
Well in fairness, he couldn't have got any worse.
"that is what music is all about, improving and playing from the heart"
Well it's about a few more things than that - but I agree.
"Topper has always said Paul was a great bass player and Topper is a great drummer."
Appeal to authority. Nicky Headon was indeed a "great drummer" and I can tell you precisely why. Unfortunately you haven't yet managed to explain quite why you regard Paul Simonen as a "great bass player"
"You are welcome to your opinion, but you are just trolling me at this point."
It isn't really an opinion I'm afraid - and I'm not "trolling you", simply disagreeing and generally attempting to establish why you believe that he is a "great bass player" when your criteria appears to be based on approbation from your drummer, playing with your heart, some reggae bass lines and "because he is". That'll be most professional bassists then.
Few pulled off a look and stage presence like Paul - but having seen the Clash three times, his live sound seriously sucked. It wasn't much better in the studio until London's Calling.
There were much better bassists from the genre both in terms of feel and technical ability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The thing that bothered me most about the moon landing was how the hell did they video the moon landing as it touched down, from a distance"
They didn't - that is completely false.
"who landed first, so they could tape them existing the landing module? It's being taped from a 25 m distance, but by who???? "
No one, The Westinghouse camera was deployed by Armstrong from the MESA equipment bay on the side of the LEM by simply pulling a lanyard which deployed an arm ...and where are you getting 25m from?
Incidentally, I think you mean 'exiting'.
"Second, they just didn't have the technology to get there, so they faked it"
What technology do you think was lacking? Moreover, all of the Apollo tech was independently scrutinised at the time and since the landings. The schematics and blueprints are all fully accessible. For example, the Apollo guidance system - the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, which designed it used principles derived from the work they’d done for the Polaris guided-missile system. The Apollo computer's hardware was well understood in the world of military avionics.
"..today, we do not have he technology to get to the moon"
Except for that massive 321ft 70-metric-ton rocket capable of 8.4 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and carrying 154,000 pounds of payload into orbit that is currently sitting on the same pad that launched the Saturn Vs to the moon and awaiting its first test flight next month. Is that a hoax too? Artemis 3 pledges to return man to the moon's surface by 2025.
"They lost the technology????"
Nope - wrong again. The technology was abandoned and left to lie fallow, as in the manufacturing plants and equipment closed, the Saturn V retired and the R&D and production processes ceased with the cancellation of the Apollo programme. Project Artemis and Space X have superseded this through the application of modern technology, systems and electronics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous strapline that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social Technological Environmental and Legal framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
What does research into the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection have to do with a baseless online hoax predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails?
1
-
Massimo Mazzucco - Is this serious?
If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
As you say, it's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blahblahblah8261
"Sure I can say, that through my own research, I would say that chemtrails and a lot of other "conspiracies" are not what you may think."
"Through your research" you say? I'm sorry, but the instant that a conspiracy believer mentions "research" its impossible not to raise a wry smile. You said this ...
"I truly believe that we are intelligent enough to be able to sort through the nonsense and we should have the ability to do so."
Do you actually believe that you are doing precisely that?
"I can tell you how I have seen a fair amount research to suggest that chemtrails are very real and there is plenty of documentation to prove that."
No there really isn't. There isn't any.
"Plenty of whistle blowers experts, gov documents stating this fact."
On the contrary, there are none whatsoever. There are career conspiracy theorists such as Kristen Meghan and Kevin Shipp, who use appeals to false authority to sell this nonsense...experts though? there is no credible scientist and proponent of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. There should be thousands.
"At the end of the day though, unless you're willing to seek out the other viewpoint and put your judgments aside and make your own determination on these topics"
Are you?
"Below are some links to chemtrail's (geoengineering) specifically, but these journalists cover a variety of topics that I recommend you check out."
We'll examine them individually, but first you need some background and context to understand where you are going wrong. Apologies, I may need to split my response into two posts.
the chemtrails hoax originated in the late nineties largely through Coast to Coast AM and the late night shows of Art Bell based upon the erroneous belief that persistent contrails in the wake of commercial air traffic was evidence of a government programme of intentional chemical spraying for undefined purposes ranging from speculation about mind control to population culling. Astonishingly, such beliefs still endure amongst chemtrail believers. As a commercial radio station, the manufacture of conspiracy theory (which they still do to order), not only boosted ratings, but in so doing, advertising revenue. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has burgeoned and has now perversely become lucrative big business. The now perceived relationship with "geoengineering" is purely as a result of the efforts of the perpetrators of the chemtrails hoax - in particular Dane Wigington - to intentionally conflate the two in a desperate bid to afford credence and legitimacy to their ludicrous claims.
As a reminder, the chemtrails hoax is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails - important that you appreciated that. Geoengineering is a very broad term, as the third link that you provided details...
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf
So you can see that as a range of strategies, it can be divided into two main headings - GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR involves such approaches such as aforestation, carbon sequestering, ambient air capture, and biochar, whilst most funding and interest is channelled into ocean fertilisation. SRM (Solar Radiation Management) exists very much in the real of paper based proposal and would involve methods such as marine cloud brightening, albedo enhancement and space reflectors. One of these, Stratospheric Aerosol injection has not even progressed beyond the status of isolated small scale trial. In fact one such experiment (SCoPEx) is designated for next year using mere kilograms of calcium carbonate, (that's right, chalk). I suggest you read this...
https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-to-launch-groundbreaking-solar-geoengineering-experiment-in-2019
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-12-05-sun-dimming-experiment-planned-2019-harvard-scientists
From the first article...
"That said, there's still a huge amount we don't know about what solar geoengineering might unleash, which is all the more reason to conduct small-scale experiments like SCoPEx, which will only release about the same amount of particulate as one minute of commercial airliner emissions. As always, even if the experiments prove successful – and demonstrate that solar geoengineering is something we could potentially roll out on a larger scale – it's not a silver bullet for global warming."
SAI exists on paper..that's it. The formidable and likely insurmountable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance are discussed in detail in your penultimate link...
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RaschPhilTrans.pdf
"We emphasize that, while the studies highlighted here are a step along the way, we believe no proposal (including the ideas explored here) has yet completed the series of steps required for a
comprehensive and thoroughly studied geoengineering mitigation strategy
Our review of studies of geoengineering by sulphate aerosols suggests it will ameliorate some
consequences of global warming. The study highlights some positive aspects of the strategy. However, many uncertainties remain in understanding the influence of geoengineering on the climate system (particularly on aspects related to likely impacts on the biosphere). More work is required to understand the costs, benefits and risks involved, and to reconcile the legal, political and ethical
issues of geoengineering."
In addition to the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles, it is therefore very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address global warming, that it would ever be employed. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols.
No one is denying the existence of geoengineering or that such research proposals are funded and small scale trials are imminently pending. However, even if in the unlikely event that SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer owing to altitude and its deployment in the form of a fine mist and would probably be equatorial in location to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns. It certainly wouldn't be resemble the long white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic at half the altitude that the perpetrators of this fraud and believers in this nonsense would have you believe are "chemtrails". The latter is precisely what this video is debunking, not research into SAI - which is very real.
So to address your links...
1
-
@blahblahblah8261
"https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1185-peter-kirby-explains-the-new-manhattan-project/"
James Corbett, featuring a new book by Peter Kirby??? - are you actually serious? So you link me to a conspiracy theory website, owned by one of the main believers of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, featuring a perpetrator of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, selling and attempting to profit from a product devoted to and about the chemtrails conspiracy theory, as proof of the chemtrails conspiracy theory???
What was your comment earlier?
"there will always be lazy people who want their info fed to them in convenient sound bites and fun drama. That doesn’t mean the vast majority of people are like that. I truly believe that we are intelligent enough to be able to sort through the nonsense and we should have the ability to do so."
"Open Source Intelligence News" ???? James Corbett is an anarcho-capitalist youtuber and conspiracy theorist. What do you people consistently fail to understand about objectivity? Of course he's going to tell you chemtrails exist - it's his stock in trade.
Secondly, we have the equally ludicrous "We Are Change" founded by Luke Rudkowski, an American self-branded investigative journalist, right-wing activist and again, conspiracy theorist. We Are Change was influential in promoting Ron Paul in both his failed 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns. Despite bearing a name which may suggest a tendency to liberalism, We Are Change is a right-libertarian organisation, most evident through their support of Paul.
So this video is featuring the obligatory Kristen Meghan - a supposed chemtrails whistleblower, only she's nothing of the sort. Meghan was actually introduced to the conspiracy theory through her brother who showed her some nonsense off Alex Jone Infowars. To clarify, Meghan is an ex air force employee who served as a technical consultant on industrial hygiene evaluations of work equipment. Her 'whistle blowing' concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly: "My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonise me in case I spoke out." Kirsten Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate thing but as a former USAF employee is paraded around by the perpetrators of this hoax in a desperate bid to gain some credibility - so you'll find that she is a ubiquitous feature in chemtrails conspiracy videos and within the associated vacuous echo-chamber. She is currently busy raising a family in Chicago, but that doesn't stop the occasional forays and shameless self-promotion within conspiratorial obsessed social media predictably lauding herself as some self-righteous prophet, self-proclaimed "scientist" and harbringer of "truth".
https://en-gb.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
Your link from the Royal Society is a very informative summary of geoengineering technologies - I suggest that you read it. It details the various means of SAI which could be employed in the future, with a particular emphasis upon the possible viability of sulphate particles given that the aim of SAI is to duplicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and the naturally occurring presence of such microscopic particles in the Junge layer.
Although this paper that you provided is ten years old now...
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RaschPhilTrans.pdf
...it again offers a useful examination, discussion and speculation of the principles and possible deployment of SAI in addition to the substantial challenges that such a programme would face - particularly via aircraft...
"Our studies have shown that the delivery of aerosols or their precursors, at least using our hypothetical aircraft, is a formidable task. For the conservative scenarios we have explored, it would take of the order of a million flights of 4-hour duration (2500 km) per year to deliver the nominal
amount of aerosol (10 Tg particles yrK1 Z2.5 Tg S yrK1) needed to balance the warming associated with increasing greenhouse gas emissions. These numbers are still quite rough, and it is possible that up to four times as much sulphur might be required. We have not investigated the entire spectrum
of delivery systems. The issues and methodology we have suggested may be relevant to other proposed delivery systems (artillery shells, balloons, hoses, other aircraft), although details will certainly be different."
Once again, what does SAI have to do with a conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails formed in the wake of commercial air traffic cruising in the troposphere and lower stratosphere at half the altitudes designated for SAI - a series of hypothetical geoengineering research proposals that don't exist yet?
You penultimate link is simply a baseless YouTube conspiracy video produced by online YT conspiracy pedlars "Truthstream Media". YouTube is an entertainment platform not a legitimate source of information. This video captures the usual footage of regular contrails set to the predictable commentary and conspiratorial narrative. The intersection and crossing over of the trails is nothing unusual given the multiple headings, destinations and routes flown by commercial aviation when viewed from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional airspace. YouTube can however provide a graphic illustration of what you are seeing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNGI8fX71fM&feature=youtu.be
The links that you have provided consist of nothing more than cherry picked confirmation bias from subjective sensationalist self-referencing conspiracy websites, a YouTube conspiracy video a review of geoengineering technologies, and a ten year old paper discussing the viability of stratospheric aerosol injection, which has nothing whatsoever to do with contrails produced by commercial air traffic that conspiracy theorists claim to be evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying. The latter is precisely what Rogan and West are debunking in this video. Your statement that "both of them have zero research behind the things they are saying and are making nonsense statements" - care to substantiate that now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why have you felt the need to cut and paste this once more when I have already replied? Here it is again -
"Apollo Space Capsule re-entry ................3 parachutes reliable up to 17,000 mph"
Those parachutes were not deployed at 17,000 mph. Where on Earth are you getting that figure from? Passing through 7,300 metres (24,000 ft), the apex cover was blown by a pyrotechnic charge. This exposed the two sets of parachutes. First the two drogue parachutes were released, which slowed and stabilised the capsule from 310mph to 170mph. They pulled out the three large main parachutes some twenty seconds later which slowed the CM to around 22mph for the targeted splashdown zone in the Pacific Ocean.
"Before social engineering shill @yassassin6425"
Or perhaps just another user of the the You Tube comments section that calls you out on your garbage regurgitated conspiracy theory. Grow up. You are humiliating yourself.
"Felix jumped from a ballon gondola. His rate of fall continuously sped up while falling toward earth until he broke terminal velocity"
Felix Baumgartner, (note the spelling, you can't even get that right), jumped from 127,852 feet an altitude of 24 miles.He reached high speeds due to minimal air resistance, eventually exceeding the speed of sound. Terminal velocity depends on air density and thus altitude in addition to the mass and the energy of the object falling. Terminal velocity is the speed at which air resistance balances the acceleration of gravity on a falling object. Terminal velocity is therefore a moving target, a higher velocity the higher you are, and the lower the more drag you have. It is relative.
"what scientists said couldn't be done"
Name just one.
Moreover, before Baumgartner, Joe Kittenger held the world record for the highest skydive at 102,800 feet set in 1960 in which he reached a speed of 614mph. Not as high as Felix since he jumped from a lower altitude.
"Sorry .... re-entering earth's atmosphere wouldn't slow down Apollo at all."
The comical train wreck when a gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory attempts to disprove physics, by using physics, without ever studying physics.
Apollo had vastly more energy that Felix Baumgartner stepping out of a gondola. A capsule encountering the Earth's atmosphere at such high velocity compresses the atmospheric gas molecules in front of it, which heats up to very high temperatures. Although rarified, this is still sufficient to form plasma and decelerate the craft. At the equivalent altitude that Baumgartner jumped, the Apollo Command Module was still travelling at 8,000mph. as the air became denser and provided more resistance it substantially lost velocity - as did Baumgartner from around 90,000ft. Baumgartner had neither the mass or the energy to be slowed until he encountered the denser air in the stratosphere. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
If you are attempting to deny aerobraking then not only must you overturn an entire branch of science called physics and with it the specialist field of aerospace engineering worldwide, but you also need to account for the process that slows meteors entering the Earth's atmosphere at speeds typically ranging from 25,000 - 40,000 mph enabling meteorites to impact the Earth's surface at only 200mph.
1
-
1
-
"I'm curious how NASA could get to the moon, land, take back off, then redock with a moon orbiter."
Following undocking the Lunar Module began its powered descent to the Moon using a descent rocket engine rated to 10.,000lbs of thrust to slow it down then hover over the surface. This was throttleable and as it approached landing thrust would be reduced to approximately 3,000lbs. Guided by a landing radar, the Commander piloted the LM semi-manually to the final designated landing site and touchdown. The moon has one sixth of the gravity of the earth, to lift off from the moon, the ascent stage still needed to overcome this. The force you exert on a surface due to gravity pulling you down is measured in Newtons (N) - this depends on the strength of gravity at a given location - in this case 0.17g. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. With no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation tells us that the 2 tons of fuel in the LM ascent stage could propel the ~2 tons of empty mass to a speed of more than 2000 m/s, when they only needed 1600 m/s to get into lunar orbit and dock with the CM. In 100 sec, the ascent stage was travelling over 600 mph. In under seven minutes, they had reached orbital velocity. The LM ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and had a 3500 lbf engine, so it had easily enough thrust. Ignition was hypergolic and the lunar lander's ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2 and witnessed during the Gemini programme.
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock. The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. The SPS performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth.
"First try. In 1969."
All of the hardware had been thoroughly tested. The CM during Apollo 7 and 8, the LM Apollo 5. Rendezvous, Apollo 9 and 10, in addition to what had been learned during the Gemini Programme, whilst 10 was also the 'dress rehearsal' for the landing flying down to within 47,000ft of the lunar surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
_"It’s not about rain . It’s about population control."
_
Given that the global population has risen by 2 billion in the past two decades and continues to increase - forecast to have reached 10.8 billion by the end of the century - tell me, how's that coming along?
_"When these trails are up in the sky,you need to stay in the house."
_
By all means do - you'll be doing the world a favour.
_"When I first started noticing these trails.... within a 2 to 3 week period the ER rooms are filled with sick people."
_
And thanks again to Sandy Burkett for sending in this week's logical fallacy. Here, this is for you...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
The trails that you are seeing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied for over 80 years and since the advent of high altitude powered aviation. This image is from a 75 year old meteorology text book...
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
_"The symptoms are so different that the doctors just have to guess how to treat the problem."
_
Because you said so. Your anecdotal incredulity is utterly irrelevant. Present your evidence. Go ahead.
_"Dont just dismiss this as being silly...."
_
How could anyone possibly arrive at that conclusion?
_"I have been on the other end of those trails"
_
No, very simply, you are on the end of an internet connection which you quite clearly have no idea how to use responsibly combined with a failed education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ive seen the sky change in remote places."
Such as?
"Seeding, stratospheric aerosols, etc. IS REAL"
There are many private commercial organisations that advertise and provide full disclosure on contracts, projects and activity. Cloud seeding is neither secretive and has been in the public domain for years.
SAI exists in the form of hypothetical research and computer modelling. There is not even any agreement upon which materials would best replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. This year the first small scale trial (SCoPEx) involving a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere will release mere kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate dispersal and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Cloud seeding is not widespread and since it is designed to induce rainfall by the introduction of additional nucleation into existing stratoform/cumulus cloud masses - those already conducive to precipitation - it is conducted between altitudes of 500 - 6,500 ft, a fraction of the height of the trails that you are observing.
Assuming that SAI had actually progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. As I said, the purpose of SAI would be to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
What does either cloud seeding or research into SAI have to do with the contrails under discussion in this video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobleclair5665
Geoengineering is a very broad area divided into GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR encompasses strategies such as aforestation, biochar, ocean fertilisation and carbon sequestering. SRM on the other hand, (with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening) is entirely hypothetical. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory originated in the mid 1990s through and article by William Thomas and Art Bell's junk radio show on Coast to Coast AM. It was predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails and the belief that these are of sinister intent ranging from such ludicrous assertions as mind control, depopulation and to screen the return of Nibiru (Planet X). With the advent of the internet and the explosion of online conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Michael J Murphy and Dane Wigington eager to jump on the bandwagon, quickly seized upon SRM geoengineering strategies and in particular the emerging work of David Keith (SAI). This association fallacy was a lame attempt at affording legitimacy to their claims and was a complete watershed in the chemtrail belief. Both attributed aircraft contrails to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. Because the believers in this false claim hang on the every word of the perpetrators, most followers of the chemtrail conspiracy theory now falsely associate the sight of contrails with geoengineering, without even understanding what either actually are.
SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Again, SAI is entirely hypothetical and has yet to graduate to small scale trail. is currently purely the stuff of computer modelling. I suggest that you look into SCoPEx, which is a proposed trail on behalf of Harvard/The Keutsch Group who are at the vanguard of this research. They aim to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere and releases a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation. Subsequent runs may release negligible quantities of calcium carbonate - which is precisely the point, the materials/'chemicals' to best effect this haven't even been determined. This trial has been delayed for five years seeking ethical approval. SAI is a reckless, ludicrous and frankly dangerous folly. Because of this it will never become a reality. Not simply due to the environmental unknowns, the appreciable logistical challenges and the opposition, but the impossibility of international governance. SAI proposes to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns to envelop the entire planet - the legal implications, far less the implications for global security don't bear thinking about which is why it will remain in the realms of fantasy.
Chemtrail believers need to understand what SAI actually is instead of listening to conspiracy theorists. It would take the form of a very fine mist, at twice the altitude of the contrails that you are witnessing and wouldn't even be perceptible to a ground based observer...and right now, it doesn't exist outside of a laboratory. It's likely that the solution to global temperature increase is DAC, but this is a very expensive which even wealthy developed nations are reluctant to pursue.
SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve regular jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. There is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails.
I'd suggest that with respect, if you choose to refer to 'geoengineering' as 'chemtrails' then do not expect to be taken seriously outside of the online echo-chambers that perpetuate this nonsense.
1
-
@bobleclair5665
"is sulfate aerosol a chemical"
You appear to have completely disregarded my response to you. To reiterate, SRM/SAI is entirely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond paper based proposal and computer modelling. The materials that it would employ have not even been agreed upon. Sulphates are naturally and heterogeneously present in the stratosphere. Moreover, volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year.
"agent orange"
A defoliant and nothing to do with the contrails that you are seeing.
"nay Pom"
I think you mean, 'napalm'.
"Dimming the the sun, intensionally manipulating the climate, solar radiation management"
As I explained to you, none of which is happening.
"That’s the kind of talks in geo-engineering that makes a conspiracy theorist, don’t you think?"
Nope. Ignorance of the subject and gullibility makes a conspiracy theory believer.
"There’s also HAARP, heating the upper atmosphere, old news now"
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme is an HF pump and had nothing to do with either weather or climate. It has never been classified, requires no security clearance to visit and can be hired out on contract as an ionospheric research facility which is all that it is.
None of this has anything to do with the chemtrail hoax centred around misidentified aircraft contrails.
Why do you uncritically believe and allow yourself to be duped by online conspiracy theory about subjects you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever? And why do you have no will or desire to discover information independently and objectively at source?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fredstevens129
"No too bright are you?"
The irony, was it intentional?
"Read the studies."
I have asked you to direct me to just one of them.
"They (103 of them) conclude that masks make no difference compared to no masks Ergo, masks have prevented ZERO cases of covid."
Like I said just one will do, I'll then explain it to you.
Can you spot your glaring logical fallacy, (in addition to others), in that one simple statement for yourself? or must it take someone that isn't "too bright" to point them out to you?
"I know the mask is your little security blanket."
Do you? How? How do you even know that I wore one? As already explained, I am irrelevant, please stay on topic
"and they hide bad teeth and protect the BLMAntifa Democrat brownshirts from being easily identified"
Do you share these unsubstantiated personal slurs, ad hominem attacks and irrational views in public? - assuming that you interact with the real world?
"Coronavirus is a reality, so do not forget to wear a mask (if needed) and to use hand sanitizer all the time. Life is precious, people" - Bruce Dickinson (2020). Derek Riggs advocated the use of them too. You must therefore conclude by your own flawed logic and inference, that they are "not too bright", of a liberal persuasion and susceptible to
'the "democratisation" 🤣of science'.
"but they serve no purpose for stopping a virus."
In spite of your insistence, personal incredulity and lame appeals to authority, depending upon the fitting and the nature of the mask, evidence based science says otherwise. Masks are a preventative measure. They are simply one in a series of precautions and part of risk mitigation and management during a contagious viral respiratory pandemic.
"And they now admit to the truth of what we were told almost 2 years ago - that deaths from covid were overstated by 94%."
Source? Who precisely are "they"?
"Your fake science is crumbling. That's because you only believe in lies."
Nothing to do with me. Known science is not a question of 'belief' and at no stage have I mentioned mine.
To repeat the request, please may you direct me to one study that demonstrates "masks have prevented exactly ZERO cases of Covid".
Thank you.
1
-
@fredstevens129
"LOL wow."
Wow, you tyoed 'LOlL' - (out of curiosity, how old are you?)
"That's all you have?"
A very simple question which you are evidently incapable of answering.
"iPhones have lousy keyboards and that is more interesting to you"
What?
"than the fact that 350 million Americans' civil rights were violated based on fake science."
By being asked to wear a facemask? Righto then.
Being governed by measurement, reproducibility, physical laws and axioms as opposed to governments, known science cannot be 'fake' - it is thereby demonstrable.
"Are you currently chasing a ball of yarn around your apartment?"
I don't live in an apartment. Yeah, you're not that bright, but, again, please do try to stay on topic.
As requested, you mentioned that there were 103 studies demonstrating that "masks have prevented exactly ZERO cases of Covid". Could you please direct me to the name of just one of them.
Thank you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReeferMadman
Firstly, to address your original post, I responded demonstrating your association fallacy, involving either the unwitting or intentional conflation of research into SAI with the chemtrails hoax. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails that have been observed, recorded and studied since the early advent of powered aviation. With the exception of ground based albedo modification, the Solar Radiation Management that you refer to is hypothetical, would not result in a visible trail and would be conducted at double the altitude of the contrails that chemtrail conspiracy theorists are observing.
Secondly, Mick West is irrelevant. Everything that he states is independently verifiable and the science governing the formation of persistent contrails axiomatic and so speaks for itself. With respect, my cat could efforlessly you debunk the chemtrails conspiracy theory but she needn't bother, because it debunks itself by contravening physical laws and being in itself a mathematical impossibility. I would be only too pleased to demonstrate why if you wish me to do so. Moreover, as a believer in online conspiracy you are by nature distrustful of expertise and would more than likely maintain that any specialist has been paid off or coerced by 'the government.' Noteably, Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, has said that logic does not dissuade most chemtrail proponents: "If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, 'Well, you're just part of the conspiracy". What specific 'expertise' do you have justifying the claims that you have made? And since you appeal to authority detail the credentials of your chemtrails proponents together with their fields of expertise and published findings. Do please feel free to refer me to J Marvin Herndon...make my day.
Finally, as the ones alleging that persistent contrails are anything other than the product of hydrocarbon combustion and condensed atmospheric water vapour, the burden of proof is incumbent on them to provide evidence to substantiate their claims. The onus does not lie with another to disprove/prove and absent. Given the two decades that this alleged spraying has supposedly been in progress and the fact that you maintain that the sky is supposedly full of these chemical trails; appreciating that there are hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails and in view of the sophistication and availability of remote sensing and atmospheric monitoring technology worldwide, there should similarly be a multitude of data gathered in respect of your "chemtrails". Just one in-situ spectrographic analytical study at source will suffice. Oddly, none of you seem to be able to produce this data when requested.
In reference to your request however, this is a statement from Harvard in respect of their geoengineering programme and the chemtrails conspiracy theory...
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
And this is the first journal published study, partially initiated by West himself, surveying experts in their field that overwhelmingly rejected the validity of the chemtrails conspiracy theory.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/meta#erlaa34f6s3
https://www.sciencealert.com/first-published-study-on-chemtrails-finds-no-evidence-of-a-cover-up
1
-
@ReeferMadman
"Chemtrails or Persistent Jet Contrails, what ever you want to call them, turn into wavy wispy cirrus clouds that blanket the sky causing global temps to rise due to the trapping of heat and by doing so it raises global temps by a degree or two"
They can - but the extent of radiative forcing effect is the subject of contention.
"and is the "evidence" temps are rising thus using these inflated or artificial numbers to push the global agenda to collect carbon taxes."
Absolute arrant nonsense. Radiative forcing of contrail cirrus, although of anthropogenic origin, has nothing to do with climate change. I can assure you that the melting of the arctic icecap at seven times the rate of that of the 1990s is very real.
"Persistent jet contrails ARE causing global warming and these jets that are leaving "contrails" need to be fixed to stop the persistent jet contrail from polluting the sky."
No, but they are testament to the carbon footprint of the exponential expansion of the global aviation sector. Radiative forcing of contrail cirrus - although more pronounced at nighttime is in fact a trivial concern in comparison.
"Not only are these "persistent jet contrails" blanketing the heat in, it also stops evaporation which is needed to produce rain thus making the lands even hotter and dryer."
Utter rubbish. The presence of contrails is indicative and a product of such humidity not the other way around.
"If you think Im full of crap on the evaporation being affected by these "persistent jet contrails" then I would refer you to a documentary on PBS that showed on 9/11/01 when ALL planes were grounded that evaporation increased for the few days or week they were grounded."
Please do, time stamping the particular sequence that you refer to.
"So, to say that these persistent jet contrails are harmless is a lie"
I have made no such statement. The radiative effects are not fully evaluated and aside from being a nuisance, as I explained they are a reminder of the volume of air traffic in terms of carbon emissions. The actual composition of a persistent contrail however are ice crystals drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget in supersaturated ambient conditions. Moreover, your original contention that they are evidence of an intentional programme of solar radiation management is incorrect.
"and to say they dont exist or even poo poo or call people dorks that believe they are causing global warming, then you are the shills, charlatans, or have been paid large sums of money to hush hush about it."
At what stage has anyone denied the existence of persistent contrails? That would be chemtrail believers you'll find. At no stage have I referred to you as a "dork". Regarding your contention that they are the cause of global warming, you are however entirely incorrect, although saying that, as I mentioned earlier, contrails are an indirect reminder of the damaging presence of carbon emissions due to the growth of the commercial aviation sector.
1
-
1
-
@ReeferMadman
"Harvard is part of the covering up. As if Im gona believe some bullshit from Harvard."
So as I suspected and predicted earlier, you eschew authority whilst appealing to authority and claim to know better. And why should anyone 'believe' you, a random conspiracy believer stoner, named after a spliff, occupying the comments section of a video entertainment platform? As I explained. Science is not about belief. You were the one that referred to research into SRM.
"Dont worry, Im still in the process of reading those three links you provided.
Trust me, I'm not as you say "worried" in the slightest.
"Just by glancing at one, I see a pie chart and says something like 98.3% have found no evidence for a "secret" program. but that would mean that there is 1.3% that HAS found evidence."
No, there was one respondee that dissented. As you requested, the paper surveyed hundreds of experts in contrails in addition to those who study atmospheric deposition (how various chemicals fall to the ground from the air), presenting them with the evidence provided on various chemtrail websites (mostly in the form of photos of plane trails and analyses of water and soil samples), asking them to evaluate it. 77 scientists reported back, unsurprisingly 98.7 per cent (76 out of 77) of the scientists said they had encountered no evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric programme. Everything they saw on the conspiracy websites showed that what they were seeing was the natural consequence of air traffic and contrails. the one scientist who dissented. In that case, it’s hardly a smoking gun: The one participant who answered yes was simply saying they can’t rule a secret large scale programme of spraying out, which is a very different thing from saying it’s real.
"So let me just keep reading your links and see what else bullshit I can find"
What bullshit would that be? All you have done is express subjective opinion. You started with pure association fallacy conflating research into SRM with the chemtrails conspiracy theory. You then requested "someone with a professional background or a "contrail expert" I cited both, with the caveat that you would immediately make the obligatory and predictable allegation of coercion. You then proceeded to ramble on about contrails causing climate change and preventing evaporation - hilariously given the fact that humidity and the reverse process, condensation is responsible for their formation. You propel yourself via circuitous self-defeating logic tangentially into one digression to another through a series of directionless non-sequiturs and self defeating logic. You then have the audacity to not only appeal to authority but to reject it clearly possessing very little in the way of scientific literacy yourself and absolutely no knowledge of atmospheric science. Quite alright for you to denigrate Mick West - what are your own achievements? As I explained, scientists are irrelevant...it is their independently verifiable findings that are significant. Moreover, the chemtrails conspiracy theory debunks itself through a series of mathematical and physical impossibilities.
Once again, you need to understand that the burden of proof lies with you. Instead of simply making claims over the internet you need to substantiate them.
As a believer in the chemtrail conspiracy theory, what evidence are you able to present?
"This wasnt the harvard link one you sent but the iops one."
No, it was the Keith Group - a research programme in conjunction with Harvard University.
"And like i said, i just glanced, meaning scrollled down lookin at pics, havent read any of em yet. But yes FUCK HARVARDs lying propaganda ass. but im still gon read that link just to see what you are referring to."
Don't just say it, demonstrate why - and while you're at it, present your most compelling evidence for the existence of chemtrails. As I explained, there are hundreds of studies into the microphysical properties of contrails, given the availability of remote sensing technology, you should have no problem presenting an in-situ analysis of a supposed 'chemtrail' at source. Just one will do.
Go ahead then.
1
-
@davidlawrence8803
"so where is the real footage of the Apollo 17 moon landing and the astronauts walking on the moon?"
Beamed live via unified S-Band to earth, archived, present in multiple films and documentaries about Apollo, and also available online for anyone to see.
"You ask me why do I believe the van Allen belts exist? That's a good question and I only believe they exist because they have been publicised in media as something that is real."
Let's face it, be honest here, the only reason that you heard about them in the first place is because online conspiracy theory told you what to think. The VABs were discovered by NASA - so it is fine to accept that, but not the fact that they can be successfully traversed from the same source?
To answer your question, no the VABs do not pose an issue or a barrier to manned spaceflight which passes through their sparsest region in a short space of time and at a high velocity.
"just like man made global warming"
Anthropogenic climate change is demonstrable and supported by evidence based science and empirical data.
"the moon landing"
The scientific and independent evidence in support of the manned lunar landings has a voice of its own and is incontrovertible. Incidentally, there were six, you appear to think that there was only one.
"Port Arthur in Tasmania was the work of 1 man with the IQ of a 6 year old"
Incorrect, According to a forensic psychiatrists, Martin Bryant was borderline mentally disabled with an I.Q. of 66, equivalent to an 11-year-old. And yes, although disturbed, of course he was capable of coordinating a mass shooting despite the hard-right One Nation Party's vile leader Pauline Hanson's baseless claims of a 'false flag.
"The USA didn't blow up the nordstream pipeline"
There is zero evidence that they did. There is no explanation. A series of reports has variously accused Russia, the United States and Ukraine of sabotage.
"Hunter Biden was not doing deals with china and the Ukraine for favorable financial outcomes for the big guy Joe Biden."
Again, none of that has been evidenced. Hunter Biden was charged in connection with a long-running Justice Department investigation into his taxes. In the process, they uncovered some evidence that Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s position to make money. But their impeachment inquiry is largely based on their unproven claims that Joe Biden was involved in “corrupt” business deals with his son which again, is completely unsubstantiated. Shall we discuss Donald Trump now?
What does any of this have to do with the Apollo Programme?
"And here is my answer - Why should i believe the moon landing is real, let alone the astronauts returning to earth alive."
Because known science and technology is not a question of belief. The actual question is, why should you hold and attempt a viewpoint about something that you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about? You weren't even aware that there was more than one landing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You gotta be a fng idiot to believe chemtrails are fake loool"
Argument ad absurdum - a popular and unconscious form of logical fallacy employed by online conspiracy believers in comments sections. Guess what? Chemtrails are fake.
"I ve seen with my own fuckin eyes in 2014 when an idiot pilot flew over the beautiful clear blue sky and as I was watching it, the pilot either forgot or maybe it was an errror but he switched off not once but 3 times the chemtrails leaving clear gaps in between the trails and turning it back on 3 times so nobody in a million years can come up to me with a trillion dollars to say thats not real what i saw!!!"
Why would they? - it's a very common sight. I see it regularly here in the UK. Why wouldn't I. The issue is, you simply don't understand what you are looking at. Are you similarly perplexed by patchy cloud? You need to look closer. You will frequently observe large sections of recently deposited persistent contrails that you deem to be chemtrails randomly fading and vanishing. This is confirmation of the motion of the atmosphere - rising and subsiding parcels of warmer/drier air. Fly an aircraft at speeds up to 500 knots through such air and of course a contrail - which remember is a binary event - will be intermittent and appear to turn on and off abruptly. It's not just exhaust contrails, the same effect can be observed with aerodynamic contrails.
"Chemtrails are fng real stop debating like a bunch of fng blind cretins!!"
No they really aren't. This is one of the dumbest and most scientifically illiterate conspiracy theories out there - which is really saying something. Your alleged chemtrails are nothing more than aircraft contrails, which may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading, or, they may not even necessarily form at all. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alkalino.Munich
To reiterate, I am irrelevant and known science and technology is not about belief.
But we can if you wish turn our attention to those entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, 10,000 private sector organisations and enterprises, independent nations and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet that in 2024 will tell you that the moon landings were real. In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed and accomplished than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever on the comments section of You Tube.
Just curious, why do you goons always find it necessary to finish your posts with a string of asinine puerile emojis?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh great - another self-appointed armchair behavioural psychologist over the comments section of You Tube.
You don't genuinely "question" anything, that's the problem. You are merely another gullible conspiracy believer parroting online nonsense fed to you by junk videos and dishonest grifters responsible for this garbage. Firstly, the press conference you are referring to was almost a month after they had returned from the moon having been in quarantine. Find the photos and footage of their recovery on the USS Hornet and from the Mobile Quarantine Unit trailer.
Regarding the later press conference that you refer to, you obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them continually laughing and joking. If you have any shred of integrity and will to independently verify this for yourself, you'll now go back and review this to challenge the claims that you have regurgitated. Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread.
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Hey dumb ass there is no water in a Jets exhaust the water"
Because a jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, combustion primarily produces H20 and CO2. For every one gallon of jet fuel burned, it produces 3,914.6 grams of water. This is equal to 8.6 pounds of water, which has a volume of 1.033 gallons.
Typical fuels consist mainly of carbon (C) and hydrogen (H). The amount of water that will be produced from combustion is dependent on the ratio of carbon to hydrogen. Taking a general fuel with a hydrogen to carbon atom ratio (H/C ratio) of rr, the combustion looks like
CHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2OCHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2O
For gasoline fuels, the H/C ratio seems is around 1.8; for kerosene fuels, around 1.9. Based on this data, kerosene fuels produce a bit more water than gasoline fuels, in molar quantities.
"the water vapor is in the air you fucking moron and the heat from the engine combining with the cold air causes that moisture in the air to condense into a cloud or con-trail (con for condensation)."
In the case of a persistent and spreading contrails you are absolutely correct and this is what causes them to expand, spread and increase in mass - no different to a cloud. 99% of the trail is drawn from the available atmospheric water vapour. However, it is the moisture present in the exhaust that actually precipitates the trail and upon encountering frigid, humid air at a lower vapour pressure, will also condense.
1
-
"Really? Still sticking to that old narrative?"
What "narrative" would that be? The scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence that you are wholly ignorant of, is manifest, incontrovertible and has a voice of its own.
"And about 50 years later NASA begins to think about radiatzion issues."
"Radiatzion"??? You're not all that bright are you.
If you mean cosmic, solar and charged particle radiation, this has been studied by NASA since its inception and by astrophysics for decades before that.
"Nobody with a sound mind believes these narratives anymore."
Apart from entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly consume and regurgitate.
Quick tip. If you really insist on branding something as fake, it's an idea to learn even the most basic and rudimentary facts about it before you do.
"Radiatzion" 🤦♂
Seriously, why do you people do this to yourselves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Look up in the sky with your own eyes."
If you must "look up" anything I'd recommend the definition of "gullible" and "hoax".
"The govt and their paid talking heads tell you it's natural and that we've always had those streaks and haziness"
No, atmospheric science tells you that.
"yet old science books never showed these clouds or streaks."
Really?
I can assure you they did. Do you want to look that up too?
Here you go...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/metabunk/sets/72157641669574294/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/metabunk/sets/72157641629656855/
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/1957CloudstudyapictorialguideOCR.pdf
https://www.flickr.com/photos/metabunk/sets/72157642316592915/
And here's Knollenberg's seminal paper from 1972 telling you all you need to know about the science behind contrails..
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"This is geoengineering."
No it isn't - that is something completely different and bears no relation to a contrail.
"Govts have been cloud seeding for at least 100 years."
Localised weather modification in the form of cloud seeding likewise has nothing to do with a contrail or research into geoengineering.
"They now have jets and chemicals that can go higher and aerosol the upper atmosphere to attempt to shield the sun and control weather."
Actually one of the many problems with proposals into SAI is that no aircraft in existence can convey the necessary payload to the desired altitude that such a strategy would be employed...which incidentally is double that of the contrails that you are erroneously identifying as chemtrails.
"Unfortunately for living creatures on earth, basic physics tell us that for every action, there is a equal reaction. Causing rain to fall unnaturally in one area causes moisture to dry up and cause drought in another area. The result is unpredictable weather patterns which affects the ecosystem and plants which adapted to regular natural weather patterns."
Depending upon the strategy employed, geoengineering could indeed wreak environmental damage or have unintended consequences were it ever to become a reality. Again, in the case of SAI, aside from the formidable logistical barriers - geopolitical ramifications, issues of governance and huge opposition both within and beyond the scientific community means that it is very unlikely that it will ever become a reality.
"The TV folks and govt lab coats want u to not believe ur own eyes and trust and have faith in them ... the religion of govt and TV."
Known scientific laws have their own voice and answer to no one.
"I'd rather believe my own eyes."
And therein lies your problem. It helps if you actually understand what you are looking at instead of turning to internet conspiracy theory for an explanation.
"Water vapor does not extend 100+ miles and then turn into a haze that spread across the whole sky. "
Water vapour is invisible. Condensed water vapour however can do precisely that. Here you go...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
...Do feel free to attempt to refute the scientific content.
IYou have just unintentionally debunked your own conspiracy theory. In the paper that I have provided from 1972, researchers from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research flew a small Sabreliner jet at FL290 in air of -38.2 degrees C. The two engines produced 1.73 grams of water vapour per meter as a result of fuel combusted. They then turned around and found that the resultant contrail has expanded to 1km wide and 400 metres deep. The ice crystals that this was composed of had grown to weigh 30,000 grams per meter of contrail. The ice crystal growth of over 10,000 came from ice superstaturation in the immediate environment.
A Sabreliner has a maximum payload of 2000lbs. The resultant persistent contrail was measured at 66,000lbs per square kilometre. It was therefore a physical impossibility for the aircraft to have sprayed this trail and so the persistent contrail was clearly a result of available moisture in the atmosphere. Persistent contrails can be 100s of kilometres long.
Many of the planes captured in chemtrail footage making trails are A320s , Dreamliners and 737s - typically, the operational empty weight is 87000 pounds which is 38.8 tons. Also the maximum take off weight is 150000 pounds which is 67.0 tons. So the maximum payload plus fuel of an A320 is 28.1 tons.
A 10 mile trail contains 29.4 tons of material (I can provide the mathematics if you wish). That is clearly more than the maximum payload total and we have not accounted for any fuel, crew, passengers or their luggage and freight!
In addition to this, now please identify the chemical elements that have been demonstrated under laboratory conditions to form a cloud that does not disperse, much like...no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"Ask yourself this, why does the sky turn hazy after excessive chemtrailing."
It doesn't - chemtrails are a myth. Contrails however...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1
Also, contrails are often a precursor of an approaching frontal system.
"If this was fog, weather report would report it. If it was smog, the news would report it. They dont. Because it isn't fog or smog, it's aerosolized heavy metal."
Aerosolized heavy metal???? You what?
"Can u imagine if govt admitted doing this without our consent and without doing studies on the effects."
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, which in your confusion you appear to believe is chemtrails, has never been hidden from the public and it completely transparent. One of the reasons that it will never progress beyond paper based proposal and small scale trial involving mere kilograms of material is precisely that - the environmental effects are almost impossible to quantify. Incidentally, the irony here being, that SAI is designed to engineer precisely the opposite effect to the radiative forcing that is a known consequence of the contrails that you are observing.
"Therefore, the govt and their paid talking heads would NEVER tell us the truth."
And yet you naively believe that your online conspiracy theory does?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alangaillard2988
"The danger of the loss of the crew was not the reason cited for the cancellation of the last three Apollo missions: it was budget cuts, or why go ahead with 14-17?"
Eh? - Read my post again in which I mention budget cuts. At no stage did I suggest that it was. I was simply responding to your correct implication that manned space flights to the moon are both risky and highly dangerous ventures.
"Now, I'm not absolutely convinced, one way or another, but why no missions beyond low Earth orbit?"
You mean manned missions? Because the heavy lift capability was abandoned and since America stopped building the Saturn V there has been no means by which to send them. Following the cancellation of Apollo, the emphasis was placed upon the Space Shuttle Programme which was Nixon's baby. The construction of the ISS was also a very costly and protracted project. Deep space missions became the preserve of unmanned probes and robotic landers which incur far less cost and risks involved. With the advent of the SLS, manned missions beyond low earth orbit are once again possible.
"If the VAB belt isn't deadly, why not build a space station farther out?"
They are belts, since there are two, with a third that is transitory. The VABs are not at all deadly if passed through at high velocity, in a short period of time and through the trajectories flown by the Apollo missions through the outer sparsest regions. They consist of charged particle alpha and beta radiation that is easily blocked from such mission profiles. However, the crew of a space station orbiting within the densest regions of the belts would receive a fatal dose of radiation within about three weeks. In comparison, radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. So, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions which was the greatest concern. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.
"Even if you entirely believe that the Apollo missions happened & that the reporting of them was absolutely true, there are obvious questions about our lack of activity since which need answering, & which. if left unanswered, will continue to cast a shadow of doubt."
No there aren't. Apollo was prematurely cancelled due to a lack of public and political will and the unsustainable funding required. Since then, budget has been allocated elsewhere. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon has been a long and painful process validating and testing the modern technology that has usurped the old and obsolete and stymied by peicemeal funding and false dawns. Project Artemis pledges to return man to the surface of the moon by 2025 which is hugely unrealistic. The Space X HLS needs thorough development and testing and I really can't see this happening until the end of the decade at the earliest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Photos prove nothing"
Actually, they prove a lot, particularly when they would have been impossible to fake.
"equipment can be placed with un manned craft."
It depends upon the equipment. The retroreflectors for example allow for greater accuracy than those placed by the Soviet Union, since they were deployed and aligned manually. Please feel free how the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME were "placed with an unmanned craft" and provide the details of the latter.
"Just because someone says there's lots of proof means nothing, talk is cheap"
It isn't about what "someone says". The scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the Apollo moon landings that you are clearly oblivious to, is manifest, axiomatic and has a voice of its own.
The Apollo Programme is the most detailed and documented engineering projects of such scale and complexity in history. It was completely transparent - which is why it was infiltrated by the Soviets. For over half a century entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise worldwide have forensically scrutinised every mission profile, every schematic, specification down to sensors, rivets, nuts, bolts, switches and circuit breakers and the history and technology of the Programme has been exhaustively examined through thousands of books, journal publications/academic papers, technical authorships and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet.
Today, we have dumb online grifters selling horseshit to gullible conspiracy theory believers with zero knowledge of the subject that think a social media meme substitutes for the education that eluded them. Just because "they say" it was fake, that does not mean that it is. Talk is cheap.
1
-
"Right, but my vehicles exhaust doesn't sit there for hours & hours."
Very probably because it isn't coming from a a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C and 4 litres per second, emitting a stream of 600°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst travelling at speeds up to and occasionally in excess of 500 knots.
"I have literally watched 2 different Jets pass overhead & 1 Jets exhaust was gone in about 10 minutes & the other hours. They were at very similar altitudes as well"
Vertical separation minima specifies 1,000ft. The conditions that govern the formation of contrails, air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure, can change in a matter of seconds and feet. The atmosphere is continually in motion and is neither isotropic or homogeneous. Also, how did you establish altitude? That is notoriously difficult and inaccurate as a ground based observer.
1
-
@CINO0816
"how did I establish altitude? I'm not a moron. I can tell when one plane is further up then another."
I'm not suggesting that you are a moron, however, discerning vertical separation minima at cruise altitude from the perspective of a ground based observer is virtually impossible. As I said, atmospheric conditions can change within a matter of mere metres and feet.
Your second reply isn't showing, but I can see it in my notifications...
"I mean our government has always been so straight forward with us and has never done anything shady to its people right? "Go check out Operation mockingbird or The MK Ultra program literally right on Joe's channel. I'm not saying it's definitely happening, but don't be so quick to dismiss it like people are crazy for thinking it could be a possibility."
Indeed. Should we trust our government? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that a government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or it then detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
Simply because a "government" has lied, deceived or acted without the consent of the people. it does not logically follow that chemtrails (or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) must be true. To suppose such would be nothing more than a syllogistic fallacy
"Noone ever thought they would allow open borders or try to take away our constitutional rights either. But here we are."
A constitution evolves, it should not be set in stone. Regarding borders, I am in the UK, so you'll need to specify what you mean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klausmikealson4856
"each engine on the Luna had a force of 10,000 you seen no dust before or after they landed , not deniers just people that uses common sense duhh"
What do you mean "each engine on the Luna" - how many do you think that there were? and what's a 'Luna'?
So what? The engine was throttled. What do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? Even at full power, the LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. That is considerably less than the 24,000 lb thrust of a Harrier jump-jet, which does NOT make a crater when it lands - even on grass!. Do VTOL aircraft ever make a crater? Why is it even necessary to explain this?
You can clearly hear Buzz Aldrin during the landing of Apollo 11 say - "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage - so again, you are talking complete nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, during reentry and splashdown of the Apollo-Soyuz mission, the crew of the CM were accidentally exposed to toxic hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide fumes, caused by unignited reaction control system (RCS) hypergolic propellants venting from the spacecraft and reentering a cabin air intake. The RCS was inadvertently left on during descent due to an error by Vance Brand, and the toxic fumes were sucked into the spacecraft as it drew in outside air. Brand briefly lost consciousness, while Stafford retrieved emergency oxygen masks, put one on Brand, and gave one to Slayton. The three astronauts were hospitalized for two weeks in Honolulu.
Toxic monomethyl hydrazine fuel from the plumbing in one of the space shuttle's orbital maneuvering system pods or APUs was quite common. During STS-9, two of the three APUs caught fire in the APU compartment in the rear of the Shuttle. The APUs provide hydraulic pressure to operate the orbiter’s flight controls and landing gear. Unaware of the fire, John Young landed the orbiter without difficulty. The fire continued after the wheels stopped, eventually burning itself out, causing major damage to the compartment. The fact that there had been a fire was not discovered, however, until the APU compartment was opened during post-flight inspections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"return to the moon???....they admitted they never went"
Then you'll have absolutely no problems posting this supposed full quotation at source. Good luck with that.
"not even once did they even leave low earth orbit."
Well that's complete horseshit too. Even by 1966 Gemini 11 had achieved 853 miles (1,373 km), the highest Earth orbit ever reached by a crewed spacecraft.
"Hollywood basement for the production. One small soundstage for man, one giant lie for mankind!"
A Hollywood basement is it now? Fascinating. But what about Shepperton or Pinewood UK? No, wait, wasn't it Elstree?...or perhaps Twickenham? No hold on, I thought it was definitely Cannon AFB New Mexico? Or was that Area 51 Nevada? Or maybe the Utah or Arizona deserts? No, no, without a doubt Death Valley - hang on, surely Devon Island Canada?
You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood Basement" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you? Clever lad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"show me all the blueprints off the moon lander, that is just 1 example oooooooooo wait a minute, they lost it 😂😂, the biggest technical achievement off the century , and the lost it"
Nothing was lost. All the technical data was copied, The full schematics are freely available in the Apollo Program Summary Report (April 1975) and a wide variety of sources. Some of the original blueprints were even suctioned off to private collectors at Southeby's since they are no longer required.
"i don´t need to clever , i can think for my self"
You clearly struggle to compose a coherent sentence - but whatever you want to believe. Guess what? Those specialist fields and entire branches of science worldwide, such as rocketry, orbital mechanics, aerospace engineering, they've all seen them. Is it vaguely possible that they have a higher level of understanding than you? Just a thought.
"show me tests, oooo wait, the test moon lander crashed, but hey, it does not matter."
No LM was lost out of the nine flown in space. You are referring to the LLRVs and later LLTVs. Bill Anders was quoted as describing the LLTV as "a much unsung hero of the Apollo Program". Although Neil Armstrong had to eject from the LLRV due to a jammed thruster, no other astronaut ever had to eject, and every Lunar Module pilot through to the final Apollo 17 mission trained in the LLTV and flew to a landing on the Moon successfully.
If you can think for yourself, you can see, with all the technology today, they hardly can do a vertical landing with a rocket today, it was a fake moonlanding"
Again, you clearly think that you know more that the tens of thousands of aerospace engineers across the planet that would disagree with you. Why? because they've actually dedicated their lives to study, amounted to something and achieved and they don't squander their lives posting asinine brainless comments on You Tube unlike a conspiratorially addled nobody afflicted by gross illusory superiority and a chronic case of Dunning Kruger syndrome in a desperate attempt for attention and recognition in an otherwise insignificant existence.
Returning and remotely landing an unstable rocket with near dry tanks on the surface of the earth with the variables of the atmosphere and reacting and adjusting to these behaviors and centre of mass and drag is indeed challenging. The Falcon 9 needs to be tall and thin so that it can be an efficient launch vehicle, but that exact configuration makes it exceedingly hard to control as it comes back down. Much easier then to pilot a squat small craft in a vacuum, with no atmosphere and 1/6th of the gravity on the Earth it is not even comparable.
Perhaps you should visit a college of aeronautical engineering. Tell them that you can think for yourself, you understand technology today, the moonlanding was fake...and don't forget to let them know that the University of You Tube sent you.
Clever lad!
1
-
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"i do have some understanding off this topic, for instance, the shadow lines must be parallel"
Why? You observe non-parallel shadows in earth due to the terrain.
"and for instance, to much radiation in the van allen belts"
For what? Explain why backed by measurements and data.
"nasa have said it themselves indeed they lost the technology to go back to the moon."
As I have already patiently explained to you, NASA said no such thing.
"it never ceases me to amuse me , people believe everything they have been told on tv, radio , msm, believing the government can cause you to loose your life, and that of your family , look at the lemonade in the arm they have given people"
Because of course online conspiracy theory in the meantime is entirely honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda. Righto.
"your high school comment: who rely decides what you learn at school?"
Of course curricula can be flawed or badly designed, but no 'government' can subvert mathematics or physical laws which are axiomatic in nature. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method. You live off the spoils of it. Science accounts for and bids to explain the natural phenomena around you.
"small example: i was told at school, pearl harbour was a complete surprise attack, which turned out to be bull-poo usa let it happen, because the elites wanted the war, they lie about anything."
It has been contended that the attack could have been avoided altogether had certain American officials heeded advanced warnings - but even this is a stretch. The notion that it was allowed to happen is pure conspiratorial nonsense. Roosevelt was totally caught off guard by it. The record is clear. There was no evidence of the Japanese moving toward Pearl Harbor that was picked up in Washington.
The problem clearly lies in the fact that just as you disregard independent specialist expertise in terms of the Apollo missions, you again prefer to place your faith in junk online conspiracy theory and social media as opposed to what history tells us. Even if used responsibly, the internet can only supplement an education - it does not supplant for one.
"now tell me, what club all these astronauts belong to? don't tell me it doesn't matter"
What "club" are you referring to?
"btw, why do talk about parroting?"
Because that's precisely what you do, about subjects and topics that you clearly have no actual understanding of. You have an internet connection which you don't understand how to use responsibly. That's all. None of these claims and misconceptions are your own.
"i am just stating the obvious, it never happened, like i said they "lost" 5 tons off data, total bs"
As I said, you can barely compose a sentence of your own accord.
Please may you clarify precisely why there is 'too much radiation in the Van Allen Belts' for manned transit to take place - and why you claim to know more than an entire branch of science called astrophysics, each of the 77 space agencies in existence and James Van Allen himself?
Let me guess, you saw it on Tik Tok.
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"usa NEW japan was going to attack, and they let it happen , because they wanted the war, it has been documented, they new it"
Mate, you can't even spell 'knew'. And no credible historian on the planet agrees with this which is why, and you still don't get it, that you'll only find this nonsense through junk online conspiracy theory which you think substitutes for actual knowledge. Because, guess what? contrary to the claims you have gullibly consumed - it hasn't been "documented" at all.
"no, look at the pictures "on the moon", light source from different angles, can't happen on the moon, because NASA said they didn't use lamps on the moon"
There is a single light source from the sun but also albedo and reflectivity. The supposed anomalies with the 'non parallel' shadows are due to the terrain. You can observe exactly the same on the Earth.
"what club ? do the research and you will be amazed impossible to be a coincidence."
My reply remains the same as before. I was thinking that you're possibly about to parrot the same old nonsense that they were all masons, but no one could be that stupid. And actually, so what if they were? (which they were not). Who gives a shit?
"yes to much radiation to go trough , van Allen measurements in 1959/60"
You mean provisional measurements and estimations then. By 1962 James Van Allen still suspected that the protons present in the inner VAB could pose serious harm to astronauts, hence the Starfish Prime experiment. When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies - electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers developed shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
"i have understanding off what i am talking about"
Of course you do - whilst an entire branch of science called astrophysics, each of the 77 space agencies on the planet, those that have dedicated their lives to the study or particle radiation and James Van Allen himself do not? Mate, you can barely compose a coherent sentence so I'd suggest to you that an understanding of alpha and beta radiation shielding and particle physics is a tad premature at this stage.
"there is to much radiation to go trough."
Yes, yes, so you keep saying. You have yet to explain why.
"do some real research"
Appreciating that "real research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"and find out who controls the school system eventual, it's by the same people that tell lies on TV, msm"
And who precisely are "they"?
"look at what bullpoo kids are learnt today,"
The difference between 'new' and 'knew'? or "to" and 'too"?
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"usa KNEW it, it has been documented . just search for it"
You still fail to comprehend that you can return practically whatever you wish on the internet. A search engine will return whatever you ask it to. And no, nothing of the sort has been 'documented'.
"no, clearly there are several light sources, pro photographers can tell you about it."
Incorrect. There is one light source which creates albedo and reflection. And no, junk conspiracy videos tell you what you want to hear.
"who gives a s..t is a nonsense thing to say"
Well you certainly don't for one.
"because it matters very much, it can not be a coincidence , and btw, you know what club i am referring to"
Maybe you should mention it so I can effortlessly debunk that too for you?
"they would need 6 foot off lead to protect them against the radiation"
Said no astrophysicist, aerospace engineer or expert on radiation ever. Why would you need '6 feet of lead' to protect against the particle radiation in the VABs? Lead shields X Rays and Gamma Rays. Come back when you understand Bremsstrahlung. Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
"and no they did not flew around them"
At no stage did I suggest that they did. Read what I put. To clarify again, The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth.The VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but (with the exception of Apollo 14), the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts. Furthermore, the hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. Do you understand what that means in terms of attenuation? Of course you don't.
"because there is to much radiation, van allen proved it"
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable."
James Van Allen 2004.
"and one thing i found out is that they "lost" 5 tons of data"
What the hell does this even mean?
"you damn sure KNEW what i meant"
Nope - your written English is so dire that your comments are borderline incomprehensible. Add in a large helping of junk delusional conspiracy theory and gross illusory superiority and you are left with a stream of garbled of badly parroted nonsense spewed forth form a Dunning Kruger afflicted buffoon armed only with an internet connection that they have no idea how to use responsibly. You are simply the consequence of granting online access to very dim people.
"about the cia comment, did you know family of Apollo 1 say the crew was murdered? they were not allowed to tell the truth. and the truth was is that they would never make it, so they had to be eliminated."
Sigh, yes, you are not special - it's the same garbage spouted over and over and over again. Scott Grissom is a disgrace to his Father's legacy, whilst there are no such claims from the White or Chaffee families. The criticism of the early Apollo project was not simply the crew of Apollo 1, it came far more vehemently from other sources withing the programme, such as engineers, contractors and even press. Again, you are simply regurgitating one-sided conspiratorial nonsense about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever.
"just as the many 9/11 truth tellers "suddenly"have died for speaking out"
Name them.
"yes many hours of research on 9/11 too"
As I explained previously, "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following squandered evenings consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites
"It's a shame you are a troll"
As the one posting unsubstantiated claims, spamming junk conspiracy theory and ad hominem abuse on this video, then by virtue of the very definition of the term, the 'troll' would be none other than yourself. A simple concept that even you can surely comprehend. I am simply challenging your ludicrous claims - and how you people loath that.
No one asked you to bring your garbage here. if you used the internet for its intended purpose, you would challenge the nonsense that you gullibly and uncritically accommodate instead of using it to substitute for your own insignificance and inadequacies.The problem is that you don't consider any answer valid that doesn't confirm to the notion of an enormous conspiracy about which you are one of a special minority who is clued-up enough to know, and are therefore superior to the brainwashed mass of 'sheeple'. The real, valid, non-conspiratorial answers to your questions - true knowledge - doesn't allow you to pretend that you are amongst the privileged few to be privy to this information, and hence doesn't stoke your ego in the way that you desire. The tragedy is, that you are so dim and so lacking in self-awareness, that you are incapable of perceiving how absurd you sound to others that are equally capable of looking up this nonsense on the internet, but sufficiently sceptical and wise to avoid it.
1
-
@fendermarshallbluesbox3407
"yes it has been documented"
Present it then.
"professional photograph people can tel you there are different light sources"
Nope, that would be junk online conspiracy theory, which as I have explained tells you precisely what you want to hear.
"in fact anyone can see there is light coming from different directions, just look and think for yourself"
The sun is the single light source, but this is both reflected and there is also the albedo of the lunar surface to consider.
"if you take the fact not seriously, that the astronots all belong to a certain club, it´s hard to have a discussion in the first place and you sure know what club i mean"
Perhaps, as suggested, you could actually specify at some stage what this supposed 'club' is. As I have also speculated, if you are referring to Masonic connections, the by all means say so and I can debunk that for you too.
"they "lost" 5 tons of data"
Again, what does this even mean?
"so the biggest technical achievement off the century can't be reproduced because they "lost" the technology ? those are nasa words, not mine."
They are not NASAs words though. So you are lying again.
"you sure knew what i meant."
No, I really didn't. Like I said, your command of written English is so poor it is a challenge to make sense of anything that you type - not to mention, the nonsensical content.
"yes there are indeed such claims, family says they were murdered"
Scott and Betty Grissom. Nothing from the families of White and Chaffee.
"nano termite was found in the dust off 9/11 and there is enough proof off that too but you wouldn't know, because you believe the government bs"
Why are you changing the subject again? - and incidentally, I think you mean 'thermite'. A termite is a small insect not dissimilar in appearance to an ant. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles that you would expect to see from a thermite burn. The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon-steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. And there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, so the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite. All debunked years ago.
"you must be a troll"
As the one posting unsubstantiated nonsense, junk conspiracy theory and ad hominem logical fallacy on this page, by definition, the troll would in fact be none other than yourself. A simple concept that I'm sure even you can comprehend.
"because you betray your country by holding back the truth to people"
The perpetration of disinformation for profit and gain is as bigger betrayal as it gets. Particularly when gullible and impressionable individuals such as yourself that are susceptible to these fruads are the target market.
"they "lost" 5 tons off data, ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT"
Correct, it is. So why do you keep typing it?
"tell the people where we can find the blueprints off the whole deal. if you can't this is an impossible discussion isn't it ?"
All the schematics, technical drawings and specifications for the Apollo programme can be freely accessed online. Thousands of documents are available on NASA historical websites, publications or on archive sites around the internet. Some of the original blueprints have been auctioned off at great expense to private collections, but this is all archived anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RitaBitmore
"lol contrails turn a perfectly clear day into a completely overcast day in two hours?. So weather altering contrails?"
Yep - It can happen quicker than that in fact.
"So weather altering contrails? . If that what it is that I saw, then that's what it is"
Nope, contrails altered by the weather.
"Just seems strange that the excess heat in the form of steam wouldn't be evaporated and disappear. Don't you think?."
Except, that isn't what contrails are. Allow me to explain.
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail which is essentially a cirrus cloud. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture - where the jet engine exhaust is merely the trigger mechanism. As I indicated - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JR-iu2mf
"or they’ve done the research on geoengineering and stratospheric aerosol injections "
You sure about that? You missed this...
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
"admitted by cia director Jon brennen"
Firstly, he is the ex-Director of the CIA and secondly it's John Brennan.
You mean his appearance as a guest speaker at the CFN (a think tank) under the them of "Transitional Threats to Global Security"?...
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
An SAI program, if ever implemented, could create disparities, conflicts and global unrest if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological framework. Many of these are novel emergent technologies and research proposals/concepts that may however never be put into practice. For example, he also broached anti-ageing.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"AND reported in HARVARD documents."
You mean their website - y'know, the one which clearly states that SAI isn't in progress?
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/geoengineering
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer simulation, would not form a trail or involve large commercial aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheChrispylad
"Yeah. I see normal planes mostly, because they designed them to look normal"
Who are "they"?
"they spray most days, I say cloud seeding, yes, I but I mean to SAI"
As I said, why do you believe that SAI is in progress and why do you suppose that it would resemble a contrail or be deployed at half the altitude that the research designated it for?
"I believe the shape of clouds have changed"
"You believe" - established meteorological science is not obliged to conform to your arbitrary expectations nor is it in anyway duty bound to address or mitigate for the incredulity of a baseless online conspiracy hoax.
"I see the waved affect that has never been a common effect of clouds"
Undulatus Asperitus is indeed rare, but has nonetheless been observed, recorded for millennia and more recently studied and understood. Again - basic meteorology.
"I see how it covers the sun and follows the sun as a shield of sorts"
Cloud cover? Then it isn't SAI which as I keep telling you would be invisible to the ground based observer. Moreover, the relationship of cloud to the sun is entirely dependent upon the relative position of the ground based observer. It may be completely different only miles up the road.
"secret knowledge is thus, it's not known no one is going to tell you."
??? Research into SAI and solar radiation management has never been secretive or out of the public domain, which is precisely the reason that you are familiar with the term.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deadpyrat2243
Unfortunately your comment is shadow banned which is an irritating and unsophisticated algorithm modification that indiscriminately blocks posts. I will summarise here:
"have you ever heard of operation popeye for starters?"
Yes, why are you changing the subject to cloud seeding?
"Vietnam the us government used cloud seeding to prolong the monsoon season!"
The intention being to swamp and drown out the Ho Chi Minh trail. There is no evidence that it prolonged or intensified what were at that time particularly heavy monsoon rains. In fact, despite the existence of state sponsored schemes (for example China and UAE) and private enterprise that specialises in cloud seeding services, it is not widely practiced, the results are highly erratic and even the efficacy questioned by many.
"_Furthermore the us government has released numerous documents on the continuing use of cloud seeding."_
Cloud seeding has been practised since the 1950s. So what? This has absolutely nothing to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory which is based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails.
"Even Bill Gates has openly discussed and admitted to funding the use of aircraft to "increase the reflectivity of the earth's atmosphere!"
Now you are shifting the goalposts yet again. You are referring to a hypothetical branch of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. This has never been secretive, nor has Bill Gates ever hidden his support for research into it. How precisely do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied? SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and would therefore likely involve the deployment of sulphates at 20km in altitude (although the materials have yet to be determined). It is highly unlikely that SAI will ever become a reality - not simply due to the environmental unknowns or the logistics of lofting materials to such an altitude, but the virtual impossibility of international governance.
"There's also numerous patents for weather modification devices owned by the United States government. A simple searching on an open unbiased search engine will provide you with more than enough information on all this!"
A patent is not proof of the existence of something - merely the submission of an idea. Most chemtrail believers that present these as supposed evidence of this hoax don't understand the technical details. Welsbach seeding for example which is frequently cited is an impossibility, the science is flawed and those that parrot this haven't even noticed that the patent was unadopted.
Furthermore, weather modification is the general technical term for cloud seeding. Aerial cloud seeding aims to introduce additional nuclei into existing cumulus and stratiform cloud masses which is why it is usually conducted at low altitudes between 2,000 - 6,5000ft. It typically involves the burning of rack mounted silver iodide flares retrofitted to light aircraft. Each run will typically burn around 150 grams of agl. It does not leave a trail and it does not take place at the altitude of the contrails that chemtrail believers are misidentifying.
"I don't believe anything without taking the time to investigate it myself! Especially when it comes to conspiracies. And more importantly I don't ever listen to mainstream media or news. Anyone who is willing to be a corporate sellout for a nice paycheck isn't the kind of person I want news from. They can and are bought and paid for!"
Known science is supported by physical laws and mathematical axioms, thereby having a voice of its own.
What does any of this have to do with the false claim in the OP concerning the inhalation of aluminium due to its supposed use as a performance enhancer in jet fuel?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Chemical spraying does take place on a huge scale, and are very different from contrails."
Peculiar then that you advocates of such a belief resort to posting footage of the latter as proof. Very different to contrails? Perhaps then you could become the first to define both your precise qualitative and quantitative methodology to allow the differentiation between a contrail and a chemtrail and provide statistics as to the reliability and error margins of your method. Your alternative is to admit that you have no such methodology.
"There are plenty of videos showing the inside of these planes used for this practice which is both dangerous for health and very dangerous for earth and plants."
Present one - I'll gladly tell you what they really are.
"The exhaust of jet aircraft are bad enough as they are, but to say the its a conspiracy is simply not true, its a fact, and tbe companies involved are well known."
Name some. I absolutely guarantee what you'll come back with.
"By now aircraft should be burning hydrogen which not only is cheaper to produce but a lot cleaner."
The energy costs of making hydrogen are enormous. Free hydrogen does not exist except in minute trace amounts. It must be manufactured from natural gas or other hydrocarbons, or by breaking down water using electricity. So it will never be cheap compared to ordinary jet fuel. Currently it has to be created requiring a huge amount of energy which itself generates C02. Almost two decades ago, Airbus was involved with the 26-month EC-funded Cryoplane Project to assess the feasibility of hydrogen, in its bid to develop a zero carbon-emissions aircraft of the future. Researchers found that aircraft would require fuel tanks four times larger than today's. Models showed that the larger exterior surface areas would increase energy consumption by well over a tenth, and overall operating costs by around 5%.
Liquid hydrogen is extremely difficult to store and transport. The containers ( tanks) used to store it are extremely expensive, and heavy. And although hydrogen is a very potent fuel, per kilogram, it is an extremely light substance, and you can’t get very many kilograms into a tank small enough to use it as an aircraft fuel tank. You can’t even get enough into a tank to make it practical to use it as fuel for a truck. It must be kept chilled to an extremely low temperature, or it boils away. So it can’t be stored very long, not more than a few hours or a couple of days.
All these things together mean liquid hydrogen will probably never be used as fuel in a commercial passenger or freight aircraft. It’s too hard to work with it, and beyond that, it is available in only a few places and cannot be transported in existing pipelines. So it has to be hauled by truck from the production site to the place it is used.
Liquid hydrogen does have potential as a clean energy source that also would increase the performance and efficiency of commercial airplanes. However this requires time, the collective will and a lot of investment. You can not take an existing aircraft design and modify it to use hydrogen, the whole anatomy would change, from wings, engines, tank position, tank structure, safety policies, logistics, landing gear...
"Its the first time i have heard you make a statement that is not factual"
Detail the precise inaccuracies in this video.
"If you like barium and alloys in your air thats fine"
??? Both are naturally occurring and also present due to anthropogenic origin in addition to a range of far more harmful and prevalent pollutants.
"but there are a lot of people who are very much aware what these can do for you"
Who would they be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Contrails are a transient phenomenon, are just water vapor (mixed with pollutants from jet engines)"
Incorrect. Water vapour is an invisible gas. Contrails are condensed water in the form of ice crystals. In conditions of high relative humidity and supersaturation they are almost entirely drawn from atmospheric water vapour - the process is no different to the formation of a cloud. Contrails contain very little in the way of 'pollutants', although the exhaust at source will contain soot and sulphur that can serve as additional hygroscopic nuclei/ccns.
"and do not persist but for a few moments"
Could you explain why, detailing the physical laws that determine this?
"Chemtrails disperse slowly until the formerly blue sky becomes grey!"
Nope, they are simply the same persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Perhaps you would be able to identify this mysterious chemical that can expand, increase in mass and cover the sky just like, well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? And in addition to that, the aircraft with the capacity to spray the tens of millions lbs of material that vastly exceeds their MGTOW?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sigh.
"OK lets start the journey from earth to moon........started from a gigantic rocket, then many parts of the rocket separated through out the journey and at the end become a small lunar module that landed on the moon."
The Saturn V was a three stage heavy lift rocket capable of placing 130 tons into earth orbit. The first stage (SI-C) was powered by a cluster of five F1 engines collectively producing 7.5 million lbs of thrust at lift off. These burned for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 42 miles and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour. The second stage (S-II) contained five J-2 engines. After the first stage was discarded, these burned for approximately 6 minutes at 1.2 million lbs of thrust, taking the vehicle and payload to 115 miles altitude and 15,500 mph. The Third stage (SIV-B) then placed Apollo in a circular parking orbit 1,640 miles downrange at an altitude of 118.8 miles (191.2 km) with an orbital velocity of 17,432 mph. Trans lunar injection was performed by the restartable J-2 engine in the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V rocket. Apollo 11′s S-IVB burned for 5 minutes, 41.01 seconds achieving a velocity of 24,994.656 mph to send it to the moon - it was then a coast. The third stage was abandoned once the lunar module had been extracted by the CSM. It was this stack that journeyed to the moon. Since the Earth's gravity continually exerts a force on the vehicle, Apollo was steadily losing speed until it fell into the lunar sphere of gravitational influence at which point it began to accelerate again. So they coasted away from earth, they slowed gradually to just under 3,292mph before the gravitational influence of the moon allowed them to pick up speed again. Lunar orbit insertion was then achieved through a burn of the SPS engine which lasted 6 minutes and placed the craft in an initial elliptical lunar orbit and a second burn lasting just 17 seconds and eased Apollo 11 into a circular orbit of 69 miles at 3,600mph.
"Ironically that lunar module though small, was able to carry a moon rover the size of a normal car (how they fitted the moon rover in the lunar module, nobody knows)."
Yes they do - this is all accessible knowledge. The lunar rovers were taken as part of the later J Class missions - Apollo 15, 16 and 17. These were folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the equipment bay. You can readily find the full schematics detailing this in addition to the photos and footage of their stowage and deployment on Earth and the surface of the moon. Even if you claim that the Apollo Programme is faked, your statement is irrespective of this demonstrably false. Why do you people do this to yourselves?
"Now the return journey.......this supposed to be complicated. No more big rocket. The lunar module can surpassed the moon gravity (although moon gravity is 1/6 of earth)......but you still need a tremendous force to do that. Lunar module cannot afford to do that."
The force you exert on a surface due to gravity pulling you down is measured in Newtons (N) - this depends on the strength of gravity at a given location - in this case 0.17g. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. With no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. In 100 sec, the ascent stage was travelling over 600 mph. In under seven minutes, they had reached orbital velocity. The LM ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and had a 3500 lbf engine, so it had easily enough thrust. Ignition was hypergolic and the lunar lander's ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2 and witnessed during the Gemini programme.
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendezvous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock. The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. The SPS performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth. This was again a coast and Apollo progressively increased velocity due to the influence of the Earth's gravity.
"NASA wants us to believe the lunar module was using RE/solar energy in 1969"
What on Earth are you talking about now? The lunar module didn't use solar energy, it was powered by storage batteries whilst the CSM relied on fuel cells to generate electricity. 1969? - the first solar device to produce electricity from sunlight was installed on a rooftop in New York in 1883 by American inventor Charles Fritts.
"It is just a BS story created by the American."
You'll find in life that before you write something off as a "BS story", it's advisable to familiarise yourself with at the very least, some basic knowledge of the topic concerned.
Or, you could make a complete tit of yourself through arguments from ignorance and incredulity and a deferral to junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BadAtTeaDude
"Wasn't too expensive or dangerous with never before created or used tech."
Are you pissed? The Apollo project was obscenely expensive which is why it was prematurely canceeled.
"Now it's too dangerous and costly and nobody else has come close to the fraud landings nasa did 53 years ago with technology that "exists"."
It's always been expensive and dangerous - what the hell are you talking about? Bye the way, Project Artemis says hi.
"That time they did something with technology then couldn't repeat it."
They repeated it five times. It would have been nine more times had it not been for the aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the cancellation of Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
"Like the model T."
What?
"Or crossing the Atlantic in a wooden ship in a few months..."
Are you ok? Seriously?
"How about those Wright brothers? Or pennacylin.. Heart surgery."
What about it?
Don Pettit in 2014 was discussing the cancellation of the Apollo Programme. And he didn't say "lost", that is false, he used an equally unfortunate choice of wording in saying 'destroyed' which hoax nuts have obsessively fixated upon since. You don't, 'lose' technology in the sense that it is forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappears. All the technology remained but rapidly became obsolete. You lose the capability and with the premature cancellation of the programme the production plants, the tooling, the specific expertise to mount such a huge project was all abandoned or left to lie fallow. Most significantly, Pettit was referring to the heavy lift capability which was also forsaken in favour of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. There is no longer the capability to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. When civil aviation eventually returns to supersonic flight (it's been nearly half a century since the demise of Concorde), it isn't about to roll a 1960s design, featuring 1960s hardware out of the hangar. Rebuilding such a complex project as Apollo on a similarly massive scale and utilising contemporary technology on a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme has been a long and protracted, painstaking process. Project Artemis was only approved in 2018.
Why is it that this has to be explained to you freaks over and over and over again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickwilson8429
“Haha you're pulling out all the low-brow fringe theories now I see. Do me a favor and point out anytime you saw me mentioned any of them.”
Once again, you spectacularly miss the point. Government corruption no more adds credibility to those ridiculous notions anymore than it does your chemtrails.
Do me a favour and show me at any point where I have tried to “vigorously to defend a government that is known to be dishonest and corrupt”? Go ahead. And while you’re at it, as I invited you do so, present your “documentary evidence” that you referred to, together with William Casey's full quote in its full and intended context. Again, when you fail to do so, come back to me and we'll discuss it in more detail.
“So, you say that you agree the government is corrupt. Yet, you refuse to even consider the possobility that they could be lying about certain experiments they may or may not be conducting”
Not at all – a clumsily executed strawman even by your standards. To clarify…again: The chemtrails conspiracy theory (and the topic of this video) is predicated upon the misidentification persistent contrails, a phenomena that has been observed, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has nothing to do with these trails, is not currently in progress beyond fully transparent research, has nothing to do with cloud seeding which is a commercial venture, neither leave a trail, and have nothing to do with government secrecy.
“Corrupt governments wouldn't get very far if they openly advertised all their misdeeds, would they?”
Absolutely not – but as I have explained innumerable times now, that does not lend credence or validity to any arbitrarily selected conspiracy theory of your choice or creation.
“Here is another link to an article on the topic, which I'm sure you will dismiss. It's obvious that the more information I provide the more condensed and specific you want to be about the details of the topic. I say they're spraying particulates into the atmosphere,”
Then you need to provide evidence. How have you established this? Have you actually bothered to read your own link that you provided? Y’know – the one that tells you precisely what I have been saying – that this form of geoengineering is “hypothetical”? We have gone over this exhaustively. SAI has not yet graduated beyond computer modelling and research proposal. A small scale trail is scheduled to take place above the Arizona desert involving a steerable balloon launched 20km into the mid stratosphere and releasing mere kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation and distribution. This is the current status of your SAI…
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the trails that you are seeing or the “government”.
“you say "what does this have to do with commerical airlines spraying chemicals at 30,000ft". I point out that i never said anything about commerical planes”
Once again, because comprehension clearly isn’t your strongpoint. As I previously explained - believers in this hoax continually point to footage of aerodynamic and exhaust contrails in the wake of commercial air traffic as supposed evidence of chemtrails. Perpetrators of this hoax, such as Dane Wigington have intentionally conflated geoengineering and cloud seeding with the original chemtrails conspiracy theory. Gullible subscribers to this nonsense such as yourself are caught in a circuitous loop of logical fallacy. You are told that SAI would look like a persistent contrail so when you see a persistent contrail you believe that is in SAI. To reiterate. Even if it was actually being deployed, you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. Once more, the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so as I said currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose. In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing occur. Read your own link…”Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the stratosphere, around 60,000 feet up”.. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to such altitudes Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower. Once again, please provide footage of this supposed spraying in progress. Go ahead.
“The science is out there, that isn't the only peer-reviewed study on the topic.”
Absolutely. It would help if you understood it before commenting.
“I don't really care what you choose to believe.”
Known science is not about belief.
“Ha and here is another article about Harvard and Yale scientists thoughts on the potential of aerial spraying to curb climate change. Is CBS and CNN too obscure for you? Or do you think the editors just misundertand the ideas being presented?”
Another set of articles that tell you that it is the province of research proposal – and, from your own link yet again, I quote directly...
“The report does, however, acknowledge that the technique is purely hypothetical.”
Seriously, how stupid can this get?
Now answer the question. What does research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection or the practice of cloud seeding have to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
J S
“I also mentioned that you wouldn't disrespect me in person. Yet you addressed everything but that.”
Incorrect again – go back and read my responses.
“What are you afraid of?”
Certainly not a cloud because the internet told me it was a conspiracy theory…or the mysterious “they” that are supposedly coming to get us.
“And what's with the weird spacing between sentences?”
No idea. The You Tube comments section inserts them for some reason. Annoying isn’t it?
“I assure you that my iq is much higher than yours.”
That classic moment when a conspiracy believer fells the need to mention IQ over the internet.
“A true intelligent person speaks so that all others can understand.”
That’s you completely screwed then.
“You my friend, speak the way that you do so that you can feel superior to others.”
You mean calling other people moronic, calling out grammar and boasting about IQ?
“But really, you are trying to compensate for lack of self esteem. Maybe because you can't find a significant other, or the kids at school don't want to hang around with you.”
“Maybe” that’s simply what you want to believe.
“My advice to you, is to leave mom's basement”
No offence intended, but I’m not inclined to take advice from a community of cretinous and credulous conspiracy believers over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
I don’t have a basement. I do have a converted attic though.
“and get out in the real world.”
Squawked the online conspiracy parrot.
“I know you are a pretty awkward person, but you can get through it.”
You assume to “know” quite a lot don’t you?
“But seriously, trying to impress people with an inflated vocabulary impresses no one.”
I suggest that you stop it immediately then.
“I do have time seeing as I am a business owner,”
Earlier you claimed that you didn’t.
“just no more for you.”
Is that a promise this time? Convenient though, since you are yet to address the perceived “appalling grammar” in my replies and the substantive content of my responses on this thread. Like I said…what are you so afraid of?
“Good luck becoming as smart as you think you are.”
Look what you did - looks like you finally went and broke it this time Mr IQ…
https://binged.it/35Olx5Q
1
-
matthew martin
Thanks you for your response Matthew. I assume that your comment is directed at me?
You mean being able to express and articulate oneself in a comments section? Moreover, discussion about atmospheric science is involved. The terminology is complex and the applied science detailed.
The last person that I responded to made an allegation concerning my "appalling grammar", I duly invited him to provide examples of this. I have similarly requested substantiation in respect of many of the claims made on this thread, to be greeted with the usual ad-hominen abuse, irrational indignant responses and accusations that you seem oddly impervious too, instead choosing to take umbrage at my perceived excessive verbiage which you appear to deem more offensive.
Regarding IQ, I have made no mention of this and make no allusions or suggestions to my own; rather the preoccupation is yours and that of the previous respondent. Indeed, intelligence is not measured by the written word and can manifest itself in a broad range of attributes ranging from the emotive to the creative, the artistic and artisanal to the emotional.
Intelligence is a natural trait; a born ability we gain right from the birth. It is to perceive visual, logical, mathematical, linguistic, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intra-personal activities. IQ depends on how well you do this. Education is an external force. A person with no proper resource but with keen intelligence will naturally objectively search for those resources and apply true critical thinking. Online conspiracy theory is the diametric opposite, appealing to illusory superiority, agenda, subjectivity and invariably driven by ignorance, fear and prejudice. This very much explains why it is replete with logical fallacy and the ensuing personal attacks when the flawed reasoning is challenged or in response to any reasoned request to validate claims or present hard data.
1
-
1
-
matthew martin
"Please allow me to clarify something which I mistakenly assumed to be mutually understood."
Do please go ahead...
"I underestimated your naivety."
Said the gullible believer in an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? Ok. Carry on...
"I'm not ''unintentionally amusing myself'' at all."
That's not what I said. Although I appreciate that this could be misconstrued and possibly ambiguous - particularly to one so lacking in self-awareness of their own limitations as you clearly are. When you actually contextualise my remark, that is, the statement in full, you'll see that I was noting that you yourself are unintentionally amusing....largely through the fact that you are so unaware of the continued irony contained in your responses. My actual statement was...
"Coming from a self-proclaimed "conspiracy realist"? You're really quite unintentionally amusing yourself, particularly given your inverted snobbery."
Not difficult to comprehend...even though you failed to comprehend. So in actual fact, "the gift that keeps giving"? - that would be none other than you.
"1) the info is there, if you didn't have some level of confirmation bias you could research it yourself."
A conspiracy believer accusing someone of confirmation bias? - a tad rich that. There, you've done it again. You are utterly oblivious of your own illusory superiority.
Appreciating that "research" does not involve any such cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, an evening in front of baseless You Tube conspiracy videos or regurgitating self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, may I ask precisely how you conducted yours?
As a reminder, you hilariously stated that there are "testimonies of countless experienced aviators (& scientists) who make it very plain that their encounters with these lingering trails were baffling & something very new". I have simply asked you to present just one of these testimonies and I'll take a look. As the one making the claim, the burden of proof is incumbent on you, the onus does not lie with me to attempt to prove an absent. Try again. These "experienced aviators and scientists"...name just one together with their full credentials and their evidence that contradicts established physical laws of contrail formation and duration. Instead of deflecting like a typical conspiracy believer when challenged, go ahead and have the conviction to substantiate your assertions.
"2) The remark about the edit option was really idiotic, considering that it would defeat the purpose of what was intentionally done in a facetious way."
The remark about the edit option was clearly facetious itself...is there anything that doesn't drift over your head? (other than your supposed chemtrails that don't actually exist). You must have been horrified when you discovered that you had conflated idealise and idolise...genuinely, kudos to you though for having the integrity not to delete or amend it.
"3) Carefully go back over your most recent post (the one to which I'm now responding), as well as the previous couple. Then, if you can honestly say that you recognize no grammatical errors at all, no misspellings or mistakes of any kind, I'll indulge you further."
Again, since you are the one making the claim, that you have only touched the "tip of the iceberg" you should have no issues "indulging me" when requested. If you are so sensitive to grammatical and now, evidently spelling errors and typos, can you confidently say that your own comments are similarly error free? Interesting that you choose to conveniently ignore the appalling English - and as I previously pointed out - ad hominem abuse associated with those that share your belief. Today, you gave a 'thumbs up' to a comment that contained three grammatical errors and no punctuation whatsoever which you elected overlook. Have some consistency instead of hypocrisy!
Incidentally, your belief that pilots are impervious to a supposed toxic brew of aviation fuel that is producing these alleged chemical trails is again highly amusing whilst betraying no shred of awareness of your own innate suggestibility and gullibility.
Here, this is for you, although I suspect we've been there before...
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Illusory+Superiority
David Dunning, Justin Kruger? - meet Matthew Martin. Matthew Martin, allow me to introduce you to Messrs Dunning/Kruger.
Kisses too!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
matthew martin
"LOL...Dick Van Dyke was (& still is, I'm sure) a comedic genius and a national treasure...well, for me anyway."
Cor blimey Mary Poppins.
"So thanks for the wonderfully humbling complement. I've actually begun to enjoy these utterly pointless exchanges. Hypothetically, I think we'd be mates if you'd let me buy you a pint."
If you're ever in the vicinity of north London I'd definitely take you up on that...although I tend to venture south of the river these days closer to my old haunts....and on account of some of the taps around there.
"Oh well, another life perhaps. Uh-Ooh...Please don't respond back with something about how reincarnation of any sort is bullocks, as I do not intend (seriously) to get into anything spiritual or metaphysical with a whole new thread."
Odd how under hypnotic regression or otherwise these people were almost invariably war heroes, statesmen, navigators, scholars, famous musicians, actors, orators ...never toilet cleaners, prostitutes or petty criminals.
Of course I subscribe to the notion of reincarnation...in fact, in a previous life I was a chimney sweep and one man band in Edwardian London.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyhedgecock7472
Serious question - because I'm genuinely interested. Why do you feel the need to parrot uninformed nonsense based upon what an online conspiracy theorist has told you to think about a subject that you demonstrably have absolutely zero understanding of whatsoever? These claims have been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again, but yet none of you attempt to verify them independently for yourselves. I'm curious - why wouldn't you? You claim to want the truth, and yet you either lack the capability or the will to find it and prefer to allow online grifters and con artists to tell you what to think and say. Very, very strange behaviour.
"funny how the original film of such a historic event is missing"
Here's a case in point. This again. Really? What does this even mean? Have you ever thought to question your own beliefs and actually verify this for yourself? Some magnetic back up tapes relating to the Apollo 11 EVA were reused. They contained raw analogue video transmitted via unified S Band and were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording equipment in order to capture the raw transmissions at source in case anything should go wrong with the process used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations. There is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world. Broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen were recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. There are also kinetoscopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives there have been tapes uncovered that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived. Meanwhile the original back up tapes are now long obsolete and defunct as a medium. Similar tapes from later missions have been sold off to collectors via auction. You could have established all this for yourself.
"and that with all our modern technology we can't go back"
With all out "modern technology" we can't go back to flying passengers between London and New York at supersonic speeds. Does that mean Concorde was also faked? - or could it be due to other factors beyond available technology due to cost, sustainability and political will?
Seriously, listen to yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nonsense, you simply allowed junk online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
The press conference - again? Seriously? Yet another self-appointed behavioral psychologist on the comments section of You Tube then.
How many times? It's the same thing over and over and over and over again with you clowns. Armstrong did scores of interviews and press conferences. So you are referring to the post mission press conference of Apollo 11? Then you obviously haven't watched the entire hour and 23 minutes of footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a very introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However, characters from subsequent missions such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions. Whilst at it, find footage and images of the Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins beaming after recovery in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You all need to ask yourself this: why do certain people post over and over again, refuting the claim that there are chemtrails?
Why do certain people post over and over again, refuting the fact that these are contrails?
"You will recognise certain names."
Such as yourself?
"You may have noticed that when questioned, those people insist that they are doing it for entertainment. However no-one gets entertained for years and years, refuting someone's claim of chemtrails just for entertainment,"
And not in the interest of science of course?
"It isn't hilarious when people are worried for their lives and the lives of their families."
Because of an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory? They needn't. All they need to do is learn some basic meteorology and stop subscribing to baseless sensationalist internet scaremongering. Personally, I'd be more worried about the deranged lunatics threatening to interfere with commercial aircraft or attack pilots and airline staff because the internet told them to.
Perhaps you should be more critical of the pernicious charlatans that perpetrate this cynical and wicked fraud - profiteering out of ignorance, fear and prejudice?
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/dane-wigington-e1354728857709.png
"Think, everyone, think. Clearly those people are being paid by someone or some organisation to post that chemtrails are not real.There can be no other motivation for posting over and over again except money (or military orders)."
The irony is excruciating.
"The fact that someone is willing to pay those people for years, surely adding up to substantial amounts (or willing to give them military orders) to post refutation of chemtrail claims, is very worrying and suggests that there is indeed something very serious going on with aircraft spraying"
Circuitous logic much?
And thanks to Mr, Neverlostforwords of Melbourne Australia. for sending in this week's spot the non-sequitur.
And what, I wonder, is your view of the following?
https://youtu.be/s7Fz6FRDcE4
1
-
@neverlostforwords
"I am interested in protecting the health of my family, friends, plants, trees, animals, insects and everything/everyone else harmed by chemtrails."
As opposed to genuine environmental and ecological concerns such as consumerism, ground based pollution and measured particulate matter from industry and traffic and in particular PM2.5? Do you drive?
And are you also I wonder, interested in protecting them from extra-terrestrial abduction, Bigfoot, ghosts and poltergeists, fire breathing dragons, demons, witchcraft and the zombie apocalypse?
And if God forbid one of your family is ill, do you consult with a medical practitioner and place your trust in evidence based medical science or would you entrust their welfare to a lay You Tube video or Dr Bill Deagle perhaps?
"That is the only reason I am keen to comment on (and explore) this subject."
But you don't critically "explore" at all - you simply feed and reinforce your preconceptions with repeated confirmation bias.
"I believe..."
And as I have told you on innumerable occasions, therein lies your problem. You thrive on conjecture. Known science is not about "belief".
"...that most (not all) others who have personally observed chemtrails are posting their observations and related thoughts out of similar concerns."
Concerns founded upon ignorance, fear and often vile prejudice which you seem oblivious to.
"Nevertheless, there may be a small number of such people who are profit-oriented or have other motives."
A small amount??? The entire cynical business of online conspiracy theory is predicated upon exploitation and gain. Most, if not all of these chemtrail websites are monetised. The big YT players thrive off advertising revenue generated by hits and subs. To those at the top of the tree perpetrating and perpetuating this nonsense you are simply the low hanging fruit, ripe fpr the plucking. These people harvest gullibility - and any attempt to expose them or debunk their junk science is explained away as 'disinfomation' or shillery. The internet has given everyone a voice - it is the uninformed with nothing of consequence to say in the rational world and are as a consequence generally ignored that frequently shout the loudest. Hence these irrational, illogical caps lock diatribes. Conspiracy theory sells the illusion of empowerment and significance to inconsequential lives. A fantasy in which you can sanctimoniously brand yourself as "awake" and others that challenge you as "sheep". How exquisitely ironic.
"However, my comment above was directed at those people who repeatedly counter chemtrail observations - the people arguing/insisting that chemtrails are misinterpreted contrails"
Present your best evidence to the contrary.
"I very much doubt there is a scientific motive for such people, however you claim to have one."
Do you also believe that a contrail can last between seconds and minutes You'll find most trolling this page do.
"Do you have evidence of a prior yt comment where you state that scientific interest is your motive? I would be interested to see it."
I will almost invariably refer chemtrail believers to meteorological sources pointing out that the science is axiomatic and therefore speaks for itself. I will also invite them to refute it - as you well know. And yes, in spite of this I have expressed that my main motive is to defend evidence based science although it has a voice of its own.
You haven't answered the question. Since you posted an excerpt of this as supposed legitimate source owing to the fact that the you tube video title had the word "chemtrails" in it, tell me, what is your view of the following?
https://youtu.be/s7Fz6FRDcE4
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David-cv1se
"Originally it was Universal Studios"
Wow! - and to think, no one noticed. Incredible, and so many people visit unaware of this. It also managed to elude half a century of investigative journalism worldwide. How did you, a random bloke on the comments section of You Tube, establish it for yourself? A remake? So you didn't even know that that were a further five missions, plus one inexplicably staged/faked failure.
Hang on a minute...I thought it was supposed to have been filmed by Kubrick at Shepperton UK...or was that Pinewood? No, no, it was definitely Elstree, or maybe Twickenham? Hmmm.
No wait, what about Cannon AFB, New Mexico.? - 'Operation slam dunk'1968?? Bart Sibrel said so, so it must be true (even though the term slam dunk was not coined until the early 70s by Laker's announcer Chuck Hearn - (but we'll ignore that). Cannon AFB it is then. Hold on, what about a secret hangar in Area 51, Nevada - or Groom Lake? Or was it in the Arizona desert, the Utah outback or Death Valley. No, no, it was without doubt Devon Island Canada, that's what they said.
You complete goons can't even get your stories straight. It's hilarious. I guess it depends upon which dumb online conspiracy theorist that you allow yourself to be duped by.
Astonishing then that 'Universal Studios' was able to replicate a vacuum and 1/6th gravity uncut, and precisely reproduce Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too that managed to produce fake moon rocks and in so doing fool an entire branch of science called geology in the process - evading detection for over 50 years from mineralogists, petrologists and analytical laboratories across the world.
You haven't really thought this through have you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Apollo Space Capsule re-entry ................3 parachutes reliable up to 17,000 mph"
Those parachutes were not deployed at 17,000 mph. Where on Earth are you getting that figure from? Passing through 7,300 metres (24,000 ft), the apex cover was blown by a pyrotechnic charge. This exposed the two sets of parachutes. First the two drogue parachutes were released, which slowed and stabilised the capsule from 310mph to 170mph. They pulled out the three large main parachutes some twenty seconds later which slowed the CM to around 22mph for the targeted splashdown zone in the Pacific Ocean.
"Before social engineering shill @yassassin6425"
Or perhaps just another user of the the You Tube comments section that calls you out on your garbage regurgitated conspiracy theory. Grow up. You are humiliating yourself.
"Felix jumped from a ballon gondola. His rate of fall continuously sped up while falling toward earth until he broke terminal velocity"
Felix Baumgartner, (note the spelling, you can't even get that right), jumped from 127,852 feet an altitude of 24 miles.He reached high speeds due to minimal air resistance, eventually exceeding the speed of sound. Terminal velocity depends on air density and thus altitude in addition to the mass and the energy of the object falling. Terminal velocity is the speed at which air resistance balances the acceleration of gravity on a falling object. Terminal velocity is therefore a moving target, a higher velocity the higher you are, and the lower the more drag you have.
"what scientists said couldn't be done"
Name just one.
Moreover, before Baumgartner, Joe Kittenger held the world record for the highest skydive at 102,800 feet set in 1960 in which he reached a speed of 614mph. Not as high as Felix since he jumped from a lower altitude.
"Sorry .... re-entering earth's atmosphere wouldn't slow down Apollo at all."
The comical train wreck when a gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory attempts to disprove physics, by using physics, without ever studying physics.
Apollo had vastly more energy that Felix Baumgartner stepping out of a gondola. A capsule encountering the Earth's atmosphere at such high velocity compresses the atmospheric gas molecules in front of it, which heats up to very high temperatures. Although rarified, this is still sufficient to form plasma and decelerate the craft. At the equivalent altitude that Baumgartner jumped, the Apollo Command Module was still travelling at 8,000mph. as the air became denser and provided more resistance it substantially lost velocity - as did Baumgartner from around 90,000ft. Baumgartner had neither the mass or the energy to be slowed until he encountered the denser air in the stratosphere. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
If you are attempting to deny aerobraking then not only must you overturn an entire branch of science called physics and with it the specialist field of aerospace engineering worldwide, but you also need to account for the process that slows meteors entering the Earth's atmosphere at speeds typically ranging from 25,000 - 40,000 mph enabling meteorites to impact the Earth's surface at only 200mph.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matshanssen2070
"You must be a young ignorant lad that just came out of the egg and thinks he knows it all."
You're the one that feels the need to use childish emojis. As I already explained to you, I am irrelevant to this exchange, do try to stay on subject.
"Ever heard of the propaganda-wars in the sixties, einstein?"
Propaganda has flourished throughout recorded history. Of course governments lie and deceive - no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. However, simply because they did and do, that does not mean that claims of hoaxed moon landings or any random conspiracy theory based upon one's choice, devising or person agenda should therefore automatically be assumed to be true. A syllogistic logical fallacy.
The scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is incontrovertible and has a voice of its own.
"And by the way : where is your absolute proof?? Where??"
Yet another conspiracy believer that is unable to comprehend burden of proof. You made a positive assertion, therefore as the one making the claim and challenging the status quo, the onus is incumbent entirely on you to substantiate it. Go ahead then. You appear to be suggesting that the Apollo missions journeyed to the moon in a "crappy man made metal vehicle" - (of course it was "man made"), and that there wasn't sufficient fuel?
"Show me, young sleepwalker"
Ever an ongoing source of amusement that those insisting on still parroting such cringeworthy clichés are the ones that slept through science classes.
1
-
1
-
@matshanssen2070
"Ever heard of Stanley Kubrick and what he had to say about this?"
This again? Seriously, how many times? How gullible? Do you people have anything remotely resembling an original thought or observation ever even occasionally entering your vacuous craniums? Stanley Kubrick had nothing to say about it - although he did request the use of the rare f/0.7 camera lenses manufactured by Carl Zeiss for NASA in order to shoot the candlelight scenes in ''Barry Lyndon'.
Possibly one of the most ridiculous theories that you deniers cling to. Aside from the fact that even today, convincingly faking continuous uncut footage in a vacuum and 1/6th g would be utterly impossible, the special effects in '2001: A Space Odyssey' didn't remotely resemble the Apollo of the lunar landings. Moreover, Douglas Trumbull was responsible for this, not Kubrick, and the whereabouts, projects and activity of the man are completely accounted for throughout all of the Apollo missions 1969 - 1972. Furthermore, there is no way that man of Kubrick's stubborn and defiant nature and character would have compromised his artistic integrity for the US government. Amusingly, much of this horseshit stems from an excerpt from an appalling film made by T Patrick Murray, called 'Shooting Stanley Kubrick' featuring a deathbed confession. The actor cast in the role, (Tom Mayk), doesn't look or sound remotely like him, but that doesn't stop it being consumed and regurgitated by gullible social media addicts. Please don't tell me that you are so gullible you fell for that?
Regarding your claims concerning "propaganda" and "the government", I have already responded to this. Do try to keep up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WTF_BBQ
First of all - refer back to the OP. You are the one making the claim that contrails can only last for "seconds to minutes". This is demonstrably untrue. As the one making the statement the burden of truth is incumbent upon you to demonstrate otherwise - don't deflect and switch it back. If you had either the will or the critical faculty to actually challenge the online conspiracy theory that you lap up an regurgitate then you wouldn't need me to prove it to you. I am irrelevant to this exchange - however, the physical laws that govern meteorological science and the formation of contrails are axiomatic thereby have a voice of their own. All you need to do is listen as opposed to relying upon junk online conspiracy theory as an explanation for a phenomenon that you clearly have no comprehension of.
I am unable to post links on here due to the spam filter. However, all that you need to do is find meteorological text books from the mid 20th century that have photographed, documented and studied the trails that you are describing.
Chemtrails absolutely "surfaced" in the late 1990s and early 2000s (note, no apostrophe required), - because that's precisely when this hoax originated. As I said, persistent spreading contrails have been observed measured and studied long before then.
In 'Flight to Arras' Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
"If Persistent contrails do exists, A single jet exhaust does not produce enough water to spread across the sky covering entire cities. Next time you see a persistent contrail, watch the spread throughout the morning. You'll see the sky turning milky by mid-day, and ask yourself --- Is that normal ??"
Yep, completely. Refer to the Knollenberg study that I referenced. You are absolutely correct, that a single jet exhaust does not produce enough water to spread across the skies covering entire cities. I completely agree. However, the exhaust is merely the trigger event creating deposition. In conditions of supersaturation, it is the available atmospheric water vapour not the exhaust itself that comprises 99% of the visible trail. Think about it - such coverage contains millions of lbs of material. Compare the weight of this to the MTOW of the aircraft producing them. Also, what chemical can expand and increase in mass, just like - well no shit - condensed atmospheric water vapour? Where do you think clouds come from? All this is very, very basic science. Why is it even necessary to explain it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why should he? Particularly since he was an atheist.
Sigh, this again? How many times? Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel?
Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some shameless grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And to reiterate, why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.”
However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
1
-
1
-
@ronminghelli2429
"that's crazy talk I've noticed you believers always come up with some radical excuse to try & explain what can't be explained."
Nope, that's factually correct and it's nothing whatsoever to do with me. How is tugging a lanyard to deploy an arm with a detachable camera that can be activated by pushing a button in the cabin "crazy talk"? What you meant to say is that it simply isn't what you want to hear.
"Have you ever been to see the lunar lander in person, it's like a compact geo metro, yet somehow it's carrying elaborate camera set ups, a jeep, astronauts, cases for samples, flag, golf club, etc. Yet the thing is barely big enough to hold the astronauts"
And your point about "crazy talk" was?
"elaborate camera set up"
What's so elaborate about the MESA bay Westinghouse camera and a data camera mounted in the window?
"a jeep"
You mean the lunar rovers? They were taken as part of the expanded later J Missions and folded and stowed in quadrant 1 of the LM descent stage. You can easily find the full specifications and with that, the full schematics of the lunar module had you either the will or the capability to do so. In addition to that, there is ample footage and many photographs of the loading and deployment.
"astronauts"
Yes, you'll find that was the general idea behind the design of a manned landing craft.
"cases for samples"
And?
"flag"
A folded piece of nylon and some telescopic anodised aluminium tubing and casing weighing all of 9lbs. What about it?
"golf club"
What golf club? Oh you mean the sample scoop shaft from Apollo 14 that Alan Shepherd affixed a nine iron head to? That "golf club". So what?
"Yet the thing is barely big enough to hold the astronauts but you want me to believe it's carrying capacity is that of an 18 wheeler unless they also shrink rays and reverse shrink rays impossible."
I don't want you to "believe" anything, that would be the dumb online conspiracy theory that tells you what to think. I simply suggest that you take a look at the schematics that unlike you, entire branches of science and specialist disciplines such as aerospace engineering worldwide fully understand and have no issue with. What is it that you, a random insignificant under achieving conspiracy believer and troll on the comments section of a video entertainment platform claim to know that they don't?
"I don't understand something and so it is fake" is not an argument, it is personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance concerning a subject you demonstrably have zero knowledge of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@curtisbeasley3443
Yes, I understand the pejorative interpretation and use of the term, and that it can be used disparagingly and in a loaded sense by an administration to deflect. However, post 9-11 "trutherism" conspiracy theory has burgeoned over the internet becoming a cynical manufactured business perpetrated by charlatans, hoaxers, snake oil salesmen and con artists. It's a lot easier to hide behind a conspiracy theory than it is to learn the complex history, mathematics or science involved. These people sell illusory superiority - that you can somehow become privy to some arcane knowledge that eludes inferiors or "sheep", simply by an evening on the internet. There is nothing in the way of objective enquiry, critical thinking or logical reasoning behind this - simply confirmation bias, cherry picked factoids, quote mining and self-referencing propagated through deceptive agenda driven alt-media, pseudoscientific websites and vacuous online echo-chambers and internet bubbles as opposed to informed sources and education.
Together with the growth of populism and the post-truth era, you have the likes of the ludicrous Bill Kaysing, Jeff Rense, David Icke and Alex Jones and their ilk to thank for that and the fact that the term is increasingly used to denigrate. Mention conspiracy theory and far from genuine sceptical thinking, the immediate connotations are flat earthers, chemtrail believers, moon landing deniers, 9-11 "truthers", holocaust deniers...Challenge these beliefs through independently verifiable sources or scientific fact and you are almost invariably greeted with "paid government shill". Conspiracy believers appear to get off on pretending that they're one of the small minority too clever to be fooled but can't even demonstrate this supposed intellectual prowess when challenged to do so, which make it transparently obvious that their claims amount to nothing more than empty ego masturbation.
Also, simply because a previous government or administration has lied does it then follow that chemtrails (or any conspiracy theory of one's choice or devising) must be true? A syllogistic fallacy, affirming the consequent, through the undistributed middle.
Question. Why are you "on the fence" about chemtrails?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There are on yt from NASA where they are talking about the Artimis program and future plans for manned missions to the moon and the engineer goes into am explanation of the van Allen radiation belts and admitted they have to figure out how to shield astronauts from the deadly effects of radiation before sending humans through them."
This again? How many times? In an educational video aimed predominately at children, one NASA engineer Kelly Smith is talking about the (then) new capsule Orion and that it needs to be tested and validated before they can send astronauts through the belts. Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo utilising onboard systems and modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts and it is designed for missions of longer distance and duration. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic rope core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hardened. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can cause single event and spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics ad life support systems. Radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive.Later that year 2014 Orion was deliberately sent into the more intense inner belt to test these and it passed with flying colours.
"The space suits had no radiation protection. Fuck the van Allen belts, what about the extreme solar radiation an astronaut working on the lunar surface would be exposed to?"
The main concern was an SPE/CME, but since the Apollo missions coincided with a solar minima,, none occurred during any of the missions. Other than that, an astronaut on the moon absorbed a measured average of 60 microsieverts an hour largely from GCRs.
"Couple that with the fact the PLSS(The backpack the had on, the Personal Life Support System) weighed a couple hundred pounds. 1/6 gravity or not, the MASS of the astronaut and the backpack doesn't change. They'd still have that much mass, and all the inertia and momentum accompanied with it, to deal with. It would throw their center of gravity off. Then they were moving forward or jumping up and down and stopped, the weigh equivalent to their body would want to keep going. The weight would either throw them face down, or tip them over backwards"
Nope - it weighed only 14lbs on the moon, 84 lbs on Earth, fully loaded with consumables about 104lbs, which equates to 17lbs on the moon - your statement is completely false.
"While I'm on the subject, wtf does moving forward in a decreased Gravity environment have to do with slowing down their forward motion? Walking on the moon's surface, the forward motion is perpendicular to the moon's, and Earth's, gravity. So what's the reason every movement seems to be in slow motion?"
For the most part, the astronauts appear to move more slowly on the Moon because they are. While their weight was less, their mass was the same. And in addition, the space suits were bulky and stiff. This meant much of their motion was deliberate and slow so that they would not loose their balance and because of the resistance - you referred to this yourself. Now factor in that astronauts on the moon are accelerated towards the surface by lunar gravity - or about 1/6th as fast as on Earth. So when they take a step, they come down more slowly. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"Look at the photos. Converging and parallel shadows is impossible with a single distant light source. Converging shadows indicate a light source very close. And shadows that are perpendicular indicates multiple light sources.
All of this can be observed on earth in similar undulating terrain. It's the same thing, parroted over and over and over and over again.
"Nevermind the fact that in the photo of aldrin exiting the lunar module, he's completely lit up. He should be in almost complete darkness."
Again, the same relentless claims. Why? Because online conspiracy theorists completely ignorant of albedo and camera exposure said so?
"Look at lro images. The resolution is amazing, until they are of the Apollo sites. In the hires images, you can see where NASA edited the photos and blacked out images..."
No you can't.
"Of buildings, craft, equipment, etc that's not from humans."
What????
"So why is the moon able to reflect light on aldrin bit not on anything else?"
The suit is white, the exposure captures his descent on the ladder as the frame of reference.
"Consider this... The side of the rock, or the lunar lander, or the astronaut facing the sun would be at a temp of about 250F, while the opposite side that's unlit would be at about -240 F. You think that space suit or lander could take those yltps and extremes. One side of the lander and astronaut outside, would be vooled. Half the lander, made of something like 20 gauge aluminum or smaller would be expanding from such high heat while the side in shadow would be at -250 and contracting due to cold."
Those are extreme surface equilibrium temperatures. In a vacuum, there is no air, so in the absence of convection, temperature is irrelevant. The only significant form of of thermal transfer is radiative from the sun. Objects on the moon take time to build up to those extremes and time to radiate heat away - it is not instantaneous. Moreover, the Apollo landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. A day on the moon is equivalent to 27.5 Earth days - so none of the temperatures that you mention are applicable or were experienced.
"Do you think the suit and PLSS had the ability to remove that much heat and cold and keep the astronaut at a comfortable 68Fover his whole body? Plus. The suit had to be airtight and pressurized to 14psi in the vacuum of space. The suit and gloves would swell up like the Michelin man and they wouldn't be able toove. Now that I think about it, the same thing would happen on a space walk. Where's all tha power to maintain temp. Pressure and oxygen coming from ? There's no way that backpack could do that , especially for the amount of time they were on the surface."
Firstly, the main role of the PLSS was to shed heat. Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb. And no, the suits were not pressurised to 14psi - where are you getting all this from? The A7Ls were pressurised to 4.3psi the same as contemporary suits. Lunar surface EVA times for the first four missions (Apollo 11 through 14) were limited to 4 hours, with oxygen stored at 1,020 pounds per square inch (7.0 MPa), 3.0 pounds (1.4 kg) of lithium hydroxide, 8.5 pounds (3.9 liters) of cooling water, and a 279 watt-hour battery. For the extended missions of Apollo 15 through 17, the EVA stay time was doubled to 8 hours by increasing oxygen to 1,430 pounds per square inch (9.9 MPa), lithium hydroxide to 3.12 pounds (1.42 kg), cooling water to 11.5 pounds (5.2 liters), and battery capacity to 390 watt-hours. What's your point?
"There are statements that on later missions, the astronauts never traveled more than 20iles away from the lander."
??? On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km.
"It's risky enough launching, traveling hundreds of thousands ofules in one direction, navigating, deploying craft, docking, undocking. Landing on the moon while the command module orbits, ascending back into lunar orbit and rendezvousing with command module, traveling back through space, through the van Allen belts, entering the atmosphere at a precise angle, position, and speed, surviving reentry, shoots deploying. Landing in the middle of the Pacific ocean and not sinking right by a carrier..."
Every aspect of the Apollo missions was fraught with danger and it's highly likely that had the programme not been prematurely cancelled due to cost that it would have claimed the lives of a crew. However, every aspect that you mention here was possible due to superb engineering and and understanding of physics.
"not saying, I'm just saying."
No, you're 'just' consuming and parroting the same old recycled and obligatory, predictable fallacious assumptions, bad science, atrociously researched and outright deceptive conspiracy theory combined with your own personal incredulity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrwang420
"yeah but again. You are only going by what they admit."
No, I'm "going by" the established laws of physics and atmospheric chemistry, which are axiomatic and have a voice of their own - as opposed to the conspiratorial internet pseudoscience that you gullibly consume and regurgitate over the comments section of a video entertainment platform. Guess which is more reliable option? Here we go, the enigmatic "they" again - who precisely are you referring to? Oh, hold on...
"I am going on the basis that the government lies and uses things for purposes they dont admit to us."
What government in particular? There are now 195 independent sovereign nations in the world. No, you are "going" by junk You Tube videos, confirmation bias (which you have already unwittingly demonstrated), self-referencing pseudoscientific fake news and baseless conspiracy websites.
"And what Ive said is entirely possible."
You sure about that. Which bit? I'd be intrigued to know.
"And You are right. The military did stop using many transmitters but what you disregard is that other groups bought and still use the transmitters for the same purposes."
Incorrect, to reiterate, there were four other such HF pump facilities built - two of which have been decommissioned and dismantled. HAARP was sold to the University of Alaska, Fairbanks and is currently being refurbished. It is used for ionospheric research (the original Gorky-Luxembourg experiment was abandoned) and can be contracted on a pay to use basis. They even host an open event for which no security clearance is required whatsoever. If you really think this is some atmospheric manipulation tool, death ray, seismic weapon, method of mind control, chemtrail conductor (delete as appropriate) - or whatever these lunatics on the internet told you what to think, then perhaps you should visit. They even host a barbecue in the summer.
"Of course they wouldnt save documents about something like this."
What documents? HAARP was never classified. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was conducted during 1992-1993 in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The environmental impact process documents have always been, and are now, a matter of public record.
Face it, if it wasn't for your belief in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, you people wouldn't have even the slightest interest in the HAARP facility....far less know what it was. Firstly, stop believing the baseless garbage that you read on the internet by opportunistic fraudulent perpetrators of conspiracy theory, which if you hadn't noticed, can be quite a lucrative business in the post truth era. Secondly, educate yourself with some actual science and learn about objectivity and the need for independent verification.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This again? Jeez, how many times? Now please go and watch the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. Characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans certainly weren't so reserved...perhaps you should watch the Apollo 12, 14, 16 and 17 post mission pressers too? - given that you didn't even know that they existed. Also, find photos and footage of the Apollo 11 crew immediately after their return in the mobile quarantine facility.
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for the opportunistic con artists, grifters and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RonWard-i1x
Sigh. A question for you - and if you have the integrity and the honesty I'd like you to ask it of yourself. Entire branches of science the world over and specialist fields of expertise - specifically radio communications and radio-astronomy have absolutely no issue with the Apollo transmissions. Do you think it just might be possible that you don't know as much as them?
Let's try again shall we? The Apollo broadcasts were sent by unified S band which relayed the live video feed back to Earth, along with the other radio and telemetry data that was already being sent back. And yes, we can do it now with the same technology. Where on Earth do you get the idea that we can't?
The image and sound signals were transmitted via a lightweight antenna on the top of the lander. The antenna was lined with 38 miles of fine gold-plated wire, thinner than human hair, to reflect the signal 250,000 miles back to Earth. Unified S-band could send: telemetry, command, voice and television data using different frequencies but combined into a single antenna. However, even with this new system, there wasn’t enough bandwidth available for a standard 525-line video camera. In order for the video feed to fit into the downlink, Westinghouse and RCA developed slow-scan cameras which transmitted just 325 scan lines at a mere 10 frames per second. The signal was then backed up and converted on the ground when received at the Deep Space Network. When the Apollo TV camera radioed its images, the ground stations received its raw unconverted SSTV signal and split it into two branches. One signal branch was sent unprocessed to a fourteen-track analog data tape recorder where it was recorded onto fourteen-inch diameter reels of one-inch-wide analog magnetic data tapes at 3.04 meters per second. The other raw SSTV signal branch was sent to the RCA scan converter where it would be processed into an NTSC broadcast television signal.
Also, where do you get the idea that a radio signal can't be broadcast 238,000 miles of space? We are still receiving data from the Voyager probes. Voyager I communicates with the Deep Space Network to receive routine commands and to transmit data to Earth. At a distance of 162 AU (24 billion km; 15 billion mi) from Earth as of November 2023, it is the most distant human-made object from Earth. Astronomical radio sources are objects in outer space that emits strong radio waves. Radio emission comes from a wide variety of sources such as quasars and pulsars on the edge of the known universe. Recently radio-astronomers have the most distant fast radio burst ever detected: an 8-billion-year-old pulse that has been travelling for more than half the lifetime of the universe.
Regarding Apollo 1, a stuck microphone was the main problem with the communications loop connecting the crew, the Operations and Checkout Building, and the Complex 34 blockhouse control room. The poor communications led Grissom to remark: "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two or three buildings?". What's your point?
Seriously - and it's the same for all of you online conspiracy believers - why do you make demands from personal incredulity about subjects that you demonstrably have zero comprehension of whatsoever? You don't understand something, so you insist that it has to be fake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crazychrome5811
Thanks for your reply.
Doing what precisely? We are discussing aircraft contrails here.
You are doing that same as all chemtrail believers and using the false equivalence of geoengineering manufactured by the perpetrators of this hoax in an attempt to explain what you are seeing.
Bill Gates has leant support and funding to hypothetical branch of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is part of a 20m research initiative at Harvard University. SAI is intended to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and those heterogeneously produced in the Junge Layer. SAI has yet to graduate beyond mathematical modelling and research proposal. A small scale trail called SCoPEx, involving a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere releasing a few litres of water to evaluate perturbation (and subsequently maybe 2 or 3kgs of calcium carbonate to establish reflectivity) has been postponed multiple times. You can routinely establish all this yourself. Given how close to the tipping point that we are, the only geoengineering strategy that is likely to have any effect so late in the game is DAC (Direct Air Capture) which is hideously expensive and many nations will lack the will or the funding to participate.
Like I said, SAI doesn't exist beyond paper proposals and computer modelling. Even is it was ever be attempted (which it won't be), it would not form a visible or lasting trail or involve commercial jet aircraft and would need to take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. There is currently no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft). More tellingly, in addition to the environmental unknowns, cost and logistical problems, the sheer impossibility of international governance means that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection will never get off the ground - unless you count the SCoPEx project that I referred to.
As I said. SAI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. All you need to do is read up on geoengineering research yourself at source, on behalf of those conducting it, and to understand contrails, the basic rudiments of meteorology and aviation, instead of relying on junk online conspiracy theory for the explanation of the phenomena that you are seeing.
Hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maverick4081
"The Trump Russia connection., it was bought and sold by Hitlary Clinton., it was a hoax."
😆
"As to what the Army sprayed., you need to reread and research the event. It was not as mundane as you state."
I know exactly what was involved in the St.Louis trails and actually, Martino-Taylor's research around this is flawed and inaccurate.
What is far more sinister are the examples of field testing of the effects of biological weapons which was completed covertly using simulants and agents dispersed over wide, open areas. This also occurred in Southern England, again admittedly in trace amounts, to quantify the effects of a biological attack. Indeed, the first American large-scale aerosol vulnerability test occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area in September 1950. Two types of bacteria were deployed, Bacillus globigii and Serratia Marcescens and fluorescent particles. As the articles mention, Bacillus species were chosen in these tests because of their spore-forming abilities, and their similarities to Bacillus Anthracis a causing agent of anthrax. Serratia Marcescens was used because it is easily identifiable from its red pigment. Did you also know that In 1966, the New York Metro was infamously contaminated with Bacillus Globigii in an attempt to simulate the spreading of anthrax in a large urban population? More field tests involving pathogenic species were conducted at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah and anti-animal studies were conducted at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Now you know why Lyndon B Johnson had such a twitchy arse over signing the freedom of information act in 1965. However, what do you think would be the result of deploying any of this at 35,000 feet out of the rear of a large jet aircraft? Think carefully now.
What does any of this have to do with a dumb online conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The amount of mental gymnastics it takes to defend the moon landing is fucken insane."
Another dullard that doesn't even know that there was more than one.
That's interesting. For over half a century entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise worldwide have forensically scrutinised every mission profile, every schematic, specification down to sensors, rivets, nuts, bolts, switches and circuit breakers and the history and technology of the Programme has been exhaustively examined through thousands of books, journal publications/academic papers, technical authorships and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet. Today, we have dumb online grifters selling horseshit to gullible conspiracy theory believers with zero knowledge of the subject that think a social media meme substitutes for the education that eluded them.
"U have to be dumb or paid by jews"
So the standard antisemitism too?
Tell you what, you'll clearly have no problem whatsoever presenting your singular most compelling and irrefutable piece of evidence then that the Apollo missions were faked.. Naturally you'll be keen to avoid the same old obligatory, predictable dumb online conspiracy theory that is consumed and regurgitated ad nauseum by those with zero knowledge of the science, technology and the history of the Apollo Programme and has been debunked over and over and over again. So do you have anything vaguely resembling your own thoughts or observations based upon informed understanding that objectively proves that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax? Or do you simply have personal incredulity and ignorance like all the rest?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrTodfoulk
Sigh. So in common with your ilk, you predictably completely ignore the topic and resort to the same old obligatory personal attack instead in rabid caps lock. Even then, you can't even parrot the word 'shill' correctly, far less actually understand what it means. As the one posting ill informed nonsense, unsubstantiated claims, junk conspiracy theory and personal abuse in the comments section of this video, by virtue of its very definition, the troll would be none other than yourself. Moreover, you are shilling conspiracy theory, which if you hadn't noticed (of course you haven't), is highly lucrative form of exploitation for those that peddle it. And to cap it all, you exhort me to 'wake up' - are you really you're 60, not 6? The only one's still sad enough to be using this cretinous conspiratorial cliché are the ones that slept through science classes.
I simply challenged your claims - and how you people absolutely detest that.
Yes persistent spreading contrails did exist before the 1990s, a fact that you can routinely independently verify for yourself if you had either the integrity, the honesty, the will and the critical capability to do so. Nothing whatsoever to do with me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ha! Kucinich...again? Really? Seriously, how many times?
HR 2977??? Are you serious? This is Dennis Kucinich's Space Preservation Act, which effectively ruined not only his bid to run as a presidential candidate but arguably his political career. Have you actually bothered to read this nonsense? Of course you haven't and neither did he.
Had he taken a look at the draft - which he had he nothing to do with writing - and perhaps not entrusted it to UFO enthusiasts Carol Rosin and Alfred Weber, he would have discovered that it contained all manner of fanciful conspiratorial nonsense from extraterrestrial technology to pyschotronic mind control weapons. So it really wasn't that surprising that they flung in "chemtrails" as well.
When this horseshit was discovered it was hastily redrafted and prompted Kucinich to say "“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.'” Ultimately it was never passed, because of its lack of substance and fizzled out under committee. it was a huge embarrassment for Rep. Kucinich, not because of any alleged "secret revelations", but because certain members of his staff acted without his direct consent.
I can't believe that after all these years this is still being batted about your vacuous echo-chamber as supposed proof of your chemtrails. What next? The hilarious "What In the World Are They Spraying', Kristen Meghan? Rosalind Peterson? The ludicrous 'Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell the truth about Chemtrails' video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh Jeez.
Firstly, David Keith's research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is entirely that. It is a hypothetical concept that has not even progressed beyond computer modelling and research paper and hasn't even reached the stages of small scale trial. It is highly unlikely given appreciable the challenges such as logistics, cost, environmental unknowns and international governance, that it would ever be employed - even as a last ditch measure to arrest global temperature increase.
Bill Gates has nothing to do with SAI beyond lending vocal support a decade ago and making a donation to Harvard's geoengineering research initiative.
I think you mean John Brennan, the former head of the CIA, whose 2016 voluntary address to the Council on Foreign Nations concerned 'Transnational Threats to Global Security' which was appropriated and dishonestly framed by chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Why don't you listen to what he actually said instead of gullibly falling for some sensationalist You Tube video strapline? I can provide you with a full transcription if you wish. Brennan doesn't advocate the idea of SAI, completely the opposite, he warns of the dangers that it poses to international relations and the environmental unknowns.
What does any of this have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory centred around the misidentification of aircraft contrails that have been observed, recorded, documented and studied for in excess of 80 years and since the early advent of powered aviation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Uh.... politicans are AT THE VERY LEAST-- CRIMINAL. Why, on God's green earth , should we trust them"
We shouldn't. But why not trust baseless online junk conspiracy theorists instead, who are of course unerringly scientifically accurate, historically faithful, truthful, completely devoid of deception or disingenuity, entirely honest and completely free of agenda.
What do the persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century have to do with trusting politicians?
"Anyone familiar with H.A.A.R.P.? It's in Alaska... "
Since you ask, yes - and given that my background is the atmospheric sciences, I can discuss the origin, purpose, instrumentation, capabilities and applied physics associated with the facility in great detail should you wish to do so.
"weather control is not a conspiracy."
No, it's a conspiracy theory - and a particularly ludicrous one at that. Again, want to discuss why?
"Do your research folks..."
Thanks for that, it's my job.
That obligatory and excruciatingly cringeworthy moment when a book burning online conspiracy believer armed with a search engine mentions 'research'. Appreciating that "research" does not involve squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, mindless quote mining or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites, tell me, how did you do yours?
1
-
@lauranorth1234
"While YouTube is a wonderful platform, it is by my own thinking coupled with a strong faith in Jesus Christ, that I am able to see. Real eyes realize real lies!"
....Only, this 'research' you referred to? Did Jesus do it then?
"My senses tell me that Big Bang is a lie. Humans were never apes. NASA is merely a branch of Disney World and artists create "space" ie. "Science FICTION". No one has landed on the moon. Our sun is CLOSE to earth. And we are not dwelling on a spinning ball."
Actually no. Junk online conspiracy theory told you that.
"Arizona has the highest rate of Alzheimers. Isn't it interesting that the chem trails are VERY prevalent in the skies of Arizona?"
And thanks to our last caller Laura North for sending in our featured logical fallacy of the week.
"I don't need proof from anyone outside because my senses and the Holy Spirit lead me to obvious truths."
You won't be needing this internet connection that you don't know how to use either then.
"There is a war waged against humanity. On the satanists' side is-- Big Pharma, Central Banking systems, Poisoned food, tainted water, cloud seeded skies and viruses unleashed (Lyme disease from Plum Island, for instance. )"
Because your "senses" said so.
"Pride keeps people from the Truth. Pride keeps people asleep at the wheel"
Really? Could you, armed with your senses and the Lord Jesus Christ in an advisory capacity, explain precisely how the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme is a weather weapon? I must be missing something. Thanks ever so much.
1
-
1
-
"just spouting his script without a debate … just promoting their narrative"
The irony, was it intentional?
"Dr David Keith had purposed a high altitude aerosol injection using sulfur like a volcano eruption . Their game is weather control by a shadow canopy of sulfur"
Stratospheric Aerosol injection. They know this, it simply isn't relevant to the debate.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
It's likely that sulphates (that are already produced heterogeneously in the Junge layer) would be employed, but suggestions that calcium carbonate may have better reflective properties have yet to be explored. The ill fated SCoPEx project that was to send a steerable balloon 20km in altitude to release a few kilos of water to evaluate perturbation has been awaiting ethical approval for years. SAI will never become a reality - not simply due to the logistical difficulties that you mentioned, or the environmental unknowns, but the impossibility of international governance.
"The problem is they estimate a outrageous number of deaths that they will be no responsible for."
No they don't. No such estimations exist. Last month's VEI 5/6 monstrous eruption of Shiveluch on the Kamchatka peninsula that I guarantee, you are completely oblivious to, caused huge stratospheric injection - alone lofting some 768Gg of sulphate mass up to 12 miles into the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year. The amount of annual sulphur deployed by SAI that have been proposed, 5–10 Tg, is trivial compared to the annual volcanic SO2 emissions into the troposphere, about 13 Tg, not to mention annual human emission of SO2 which is far in excess of either.
"The problem with this is it’s like taxes and wars . They never end once they start . Too much money is on the line for those investors in it"
The amount of grants that SAI research receives is trivial and there is virtually no 'investment' because there are no tangible returns. This is why the proponents of this branch of SAI are so keen to publicise their work, to attract support and funding.
"Look up former FBI director Gundreson , he was early pointing these planes out with a case built on the people operating them"
Just as he was 'pointing out' the stockpile of 30.000 guillotines stored in FEMA camps, or became the main perpetrator of the ludicrous 'satanic panic'? Gunderson was an off the charts far right conspiracy nut job that even the most deranged online conspiracy believers now approach with caution. There wasn't a conspiracy theory that was out of bounds or too ludicrous for him - he subscribed to the entire gamut and like all CTs, had books and products to sell to his target audience. Of course he bought into a dumb conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails.
Again, what does any of this have to do with SAI?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jdheelfan
Incorrect. I do not defer to junk online conspiracy theory and I am informed about the science, technology and history of the Apollo Programme. And you demonstrably are ignorant, because you think that the Apollo moon landings are faked. Meanwhile entire branches of science, specialist fields worldwide such as aerospace engineering, rocketry and geology, Pulitzer Prize nominated investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the other 76 space agencies on the planet are able to demonstrate otherwise. In short, domains, disciplines and expertise far exceeding an insignificant outspoken, opinionated troll, that thinks that dumb conspiracy theory constitutes "scientific research"
But let's see shall we? No use simply saying it. Go ahead and present your singular most compelling, conclusive, persuasive and irrefutable piece of evidence that the Apollo Programme was faked. Naturally you will be avoiding the same old predictable crap online conspiracy theory that has been mindlessly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again and routinely debunked and shown to be false innumerable times.
Do you have anything vaguely original to contribute, or based upon your own thoughts or observations? I'm all ears.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GLRAIRSOFT
??? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which has nothing to do with 'government' - and no, it was never cancelled because it was never happening - nor was it ever concealed from the public. SAI has always been transparent and well publicised, which is precisely how the public heard about it in the first place - as opposed to 'finding out' or exposing it. The proponents of such strategies are very eager to publicise their work to attract funding and support. How do you 'admit' to something that has never been denied? The reason that you know about it is because of idiot chemtrail believers on the internet that have intentionally conflated their hoax with hypothetical proposals into solar radiation management - the believers in this nonsense are too uninformed to recognise such association fallacy. They attempt the same false equivalence with cloud seeding.
Aside from the SPICE initiative - which involved a small scale trial...(I suggest you read about it), there has been no similar trial conducted since. SAI is solely the preserve of research proposal and computer based modelling. The SCoPEx project intended to launch a series of small balloons last year 20 kms above the Arizona desert to evaluate, perturbation and dispersal releasing mere kilos of water and subsequently calcium carbonate from a steerable balloon, but this has yet to take place...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Universities are dependent upon state support, what is known as QR funding (Quality Related funding), the bedrock of research revenue, which in the UK has fallen in real terms by 12.8% since 2010 - but geoengineering is largely dependent upon private benefactors and other sources. Of course the government are aware of it. There have been several impact statements largely evaluating potential problems concerning governance and policy issues should any form of geoengineering become a reality. To reiterate, this has never been secretive in any way.
"Chemtrail info is easier to find if you look at Solar Radiation Management?" That completely confirms the sort of association fallacy that I am referring to. Of course it is. You are trying to legitimise and vindicate a baseless hoax. It strikes me, that your chemtrails can be whatever you want them to be, from contrails, to skywriting, to weather modification to perfectly natural meteorological phenomena.
To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentificaiton of persistent contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, documented, recorded measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century. The notion of chemtrails can largely be traced to the late 1990s and the junk late night shows of Art Bell on America's Coat to Coast AM...a sensationalist commercial radio station that manufactured this hoax to boost ratings and advertising revenue. The subsequent conflation with geoengineering/solar radiation management was predominately the intentional work of conmen such as Russ Tanner and Dane Wigington as the growth in internet access and popularity of conspiracy theory became lucrative big business...something that YT in particular has come under flack for encouraging. Precisely why you now see these disclaimers inserted at the top of conspiracy videos and fake news due to the imminent threat of brand damage.
Given that SAI has never been secretive, doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
@GLRAIRSOFT
"i suppose if you have a back ground in this field then a copy and paste wouldn't be needed but your post looks suspiciously copy and posted from some www.im a debunker. Douche website."
Because conspiracy websites are entirely honest, accurate, truthful, not in any way driven by agenda or deceitful, and are never gullibly regurgitated by their believers?
"My major concerns is with your logic and semantics."
My main concern is with your unintentional irony.
"For starters if SAI is going on with federal funding then the government knows about it by default. They don't have to do it personally to be tied to it."
Of course your government is aware of research into SAI - it is one of many branches of hypothetical geoengineering and as I said, there is no secrecy surrounding it - there never has been. And to reiterate, it isn't as you say 'going on' beyond research paper and computer modelling.
"Think mercenary armies, they aren't government operatives but do get "approval" from the government to do what they do."
Mercenaries and militia are often directly endorsed by government as a way of avoiding mobilisation of their own armies or placing their own troops on the ground. A very good recent example is Russia's involvement in the Ukraine. What on earth does this have to do with research into SAI? One of the main concerns amongst the proponents of this work is the indifference from the government and lack of funding and support. Geoengineering is still very marginalised and largely ignored by the state.
The $20 million launch of the recent Harvard Research programme is a drop in the ocean though. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world to step up the research, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to understand the economic, environmental and practical challenges of geoengineering. The systematic dominance of physical science and engineering perspectives in geoengineering research encourages a neglect of social and environmental impacts. This negligence is characteristic of an approach that addresses symptoms but aims to leave the underlying conditions that spawned the problem in place. Yet the socio-political and socio-economic implications of large-scale technological schemes to “fix” the climate are profound: under existing global power relations, geoengineering is bound to be exploited for corporate and strategic interest.
"To say they never denied it I think is disingenuous."
???? How precisely do you deny something that has never been secretive?
"If they are spraying chemicals into the air to combate anything I don't care the excuse"
No one is 'spraying' anything from aircraft beyond crop dusters, pesticides and skywriters.
"but at the same time calling anyone also through proxy a conspiracy theorist for thinking they would do so is illogical. Seems to me as they deny chemtrails and say they don't exist but fail to mention that they are doing these other experiments that sound alot like chemtrails and geoengineering."
Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory. To reiterate, this is based upon the misidentification of persistent contrails which have been recorded, photographed, documented, measured and studied since the dawn of powered flight. The main perpetrators of this hoax use false equivalence and association fallacy intentionally conflating everything from geoengineering, weather modification, skywriting, military chaff to sounding rockets to validate their claims. If you wish to refer to research into Solar Radiation Management as 'chemtrails' then you are at perfect liberty to do so, but don't be at all surprised if you are branded a 'conspiracy theorist' for doing so.
"I also think saying the spraying is going on at a different altitude and not what your seeing is more semantically idiotic retoric."
I suggest that you read the comments from chemtrail believers and frequent some of their 'idiotic' websites, which are clearly misidentifying contrails and natural perfectly identifiable meteorological phemomena. Incidentally, its 'rhetoric'.
Regarding altitude, the purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
In order to achieve SAI, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that chemtrail believers are observing and under discussion in this video occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
Additionally, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing contrails can actually trap heat which is precisely the opposite effect that the proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
"They obviously are doing this but don't want attention on it."
Doing what precisely? And why is it obvious?
"I heard about chemtrails over ten years ago and only heard about geoengineering and cloud seeding a few years ago even though they were going on for far longer. That's odd. Considering how deep I get into any subject I would have assumed I would have run into it. I guess the truth was hidden in the wording"
There you go, that says it all - and therein lies the problem. You approached this subject, not on an impartial basis, or through an understanding of or interest in aviation, atmospheric science or meteorology but via the 'chemtrails' hoax. Many people that hear about goengineering do so through conspiracy theory, but cloud seeding is well known. Your lack of awareness, incredulity and consequential misinformation is irrelevant to the real world and true objective inquiry.
1
-
@GLRAIRSOFT
Thank you for your reply.
I am irrelevant, your dispute lies with the physical laws governing the formation of contrails and the mathematics that renders them an impossibility. I am simply familiar with the latter.
Regarding the aircraft landing with the "payload dumping mechanism stuck on open" every video that I have seen claiming such involves dishonestly appropriated footage of aerodynamic contrails. Barium is a naturally occurring element that has a myriad of natural and anthropogenic pathways into our soils, air and water. There are no 'ground samples that show elevated levels without an explanation pertaining to the latter and no causality with aerial spraying has ever been established beyond this. There are no "spraying runs" - these are simply aircraft producing contrails. A persistent contrail weighs millions of lbs - far in excess of the MTOW of any aircraft in existence. Moreover, there is no chemical that can expand and grow in mass in the same way as condensed atmospheric water vapour.
A contrail is merely a form of artificially induced cirrus. The governing factors are the interplay between temperature, humidity and pressure and since the atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogeneous, this is continually in flux. Therefore, a contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is very cold and frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from being drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why as I mentioned, a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
The science of contrail cirrus is explained here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonovessimon4242
Sigh. The Van Allen Belts are not a magnetic field - it is a consequence of the magnetosphere. Notice I say'belts' since there are two, with a third that is transitory. You didn't even know that. The belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled us to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth.The VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible but admittedly, doubtless beyond your comprehension, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory as did the PMP. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts.
"do your own research"
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FourthWayRanch
Upset? You're so dim, you couldn't even quote me accurately. You goons are hilarious.Entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise and disciplines worldwide such as aerospace engineering, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalism, Nobel Prize winning physicists, over 10.000 private sector organisations and investments and each of the 76 space agencies on the planet to name a few - all know that the Apollo moon landings were real because they all understand the evidence which you are completely oblivious to. Meanwhile, you, a random, insignificant, gullible conspiracy believing nobody on the comments section of You Tube, claims to know better because some dumb Tik Tok reel told you what to think about a subject that you have absolutely zero knowledge of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Are you sure that this is a conspiracy theory"?
Yes.
The chemtrails hoax based upon the misidentification of persistent contrails, originated in the late nineties largely through Coast to Coast AM and the late night shows of Art Bell. As a commercial radio station the manufacture of conspiracy theory (which they still do to order), not only boosted ratings, but in so doing, advertising revenue. Since the advent of the internet and the post truth era, conspiracy theory has burgeoned and is now lucrative big business. The perceived relationship with "geoengineering" is purely as a result of the efforts of the perpetrators of the chemtrails hoax to intentionally conflate the two in a desperate bid to afford credence and legitimacy to their ludicrous claims.
"Google and read Geoengineering for decision makers 2011"
I already have read it. What's your point? Chemtrials are an online hoax claiming that aircraft contrails are evidence of an intentional global programme of chemical spraying. Geoengineering meanwhile is a very broad term and can be divided into two main headings - GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) and SRM (Solar Radiation Management). GGR involves such strategies such as aforestation, carbon sequestering, ambient air capture, and biochar, whilst most funding and interest is channelled into ocean fertilisation. As we've just discussed, SRM exists in the realm of paper based proposal and would involve methods such as marine cloud brightening, albedo enhancement and space reflectors. As I said, one of these, Stratospheric Aerosol injection, has not even progressed beyond the status of isolated small scale trial.
At what point in this document does it tell you that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is anything beyond paper based research? This paper discusses the possible implications of these strategies. SRM is analysed throughout this document in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a geo-political, socio-economic and technological framework. It broaches a range of research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice.
"Concerns about the potential negative consequences of geoengineering are justified, particularly for SRM technologies. Even early-stage research on geoengineering raises valid concerns, such as the possibility that it could create a community of researchers that functions as a self-interested lobby promoting the use of the technology."
Here's the PDF - what's your point and what does this have to do with an online conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of contrails?
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Geoengineering_for_Decision_Makers_0.pdf
"Also Google stratospheric aerosol injection lofter."
You mean research proposals such as this?...
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/meta
"Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) would require lofting hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of material each year to altitudes up to ~20 km."
What's your point? and once more what does this have to do with a conspiracy theory based upon the occurrence of persistent contrails in the wake of commercial air traffic at half the altitude. Why do you think that such a strategy should it ever deployed would resemble a contrail at half the altitude?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMexikin
"look up "CIA promoting chemtrails"
I think you may well be referring to former Director, John Brennan.
Did you actually listen to what he said? As a guest speaker, the theme of his address to The Council on Foreign Relations (a thinktank) was "Transitional Threats to Global Security" during which he also addressed possible future technologies that don't even exist yet. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, in the unlikely event that it would ever be deployed as a last ditch solution to combat climate change, would have geo-political ramifications and pose significant implications for governance.
Brennan discussed future issues that may result in worldwide instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could create international conflict and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to identify a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political, Environmental Sociological and Technological framework. He explored research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice, even broaching the philosophical ramifications of anti-ageing technologies should they ever be realised.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"chemtrails are a type of cloud seeding is what I'm saying."
What you are saying is baseless. You are using a conspiratorial term which has no basis in reality. Strikes me that chemtrails are whatever you want them to be...you may as well include domestic fireworks and crop spraying. Once again, chemtrails are a delusional hoax, based upon persistent contrails in the tropopause and lower stratosphere. Cloud seeding does not create a cloud or trail, and is deployed at a fraction of the altitude of the contrails that gullible conspiracy believers construe to be chemical spraying.
"They put metals into the jet fuel to add substance for moisture to hold on to and form clouds."
What?????? Do the same next time you fuel your car - let me know how your engine responds. Jet exhaust naturally contains trace elements and introduces limited additional CCN primarily due to soot, but any additive for such a purpose would trash an engine in seconds.
"I'm aware of other types of cloud seeding too, allicin saying is when people talk about chemtrails this is what they are talking about."
The "people that talk about chemtrails" are lay, scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists invariably over the comments section of an entertainment platform such as this, through social media and garbage pseudoscientific gatherings and websites...and they have no clue what they are talking about. Genuinely I suggest that you refer to legitimate meteorological science and aerospace engineering instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Even the astronauts on international space station say we hope to visit space beyond these belts completely forgetting about the Apollo missions 7 that supposedly did."
No they don't. One astronaut and commander of the ISS, Terry Virts, referred to the loss of the heavy lift capability following the cancellation of Apollo, correctly saying, right now we don't have the means to get out of near Earth orbit. This was in 2015, three years before the approval of Project Artemis and seven years prior to the first test flight of the SLS.
"NSA says we threw out that technology- phooey."
No, again one astronaut, Don Pettit, this time speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate and cynical turn of phrase which was 'destroyed' the technology and quote mining conspiracy theorists and their believers have obsessively fixated upon this inflating it to 'NASA says'. With the premature cancellation of Apollo, the plants were closed, the production processes and tooling wound up, the expertise retired or moved on, and the technology left to lie fallow and become obsolete. Meanwhile, spaceflight continued to evolve and grow in other ways with the emphasis upon low earth orbit whilst deep space exploration became the preserve of less expensive unmanned probes and landers.
*"We had trouble even getting unmanned spacecraft in to just out of earths orbit."
This is so inaccurate and absurdly false it's laughable.
"Those astronauts acted spooked from what they saw on the other side of the moon from earths orbit."
You can't see the other side of the moon from Earth orbit.
You clearly haven't got the remotest idea of what you're talking about. So let;s start with the VABs. if you have a shred of integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it? 3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself have to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you form humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making arrogant claims on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
Entire branches of science such as physics, geology and astronomy, in addition to related fields of specialist expertise including aerospace engineering, petrology, orbital mechanics, and rocketry would all disagree.
With whom to afford credence? Evidence based disciplines predicated upon independent verification, measurement, physical laws and mathematical axioms, or a gullible random conspiracy believer seeking recognition and significance over the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
If you think it is pseudoscience then go ahead and demonstrate why. Instead of wasting your time on You Tube consuming and regurgitating other people's dumb conspiracy theories, start by falsifying the wealth of academic literature dedicated to the Apollo programme. That, or go back to your Bill Kaysing book and your Bart Sibrel videos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
"Do you really think I would ever give you a source for anything"
Nope - you are a conspiracy believer so incapable of doing so - moreover prone to making unsubstantiated claims, so no surprise there.
"when your tactic is to shoot the messenger no matter who the source is?"
If it is legitimate then I will not be able to will I? Quick tip. Try relying on something more credible than Bill Kaysing. Known and verifiable science is a good place to start.
"I'm not your research assistant"
Thank f**k for that.
"look that up yourself. And don't pretend you've never heard that about China either."
As the one making the claim, the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. The onus does not lie with myself or another party to search for a negative or absent upon your insistence, behest and personal incredulity.
"Oh, yes, the moon landings do have a LOT to do with the other known frauds. They were every bit as fake -- though, granted, nowhere near as realistic."
Because again, you said so?....or rather, Bill Kaysing, given that you hang on his every word.
"And just so you know, critical thinking, common sense, and research are required to go from a mindless moon landing believer who accepts whatever govt authorities say to a FORMER mindless moon landing believer who now verifies whatever authorities say."
Known science is not about 'belief' or whatever "authorities say". Pull yourself together man, you're becoming increasingly irrational and flustered again.
And on the subject of mindless belief...the irony, was it intentional?
Lets go back to your claim. You stated that Professors in China are telling students that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. What 'professors'? Where is your evidence for this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
"A good example of character assassination, which, again, is exactly the reason I will not give you any more names of people whose characters you would proceed to assassinate."
How convenient. We both know full well that the real reason is that you are unable to source your claims that are largely mindlessly and uncritically accommodated online. A recent example being your absurd statement that Professors in China are telling students that the Apollo moon landings are faked. I merely asked you to substantiate this and you were unable to do so. Perhaps you can trot out the same tiresome trope that the CIA 'invented' the phrase conspiracy theory again?
Again laughable. Kaysing's behaviour, his fraudulent claims and his outright lies to discredit others for his own gain are demonstrable and there's nothing noble or honourable about that. The 'assassination' that you speak of is all his own. Even Ralph Rene of all people commented that Kaysing submitted "a load of drivel!" in his failed lawsuit against Jim Lovell. That you choose to venerate, revere and place blind faith in such people says much about you.
"Because you cannot give a valid argument against the "message," you NASA fans always "shoot the messenger." Do you not know that only those on the losing side of an issue do that?"
That you are blind to your own logical fallacies is the main reason I find you so entertaining. That, and your weird obsession with trolling these videos. 'You NASA fans''? What is that even supposed to mean? NASA are irrelevant here. As I keep explaining to you, the Apollo moon landings can be independently verified and those that challenge your absurd conspiratorial claims do so through objective science. I, and others, counteract everything that you post about Apollo with a valid argument which is independently verifiable. It's the same obligatory ill-informed arguments from ignorance, incredulity, quote mining, confirmation bias, cherry picking, circular logic over and over and over and over again. You post your 'message' I will not only address it on a point by point basis, but debunk it. The fact that you aren't genuinely interested in the answers is as manifest as your scientific illiteracy.
1
-
1
-
@soulsunderseige4946
"The spraying of our skies was admitted as geoengineering."
Once again, research into SAI has never been secretive and has always been in the public domain. How precisely do you admit to something that has never been denied?
"I will search for the source. This kind of shit is not out of the realm of possibility when it comes to government."
It as nothing whatsoever to do with the "government" - and you don't need to search for any source, since I fully understand what this strategy proposes and you clearly do not.
Given the desperate attempts by the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory to conflate geoengineering with this online hoax, you are clearly referring to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.
Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. As I said, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - yeah, that's right, chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with any "government" or the persistent contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
@yourtube15807
The same things over and over and over again.
It does create disturbance. You can even hear Aldrin acknowledging it during the landing of Apollo 11 when he says "picking up some dust" at about 20 feet before touchdown and you can see it on the footage.
What do you expect at 10% of the descent engine's rated thrust? The LEM descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was still only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.
The dispersal of dust on the ground is caused not by rocket exhaust, but by the displacement of air. There is no air on the Moon, therefore no significant dust movement beyond that which is observed by Aldrin and captured on the LEM camera.
Next?
1
-
@yourtube15807
"all these details do not impress me "
Your personal incredulity is neither here nor there, they are scientific facts and thus, independently verifiable. Don't ask a question if you can't handle the answer because it differs to the narrative you have been fed by your blind faith in online conspiracy theorists over physics.
"anyways why did not they blare on Media, brag about their achievement? Why is there no publicity? "
? They did and there was. The moonlandings were broadcast live to 500 million which was by far the biggest live audience in history at the time. The Apollo astronauts would then typically embark upon a gruelling 38-day around the world goodwill tour, visiting 29 cities in 24 countries, at the request of the President of the United States, who would provide one of the private jets for the journey. This followed by endless P/R, TV interviews and appearances, industry and corporate dinners. The media and publicity was on a scale never seen before.
"I MEAN they landed 11 times or 12 , so why no gloating EVEN by US citizens?"
No, there were six manned landings on the moon. All of them were accompanied by huge national pride.
"USSR copied every move even sputnik was and mars race won by USSR so why did not THEY land on moon?"
USSR put the first satellite into orbit and the first man in space - but only because NASA erred on caution with the Mercury programme. The Russians failed to land on the moon largely due to design flaws with the N1/Zond rocket and in part due to the diversion of funding into defence. Above all this were the fundamental systemic problems in the programme which was rushed coupled with the Nedelin disaster. The project was badly derailed by the death of its chief designer Sergei Korolev in 1966. Each of the four attempts to launch an N1 failed, with the second attempt resulting in the Nedelin disaster in which the rocket fell back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff and causing one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history and destroying the launch facility.
In a last ditch attempt to beat America to the moon, the Russians sent an unmanned lander Luna 15 to retrieve and return lunar soil, which arrived in orbit several days prior to Apollo 11, but crashed into a mountain in the sea of crises during the descent.
The problem appears to be, that you don't seem to have any knowledge whatsoever about the technical details, history and circumstances surrounding the Apollo programme. You have already made up your mind that it was faked, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary because that is what you want to believe.
1
-
@yourtube15807
"great...I am still not covinced"
Still not convinced about something you clearly have no knowledge or understanding of whatsoever? Classic You Tube comments section.
Convinced about what? I have addressed every aspect of your response and each of your questions all of which is independently verifiable. Your personal incredulity has no bearing on the real world.
"you live in your world"
I will indeed - it's called reality. You should plan to visit it from time to time.
"never heard or saw video of 6 lunar landings"
Apollos 11, 12, 14, 14, 16 and 17. You can routinely find footage of each. Again, your ignorance and personal incredulity have no bearing upon the real world.
"and USSR backed out? u r talking about kruschev here"
Which is precisely why they were expected to deliver with limited funding and resources whilst huge sums were being invested in arms and defence. At no stage did I say they "backed out" - why the strawman? The programme was beset by systemic failure, the rocket design flawed and the the main proponent of the N1 Rocket and Lunar Strategy, Sergey Korolev died in 1966. When he did, competing factions within the Soviet Space program jockeyed for positioning for funding, staffing, and resources. This meant that the N-1 was not the entire focus of the Soviet program unlike Apollo's Saturn V. The launchpad disaster caused by a malfunctioning turbopump effectively put paid to the Russian moon landing effort.
1
-
@yourtube15807
"lets say they did it 6 times"
No 'let's say' about it - there were six manned moon landings.
"let them do 7th time...if it is a great achievement we will see that live"
They are. The SLS was rolled out for a full wet dress rehearsal last month on the pad for all to see, and is now in the VAB undergoing launch readiness. Following that, Artemis 2 will send a manned mission to orbit the moon and if all goes well Artemis 3 will attempt the landing. When this happens, you will naturally assume your default coping mechanism of denial and in spite of the coverage claim that it is faked, further entrenching yourself in your fantasy world of online conspiracy theory surrounding subjects you clearly have no knowledge about whatsoever.
"and this time someone who is a scientist and no american do some press material"
The Apollo Programme was made possible through science. Not only did it embrace entire scientific fields the Apollo systems were developed by MIT. Moon rocks and samples were returned and distributed amongst geologists worldwide - the missions were independently tracked and their findings the subject of tens of thousands of research journal publications. Hundreds of innovations and technologies were progressed and made possible by Apollo. And finally, what is most hilarious about your statement - NASA even sent a scientist to the moon Dr.Harrison Schmitt, as a member of the Apollo 17 crew and the twelfth man to set foot on the lunar surface.
"*btw did u notice youtube has removed 99.99% of videos claiming moon landing was hoax"*
No they haven't. You can still routinely find this junk, whilst a five second Google search will bring up pages of results...and guess who owns Google genius?
I have systematically and comprehensively addressed all of your posts, your misconceptions, your personal incredulity and you simply ignore it, mindlessly trotting out more nonsense based upon your emotionally invested faith in online conspiracy theory and the fact that you have no knowledge of the history, science and technical details of the moon landings whatsoever. Why are you doing this to yourself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the fact is, the burden of proof is on the person or persons making the extraordinary claims."
That'll be fraudulent online conspiracy theorists then and their dumb followers.
"We have a handful of witnesses and some photography that has no right to exist."
Nope - you have self-proclaimed experts, appeals to authority and ludicrous unsubstantiated claims by a community of dishonest charlatans, exploitative fraudsters and online grifters who harvest stupidity for profit. You are the target market.
"NASA admits that there was nothing done to protect or shield the cameras from the temperatures and more importantly the radiation."
Absolutely false. Why are you lying? Firstly, heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun - and the film was shielded from this.
Secondly, contrary to your claims, Hasselblad did significantly adapt and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. They also collaborated with Zeiss to produce a custom lens for the lunar cameras. The lens couldn't be used on a regular camera because Hasselblad removed the mirror mechanism and the viewfinder, The moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that were used were well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, as explained, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection. X rays, which can be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv.
"I am not a scientist either"
Well no shit!
"but when I took my first commercial airplane flight when I was a teenager, I took the chance of putting my roll of film through the X-ray machine on the conveyor belt. That was a maximum of 3 feet and under a minute of radiation and it was completely destroyed - came out totally blank. But we are supposed to believe that not only did the film make it on a 250,000 mile trip through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, never mind micro meteoroids or solar flares OR the 250° temperature swing on the surface of the moon OR the fact that they must have had to remove one cartridge to replace it with another, risking further exposure but the overwhelming majority of the photos came out perfectly!"
X rays, which can be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv.
The VABs consist of charged particle radiation - largely alpha and beta radiation which was easy to shield against given the trajectory and velocity of Apollo through the sparsest regions in a very short space of time. Micro meteorites presented a hazard, hence the whipple shielding on the LEM, whilst there was a very real risk of CMEs/SPEs to the astronauts. Fortunately none occurred that would jeopardise the Apollo missions or cause harm to the astronauts.
"OR the 250° temperature swing on the surface of the moon"
Those are surface equilibrium temperatures - extremes that were never experienced during the Apollo missions. To reiterate, heat and temperature are two different things. The Apollo missions were all timed to coincide with the lunar dawn - a day on the moon is equivalent to 29.5 Earth days.
"The point is that the burden is on NASA and what we have is a handful of eye witnesses who not only didn't die on the missions from radiation or any of a number of things that could have gone wrong but the majority have gone on to live incredibly long lives."
Why should they have done? The measured radiation dosage during the Apollo missions ranged from 1 - 1.5 rems.
Continued...
1
-
"And we have NASA themselves admitting to losing evidence and in their own words "destroying evidence" (see Don Pettit). Doesn't instill a lot of faith..."
NASA erased some magnetic back up tapes of the Apollo 11 EVA which were expensive, defunct and never intended for archival use. What specifically are you referring to?
"and in their own words "destroying evidence" (see Don Pettit)."
Don Pettit said no such thing. He referred to technology. Speaking in 2017 he used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"Doesn't instill a lot of faith..."
All of your baseless and il-informed contentions are parroted from mass consumed and previously regurgitated dumb scientifically illiterate online conspiracy theory. So this crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself place your "faith" in is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
1
-
"FAKE!"
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. In order to declare something as "fake", you need to actually be informed and knowledgeable about it.
"God knows whatelse we have been lied about!"
Because naturally the online conspiracy theory that you defer to is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smallscreentv1204
"Because it’s proof that they’ve been thinking about this for a while now"
??? Proof? Geoengineering has never been secretive. Research proposals and strategies have always been fully transparent and in the public domain which is how you know about it - in addition to the ridiculous attempts on behalf of the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax to intentionally conflate their conspiracy theory with solar radiation management - false equivalence which is uncritically accommodated by its believers.
"One way to inject the chemicals is via aircraft, the other is via balloons...."
To summarise, Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar, aforestation and ocean fertilisation where a large amount of the funding goes. Then you have SRM, which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is all entirely hypothetical with the exception of ground based albedo modification schemes.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which you appear to be referring to, would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. The formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. This year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MichaelForrestChnl
I have. Kirsten Meghan is an ex air force employee who served as a technical consultant on industrial hygiene evaluations of work equipment. Her 'whistle blowing' concerned the USAF alleged cover up of carcinogenic exposure in the workplace. I quote directly: "My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonise me in case I spoke out." Kirsten Meghan Jan 25th 2013.
Her interest in chemtrails is an entirely separate issue, I believe originally stemming from her brother, but as a former USAF employee it was easy to aspire to be a career conspiracy theorist and the poster child for chemtrails, paraded around by the perpetrators of in a desperate bid to gain some credibility and meaningless appeal to authority.
She claimed to have "tests", but hasn't shown results. Furthermore, the carcinogens she reported on (Chromium Oxide and Strontium 90) have a perfectly innocent reason for being on the base. They're used in the repair of airframes, which is a very common thing at Tinker AFB. Is it so strange that an Air Force base would have aircraft repair supplies?
Kristen Meghan now enjoys domestic life in staid Chicago suburbia raising a family - although still has similar pretensions and as her farcical facebook account is testimony to, clearly wishes to remain relevant in the lucrative big business of online conspiracy theory.
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
If a chemtrailing programme were a reality, there would be thousands upon thousands of whistleblowers across the aviation sector, within government, the military...and yet all you people repeatedly produce is Kristen Meghan, the farcical Shasta Town Hall rally or a decade old video of a supposed UN meeting featuring Rosalind Peterson.
Something new perhaps?
1
-
1
-
@MichaelForrestChnl
"Your version of Kristens story is very twisted and far from what she says in her videos."
OF course it is. What do you expect a perpetrator of this hoax to say in their videos?
"And your exclusion of anything Herndon has to say is only evidence of your bias."
Present what you regard to be the best analytical study determining the existence of these supposed chemtrails produced by J Marin Herndon...I'll willingly show you why its flawed
"As I already said there are relatively few whistle blowers because people dont want to be punished (including CIA execution) or lose their jobs or their pension."
Executed by the CIA????? but at the same time powerless to remove a facebook page...
https://www.facebook.com/KristenMeghanScience/
It's the same collection of individuals every time- the career conspiracy theorists, quacktitioners, frauds, charlatans, montebanks, snake oil salesmen. Wigington, Murphy, Carnicom, Herndon...I've heard it all before. Russell Blaylock??? This is utterly farcical.Perhaps you would benefit from his brain repair formula that he sells over the internet?
https://www.overvoedingengezondheid.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/O3-Blaylock.pdf
It's nothing more than endlessly recycled bunk by those unable to think for themselves, exercise even a modicum of critical thinking, recognise cherry picked confirmation bias and objectively appraise the veracity of their sources. Very simply, in the absence of any knowledge about the atmosphere, meteorology and aviation, you mindlessly buy into online conspiracy theory and by nature, you are the target audience. And since this is an investment - you hate to be challenged. To those that perpetrate this nonsense at the top of the tree you are simply the low hanging fruit, ripe for the plucking. They sell you the illusion of "knowledge" insight and empowerment whilst the rational and informed who see straight through this nonsense are branded "sheep" or "shills". Precisely why, it never graduates beyond social media and online ehco-chambers that you people inhabit.
Your Project Cloverleaf nonsense is plucked purely from the province of the latter and nothing but baseless conspiratorial crap.
Now let's address Herndon's claimed science in more detail shall we? Which of his papers would you like to discuss in detail?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justinmadrid8712
"I have found enough things that there are no plausible explanations for, plus there are just too many insane coincidences."
Name just one. Your singular best example.
"Plus, there appears to be an obvious cover up, which only helped me make my decision."
Does there? Where?
"I think the strongest evidence for me is the obvious use of wires. You can't un-see them rotating on an axis, being yanked up unexpectedly, sometimes not being able to get down on the ground, other times not being able to get off the ground, etc."
Please don't take offence to this, but there are occasions, even in the comments section of You Tube that someone floats a notion so ludicrous, or submits something that is so transcendently stupid that one is perplexed by the sheer variety of overwhelming valid counterpoints that simultaneously present themselves. In such times you find yourself left to suffocate in the overwhelming paralysis of indecisive bewilderment, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlight, which suffers for its immobility when any action would be preferable to none.
"Then you have the moving flags (moving on their own, not due to someone handling them), moon mountains found on Earth, communications sent too quickly to be from the Moon, the list goes on and on."
Yes the same arguments for ignorance and incredulity parroted over and over and over again by people that don't listen to and aren't interested in the explanations . The flags move by being touched and also off-gassing from the PLSS due to conservation of momentum. The communication with Apollo is entirely consistent, unfortunately moon landing conspiracy believers don't understand that recordings of conversations took place on earth and so the delay is only one way or that some footage has been edited for ease of viewing.
What the hell are you on about 'moon mountains found on earth?'
"Then you have all the insane coincidences regarding the history of the program."
What coincidences?
"Then after all this, I learned how deceptive and dishonest the government was at this time, which only solidified my views. The CIA and FBI was like a tax payer funded mafia. (Think things like Operation Northwoods and the false flag Gulf Of Tonkin incident)"
Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. Simply because they have historically, it does not automatically follow that moon landing denial or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice of creation must therefore be true. Lazy thinking and a syllogistic logical fallacy.
The fact that you allowed yourself to be duped by American moon and the deceptive and disingenuous assertions of Massimo Mazzucco tells us all we need to know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are simply seeing the same aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied for the best part of a century and since the advent of high altitude powered flight.
Yes, weather modification is a thing, in fact it is the technical term for cloud seeding, but this is not secretive or actually, widespread, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists term as 'chemtrails'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YAHsdaughter7
"oh they say they went to the moon but they just happen to destroy the ability to go to the moon"
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase - "destroyed". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes.
"and now they say they meed new technology to go again"
Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
"Sounds pretty fishy to me"
So because you know nothing about it and lack the intelligence to comprehend it you instead conclude that NASA are lying.
"Wheres the real proof ???"
The scientific, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings that you are completely oblivious to is manifest, demonstrable and has a voice of its own.
"Wheres the real proof the earth is not a globe ???"
What the hell are you talking about now? There is none whatsoever. We have known that the Earth is spherical since Eratosthenes measured it in 240BC. Why are you changing the subject?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@innerbliss108 .
"haha wow are you going to this much extent giving zero evidence as to how I’m wrong about chem trails?"
Burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim - the onus does not lie with myself or any other party to establish an absent or negative based upon your behest, confusion and personal incredulity.
"They are fact just do some more research."
Err, right. Given that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
I absolutely guarantee that I am infinitely more familiar with the origins, background and perpetrators of your dumb conspiracy theory, in addition to all branches of geoengineering (which have absolutely nothing to do with the latter despite the desperate lame attempts of chemtrails theorists and believers to conflate the two). In addition to which, my background is atmospheric science and amusingly, I now work in research capability for a living. Tell me about it...I'm all ears.
"They spray aluminum as well as other toxins in the air to control the weather as well as poison the earth."
I suspect that you are loosely referring to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would attempt to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols in a last ditch attempt to arrest global temperature rise? Typical online conspiracy believer - attempting to sound clever about subjects you have absolutely no clue about.
There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. Calcium Carbonate is one possibility where early research suggests that it has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulphate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. It is also non-toxic and earth abundant. However, it does not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate.
In 2019 an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
"I know the difference between chem trails and normal trails."
Of course you do. Finally! a chemtrail believer that can actually detail the methodology to differentiate between their supposed 'chemtrails' and persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered flight and the best part of a century. Go ahead then.
"What “science” are you referring to. The fake widely accepted versions?"
In order for something in science to be accepted it has to be proven. So that'll be the ineluctable physical laws that govern known mathematics, atmospheric chemistry/microphysics and aviation which being axiomatic are demonstrable and have a voice of their own. Y'know, the stuff that chemtrail believers have no knowledge of whatsoever.
"I’m not going to waste my time explaining anything else."
If you actually think that parroting a series of baseless and inaccurate claims and falsehoods over the comments section of a video entertainment platform has explanatory value, then that would very much explain why you gullibly fell for this nonsense in the first place. Regarding "wasting time" - remind me, you subscribe to a dumb online hoax, that has managed to convince you that a cloud is a conspiracy theory...correct?
"You probably get your facts from google"
Said the chemtrail believer.
Before you go, a quick question for you - do try to answer it, there's a good lad. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would need to take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails and the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mchavez4532
"No,not all of them. Just: The ones that spend 40-60+ minutes dissipating into the breeze"
Persistent spreading contrails then.
"The ones that are clearly laid out in a grid or that intersect and merge together"
Perfectly normal air traffic producing persistent spreading contrails then.
"The ones that have clear spray patterns that repeat at regular intervals reminiscent of the spray patterns you see in aerosol applications of pesticides from crop dusters"
Intermittent contrails then.
"The ones that repeat in the same area week after week as if on a regular schedule"
Commercial air traffic operating on a planned 'regular schedule; then. Who'd have thought?
"The ones that pierce through natural clouds"
Differential air pressure then.
"The ones that they spray at night"
You mean civil aircraft producing contrails at night time then.
"Natural contrails generally dissolve within a minute or two"
Contrails don't 'dissolve', they sublimate. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Its length and duration is governed by the ambient conditions and the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. If the air is saturated in respect to ice, the water vapour in the exhaust is merely the trigger event, where 99% of the trail you see is drawn from available atmospheric moisture. Think about it man, how else can you explain the fact that they can expand and increase in mass - just like, well no shit, a cloud - which is all a contrail is. As they expand, often fanned by high altitude wind shear, they can merge and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. All very basic meteorological science.
"I have pictures videos and time lapse footage of these things going back to as early as 2004"
No - you have videos and footage of aircraft contrails, that's all. And they go back far further than that. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"So you can go ahead and say whatever you want to sound like you know something"
I am irrelevant. All you have to do is learn some basic facts about atmospheric chemistry, meteorology and aviation - three things that you are clearly wholly ignorant about.
"but quite frankly, none of your regurgitations"
The irony - was it intentional?
" are going to convince me of anything other than what I can see with my own eyes."
No one is disputing what you "see with your own eyes". I see the same, as does the rational world - the fact that you don't understand it is the problem. Of course I'm not going to "convince you". You are a conspiracy believer which means you have already naively been convinced and you belong to one of the most closed minded and emotionally invested communities on the internet next to religious extremists and cult members. You have been duped by an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory - what a sad, tragic and colossal waste time, energy and your life. Imagine if you had real daily concerns and threats to you and your loved ones, such as occupying a war zone?
It's pathetic really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shleepydragyn8940
I don't need to look anything up nor do I need to search for information - I know more than any online chemtrail believer about the origins, perpetrators and false equivalence associated with their beliefs.
Sigh, you are referring to research into a branch of geoengineering called Solar Radiation Management - specifically 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' which was first proposed almost two decades ago and has never been secretive, so how precisely do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied? A few years ago, chemtrail believers had never even heard of SAI until the conspiracy believers responsible for this fraud started to use such association fallacy in a lame attempt to vindicate their claims. They now post uniformed nonsense such as you did that 'chemtrails have been admitted to'. It is in the interest of the proponents of SAI to publicise their work in order to generate funding and support - it has never been concealed.
SAI is a hypothetical method aimed at combatting global temperature increase through replicating the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. As it stands it has not graduated beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. I suggest that you yourself search for SCoPEx, which is a planned small scale trial involving a steerable balloon to be launched 20kms into the stratosphere and release a few kilos of water and possibly during subsequent flights, a similarly negligible quantity of CaCo3 by which to test perturbation. This test has been cancelled innumerable times due to ethical approval. Irrespective of whether it ever takes place or not, SAI will never be conducted due to the impossibility of international governance, (not to mention the logistical barriers and environmental unknowns). If you wish to term research into SAI as 'chemtrails' then more fool you.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thesajeguy
The High Frequency Active Auroral Programme, what about it? I don't need to 'google HAARP' - but assuming that I did, I certainly wouldn't be doing so through confirmation bias seeking out the ludicrous junk conspiracy theories associated with it. Would you like me to explain to you technically what the HAARP facility consists of and precisely what it was actually designed to do and is capable of? Of course you wouldn't.
Sigh! Cloud seeding does not create clouds or leave a trail. It is designed to introduce addition nuclei into existing stratiform and cumulus rain bearing masses to prematurely induce precipitation. This is why it is conducted at altitudes that are a fraction of the trails that you are observing - typically 2,000 - 6,500 feet. It doesn't tend to 'spray' either (although liquid propane and saline solutions have been known to be used, these do not form a lasting or lingering trail) - more commonly it is deployed by light aircraft retrofitted with flare racks burning small quantities of silver iodide. Again, nothing to do with the large jet aircraft that you witness producing these trails. Moreover, cloud seeding has nothing to do with arresting global warming and despite the fact that there are high profile state sponsored schemes such as in China and the UAE, it really isn't that widespread a practice and its results and very efficacy are questionable.
B2 bombers??? Then why do chemtrail clowns insist on posting footage of commercial aircraft as supposed evidence? As I explained, a persistent spreading contrail is a product of atmospheric supersaturation - available atmospheric moisture, no different to the growth of a cloud which is precisely the reason that they can expand and spread weighing millions of lbs and often be in excess of hundreds of kilometres long. You now need to explain how a B2 bomber with a MTOW of 480,000lbs can convey the necessary material to deposit the millions of lbs that these trails weigh and stretch from horizon to horizon in addition to identifying the precise chemical that can grow in mass, just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@narajuna
Classic conspiracy believer. So you quote mined the above from an article telling you that it was a spoof - quite literally, the next paragraph that you chose to omit.
"Scheer’s talk was a goof, a winking thought experiment prepared for the 10th annual meeting of the Man Will Never Fly Memorial Society. The society, a satirical social club “dedicated to the principle that two Wrights made a wrong at Kitty Hawk,” comprised a group of hard-drinking pilots and airline executives who liked their booze served with irony and vice versa. (Motto: “Birds fly, men drink.”)
"Scheer’s absurdist presentation was a sign of just how unthinkable it was to suppose that the moon landing was an elaborate hoax that had been conjured at the highest levels of the U.S. government. At the time, according to the New York Times, the notion was mostly confined to “a few stool-warmers in Chicago.” Within a decade, however, the idea would gain so much traction that NASA would find itself compelled to issue an earnest, and somewhat aggravated, fact sheet to debunk the conspiracy theory. “Did U.S. astronauts really land on the Moon?” the 1977 document began. “Yes. Astronauts did land on the Moon.”
What's wrong with you people?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewarmstrong9194
Thanks for your reply.
Firstly, should we trust our governments? Of course not - patriotism as far as I am concerned involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our governments are always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
Simply because a government (past or present), has acted in secrecy, lied or deceived the people, that does not however automatically afford legitimacy to 'chemtrails' of any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising.
Chemtrails are simply misidentified aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Contrails last for a few moments, chemtrails last for minutes to an hour "
Could you explain why detailing the physical laws that determine this? Also, what is your methodology then to differentiate your supposed chemtrails from the persistent contrails that have observed, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century?
" John Brennan CIA director came out and admitted they are spraying chemtrails to control global warming "
???? Research into SAI has never been secretive, hidden or out of the public domain. How do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied? You are referring to the ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan and his voluntary address as a guest speaker to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous chemtrail conspiracy video titles that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed a range of future technological developments that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan wasn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is in progress, on the contrary, he was warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently underway. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
" But we know exactly why they are doing it... look it up "
Absolutely. Let's do that...
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/publications/stratospheric-aerosol-injection-tactics-and-costs-first-15-years-deployment
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing, there is no aircraft in existence that would be able to loft the requisite materials to altitudes of 65,000-70,000ft, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
Sure. It couldn't possibly be anything whatsoever to do with that f**k off 50,000 m2 wet market and second largest seafood market in China located right next to it, half a mile from the station and directly in the middle of one of the city's largest residential areas? A place in which stalls are practically on top of each other, the aisles are narrow and close proximity, livestock brought in from the surrounding province were kept alongside wild animals and dead produce, and slaughtered and their carcasses skinned.
The consilience of the scientific community i addition to the specialist disciplines of virology, immunology and epidemiology is that it resulted from a natural spillover, but it could equally be the result of research-related activity, such as a lab leak or even a fieldwork incident - we simply don't know. That is also accepted as a possibility However, there is no equivocal evidence either way, just largely historical precedent and circumstantial evidence. Most, human infectious diseases (60-75%) are derived from pathogens that originally circulated in non-human animal species. There have been a multitude of studies which indicate a natural origin for Sars-CoV-2 and this data/literature has steadily grown in volume since the outbreak. Last year a published study examined samples taken from raccoon dogs, bamboo rats, palm civets: (these are just some of the animals whose DNA has been found in swabs taken from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China,) The swabs also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease. The analysis, provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over from animals to humans at the market. Conversely, there is not one paper offering evidence that a lab leak was responsible to have passed peer review because the is no substantive data to support it. Additionally, although the DOE have backed the recent FBI intelligence assessment indicating a lab leak, they have a 'low confidence level. According to guidance from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “A low confidence level generally indicates that the information used in the analysis is scant, questionable, fragmented, or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from the information, or that the IC has significant concerns or problems with the information sources.” Again, this does not mean that the possibility of a lab leak should be ruled out. In my view, it's a very strong possibility that we won't ever determine the source. Pinpointing the site of a spillover is tricky and becomes increasingly challenging with time. Also, matching the genetics of those initially infected by Alpha with sequences derived from animals to isolate the host is a very difficult task. In terms of the lab leak possibility, as relationships between China and the West continue to deteriorate, the situation continues to be so politicised, and whilst Beijing refuses to cooperate the necessary transparency to allow an independent forensic investigation into research activities at WIV, we have nothing more than circumstantial supposition.
Incidentally, the word you were looking for is "pangolin".
Anyway, what's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barrygoldwater9450
"chemtrails= chemicals being released from aircraft, for weather modification or any other reason."
So, that'll be sky writing, crop spraying and fumigation, military chaff, fuel dumping, air displays, target marking...strikes me that chemtrails are whatever you want them to be.
"A visible trail of chemicals."
That rules out cloud seeding then, which employs dry ice or flares consisting of dry silver iodide.
"Contrails exist. Clouds are real."
Absolutely. But they aren't chemtrails, The chemtrail conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of the latter - which is precisely the subject under discussion in this video.
"Chemtrails can be dropped at any altitude, maybe not for weather modification"
Precisely why I asked you what does cloud seeding have to do with a contrail?
"I've personally seen multiple aircraft at ultra low altitude spraying some type of shit all over the highway, large white plume clouds, don't know what or why, just know for a fact it happened. Large u shape cloud directly over the highway two aircraft under 1000 feet."
What sort of aircraft? Where? Was it near an airport?
1
-
@barrygoldwater9450
"cloud seeding can be done from a plane!"
Yes indeed it can. But as I explained, it doesn't create clouds, produce a long white opaque trail, or involve commercial aircraft cruising in the tropopause or lower stratosphere.
"Yes a crop duster is a good example of a chemtrail."
In which case, so it a skywriter ... or a domestic firework - (aluminium, barium strontium, and a trail, Illuminati confirmed.)
"Not it wasn't near an airport. Why would the location matter if the planes are crop dusting a highway? Does that happen at airports a lot?"
Because online conspiracy theorists regularly upload footage of aircraft landing producing aerodynamic contrails. I assure you that planes were not "crop dusting the highway". However on Thursday (September 14), U.S. Air Force Reserve cargo planes took to the skies over Harris County, Texas, to spray about 600,000 acres around Houston with a potent mosquito-killing insecticide, complementing similar efforts across other counties in Texas affected by Tropical Storm Harvey which is quite common after a large storm or flood.
"If you know cloud seeding occurs and you know it can be done from a plane and you know it has been done without the knowledge of the populace it was being used on we have nothing to argue about."
Cloud seeding is not secretive, it is a commercially advertised enterprise. What does cloud seeding have to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory - to clarify, the belief that a persistent contrail is evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying...the topic under discussion in this video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eurobrowarriormonk7182
"well people are obviously noticing."
You mean a community of scientific illiterates that have fallen for an online hoax that has managed to convince them that a cloud is a conspiracy theory.
"These planes burn up to 12 tons an hour of jet fuel they do not need to spray anything. Its coming from the exhaust. The chemicals in the jet fuel"
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. The amount of water that will be produced from combustion is dependent on the ratio of carbon to hydrogen. Taking a general fuel with a hydrogen to carbon atom ratio (H/C ratio) of rr, the combustion looks like
CHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2OCHr+(1+r4)O2→CO2+r2H2O
For gasoline fuels, the H/C ratio is around 1.8; for kerosene fuels, 1.9. Based on this data, kerosene fuels produce a bit more water than gasoline fuels, in molar quantities.
In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture where the water in the jet exhaust is merely the trigger. As I indicated - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smoothmovenyc7992
"so what are your thoughts after watching the new Bart Sibrel episode?"
That nothing says informed, honest and accurate like a former cab driver and convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry and a proven liar and fraud turned conspiracy theorist, with absolutely no specialist knowledge of scientific expertise whatsoever.
"how did they get through the Van allen belt if still today they do not possess the technology to get through it?"
This again? Seriously, how many times? The VABs are toroidal, and consist of charged alpha and beta particles. By traversing the sparsest regions at high velocity in a short space of time they present no barrier to crewed spacecraft. The issue is not lacking the technology, but the modern technology that we have now.
The nonsense spouted by Sibrel stems from a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which Kelly Smith discusses the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced high density electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again? And why are you allowing/trusting a buffoon and extortionist such as Sibrel to tell you what to think about a subject that you clearly have zero knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YouthfulSage
"Sorry to burst your bubble, "Yassassin" (or whoever you are). SAI is a known fact."
It is indeed - and it's a shame that you clearly 'know' nothing about it.
Because, let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of SAI were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which Harvard's David Keith is the main proponent of would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
Last year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
So a few kilos of water which were never released, compared to the VEI 5/6 monstrous eruption of Shiveluch on the Kamchatka peninsula that you are doubtless unaware of, which caused huge stratospheric injection - alone lofting some 768Gg of sulphate mass up to 12 miles into the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce between 65 and 120 million tonnes of sulphate aerosols per year. We can discuss SAI in far more detail if you wish. Of course you don't.
Question for you. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing in addition to the fact that there is no aircraft currently in existence that could loft the requisite materials into the mid stratosphere, would not even be visible to a ground based observed and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this video which concerns misidentified contrails - may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Game over for you trolls."
Hardly - your parroted association fallacy is utterly hilarious and confirms your haven't the first clue about what you are talking about. Why don't you bring up Kristen Meghan again?
Also, why is it that you people consistently fail to understand the meaning of trolling? I am in full agreement with this video. This is a comments section and challenging someone to substantiate their claims - something you people absolutely loath - is not trolling. As the one mindlessly regurgitating uninformed disinformation, outright lies, junk conspiracy theory and making unsubstantiated allegations, then by definition the troll would be none other than yourself - a simple notion that even you could surely comprehend. You've been relentlessly posting your scripted drivel all over chemtrail debunking videos all week and making a fool of yourself in the process. Don't you just despise it when you get called out? Grow up child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Source? And even it that were the case, the sole explanation could only be those long white trails six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand?
2. No it hasn't. You are referring to 'Stratospheric Aerosol Injection' which would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols in an attempt to arrest global temperature increase. SAI is entirely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond research paper, laboratory experimentation and mathematical modelling. It will never be employed due to the sheer impossibility of international governance. What does any of this have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory surrounding the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
3. Are you serious? You can do in seconds. There are hundreds of examples from meteorology text books dating back to the 1930s and 40s. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Would you like some help on this? I can provide sources for you.
4. Absolute utter nonsense. Contrails are no more than artificially formed cirrus clouds. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. As I indicated - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
5. Then why do you goons keep offering footage of civil aircraft as supposed evidence of these 'chemtrails' then?
6. Nope - wrong again. There are no examples of this other than military aircraft producing regular contrails. You can use flight tracking software to establish the validity of commercial aircraft routes. Simply saying that something is a fact in caps lock over the internet does not make it true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"In the moon is not dust"
Correct. The moon is a rocky body with a combination of metallic substances found within the layers of its surface. While the moon is mostly made of iron, other metals found on the moon are magnesium, aluminum, silicon, titanium, gold, silver, and mercury. The dust /
lunar regolith that covers the surface is composed of rock chips, mineral fragments, impact and volcanic glasses and a peculiar component only found on the Moon called agglutinates. This has been formed by meteorite impacts over billions of years.
"Dust just existences on planets that have atmosphere"
Does it? Tell that to an entire branches of science called geology and astronomy, analytical laboratories and mineralogists/petrologists across the planet that have examined samples from the 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from the lunar surface. Or the 2200 separate soil samples from six different exploration sites on the Moon - not to mention the 121.6 g of material returned from asteroid Bennu. Then explain why a planetary body requires an atmosphere to have dust. Don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly, contrary to your claim, Brennan doesn't "admit" to anything of the sort. That is an outright lie. To clarify, this is the ex-Director of the CIA in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance and the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM/SAI in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti-ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admitted they are spraying" or that SAI is currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
Research into SAI has never been secretive - who precisely do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied.
SAI has very little to do with "the government" bar some hearings in Senate involving impact statements of geoengineering technologies and what would be one of the major challenges associated with any SAI programme, international policy and governance.
To clarify, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, is a purely hypothetical proposal which would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would need to be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What on Earth are you talking about? It's difficult to tell due to your appalling command of basic written English, but if you are referring to the Odysseus lander (IM, not NASA), then its likely cause was that one of its six footpads either hit a rock or got caught in a crevice.
Blast crater? Are you actually serious. Even the LM which had a much larger descent engine would not have been capable of producing a crater. Why should it? It was a high tech low thrust engine. Because it was throttleable, at the point of contact it was producing a mere 2,700lbs of thrust. The nozzle had a diameter of 59 inches which meant that equates to 11 psi chamber pressure and having an area of 2,700 square inches even at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI . Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure. You expect that to make a crater in solid rock?
"Bill kaysing was right all awhile. Hahahahaha."
The only thing that Bill Kaysing got right was the target market he shamelessly exploited, gullible imbeciles such as yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damonbilling7746
"Aircraft contrails do not last for 12 hours."
Actually, they can last much longer than that. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. The duration and length of a contrail is governed by the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Are you equally as perplexed by cloud cover?
"SRM 'proposed' chemical aersolizung is supposed to be stratospheric but like cloud seeding, that altitude is not necessary for weather modification."
SRM is not weather modification. It is a hypothetical branch of geoengineering spearheaded by Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which proposes replicating the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. It has not progressed beyond research proposal or mathematical modelling, would not result in a trail and would be designated for double the altitude of the aircraft contrails that you term 'chemtrails'. Marine cloud brightening and albedo modification are also areas of SRM which obviously would be conducted at ground level or in the troposphere.
Cloud seeding takes place at a fraction of the altitude of the contrails that you are misidentifying - not in the stratosphere where contrails are formed and there are no rain bearing clouds. Aerial deployment of cloud seeding typically involves light aircraft retrofitted with wing mounted flare racks burning very small quantities of silver iodide. The objective is to introduce additional nucleation into existing stratiform and cumulus masses that are conducive to precipitation in order to induce rainfall. Again, it does not result in a trail and being conducted at altitudes between 2,000 - 6,500 feet, and has nothing to do with either SRM or aircraft contrails.
"Contrails also do not form clouds, but that is what is being witnessed of your identification of 'contrails'."
That's precisely what they are - and in conditions of supersaturation they will expand and spread.
"You don't need video footage, or a theory to prove what is happening above your head."
Indeed - you simply need a basic knowledge of atmospheric physics and chemistry, meteorology and aviation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexledezma6811
".... fine...that's all on You"
Nothing to do with me - I am irrelevant to this exchange.
"I do have one question..., why is it that the globalists worry so much about theories that confront the status quo in science...?"
What do you mean by 'globalists'? A Globalist is an individual who supports the belief that economic and foreign policy should be planned internationally, rather than serving the interests of individual countries.
You get debunked because anti-science and misinformation are highly damaging. You are challenged to evidence your claims which none of you are able to do. Flat earthers conspiracy theorists are all crooks, not just idiots. petty crooks, true, but part of their business model is to create an environment of distrust of science and rational thought, and refusal to ever measure anything. and that is a serious problem for society. besides which, they spread so much malice that it's a good idea to pound them flat while they are small.
"P S ..the flat earth movement belief has been around since ancient times"
Same with dragons, pixies, faeries, ghosts and ghouls - so what? Known science is not a question of "belief".
"But after Galileo and his peers the Geo centric idea has been imposed."
Nope, wrong again. We have known that the Earth is a globe since antiquity.
"only until about 10 years ago has the flat earth movement is taken impulse"
And when you say "impulse" what bearing does any of this nonsense have on reality? You mean the grifters behind it make crap videos, host ridiculous conferences and profiteer out of the idiocy of others.
"and according to studies, about 30 to 40 % of people in the american continent question the Geo centric idea."
What "studies" would they be? The highest that I've seen is range between 9-12%, which is still shocking, but is simply a consequence of granting online access to exceedingly dim people that think that watching an Eric Dubay video makes them sound informed and clever and substitutes for the education that eluded them.
I went through school in the 1970s and 1980s. There would invariably be a couple of students who couldn’t quite grasp certain concepts in science. They were insignificant irrelevant and they'd live their lives in obscurity but live off the spoils of those that shaped the world through science and education. Today they find each other on the internet which they think compensates for their failings. They find validation for their lack of understanding, and then they embrace it. They’re fed the hook “you’re one of the smart ones, you always knew they were lying to you.” Facts don’t matter at that point, and yet another conspiracy believer is born. Throw in that special feeling conferred by adherence to conspiracy theory and an ample helping of illusory superiority/Dunning Kruger effect, and we have what we have. Adherents to these belief systems are impervious to evidence to the contrary, and prefer the company of like minded simpletons to that of people who try to educate them. The embracing of a conspiratorial narrative often helps loners to find a tribe in which they are welcomed. That social, tribal belonging is a very strong driver, and the fear of rejection or estrangement from a group that welcomed and accepted them is incredibly powerful.This is all just an unfortunate, yet understandable side effect of the internet. This is something we’re always going to have to battle in the interest of edification.
"To belive that almost half the population are idiots would qualify as being dumber than the actual issue..."
Contrary to your claim, half of the American population do not subscribe to a flat earth belief. That 40% of the American population are idiots is probably reasonably accurate as the next US election will doubtless demonstrate. Half the world is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever enough to take indecent advantage of them.
"The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy to dumb people"
Those that perpetrate flat Earth theory are not crazy - they are simply extortionists that harvest stupidity for profit - and as such, you are the target market.
A wise man can play a fool, but a fool can't play wise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
tdyr170
"press CONference,astroNOTS sad,gloomy with 0 joy"
Except for the bits when they were laughing and joking. And what of the other five post-mission press conferences - have you watched those? Of course you haven't. Perhaps you should find photos and footage of three and a half weeks before immediately after the mission on the USS Hornet?
"Enough said"
I agree, you're making a complete fool out of yourself.
Sigh, this again, seriously? how many times. It's the same things mindlessly parroted over and over and over again. And yet another armchair expert in behavioural psychology that consumed and regurgitated a dumb online conspiracy video in the mistaken belief it makes them sound informed and clever.
You obviously haven't watched the entire footage - 1 hour and 22 minutes from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
Now watch the full post-mission conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 that you never knew existed because your junk online conspiracy theory never told you about them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomaspowless3082
"excellent, I found a troll."
No - I found you, and as someone who is prepared to question or if necessary challenge your comment, I find you people not only resent, but detest that.
"What is the relative radiation on the moon. With no , or almost no atmosphere, what is the radiation on the moon?"
The main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere in either cislunar space or the surface of the moon comes from CMEs and solar particle events. The Apollo programme programme took a calculated risk in that they had contingencies should one arise. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. A moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs.
You are correct, tthe moon does not have a thick atmosphere, or a magnetic field to protect it. The Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface were measured to have absorbed about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight and about 200 times what we get on Earth's surface. Charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by supernovae, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but any prolonged habitation would necessitate shielding.Why? Because subsequent data has showed that levels can spike significantly higher than was indicated during the brief stays on the surface of Apollo. China's Chang'e 4 has spent over 4 years on the surface of the moon and within that time returned data confirming a much greater range of fluctuation than first thought and this therefore has implications - although not insurmountable - for prolonged habitation.
"are you asking your supervisor or can you engage your argument?"
Are you?
Why don't you consolidate your replies into one single comment? Also, why are you avoiding the question about Apollo telemetry. What about it? Do you even understand what telemetry actually is?
1
-
1
-
@thomaspowless3082
So again - a flood of comments, no acknowledgement of my replies to you.
"are you ai"
Are you?
"I love your pat answers. Just, so."
You asked the questions - feel free to refute my responses to you.
"You said nothing of Elon or mars"_*
And you said nothing of telemetry for the third time of asking. Not even sure what your point is about Elon Musk and Mars, but I since notice that someone else has addressed the topic. You clearly aren't remotely interested in any answers that you receive because you are an internet conspiracy believer - and you think you have it all figured out.
"it posed no problem for Apollo missions"
Yes, why would it given the measured levels of radiation absorbed at skin level?
"So what were the suits made out of that were able to withstain the suit integrity over the course of CME and moon/sun activity"
I have just explained to you, there were no CMEs or SPEs during any of the missions. I have also clarified to you the average hourly measured radiation doses recorded during each EVA. Since you seem to suppose that the suits should have been fashioned from lead, you clearly have much to learn about the science of radiation and its different types.
"and how did that sustain aeronauts who in one sixth gravity could not interact in muscularature"
What on earth are you talking about? Although restrictive, the suits were only pressurised to 4.2psi and were designed to flex.
"Is it more than can be sustained by human biology? You say no, but without guard nor protection from solar radiation, there is no possible way to back your claims."
There were contingencies in the event of a large CME. I have explained that an astronaut on the surface of the moon would have absorbed in the region of 400m. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. As I have also explained, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. These are not ,my claims', this is all independently verifiable.
"A bullet travels and a vest protects the life of the wearer."
Non sequitur.
"A solar ray goes at what speed to cause you a sunburn in summertime? And you expect me to admit that the radiation on the moon with no atmosphere is less damaging?"
You are referring to UV which can be shielded by even a high factor sun cream for God's sake.
"And you expect me to admit that the radiation on the moon with no atmosphere is less damaging?"
At no stage have I made any such claim. Read my response again. Astronauts on the surface of the moon received a measured dose of 60 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's about 200 times what we get on Earth's surface. Keep up.
"Or more? Present feasibility in the least"
Yes, indeed it could be more. As I have also explained data since Apollo measured over 4 years has indicated that the degree of fluctuation is much higher than thought and captured a measured peak of 1,000 times that of the radiation received on the surface of the Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't have satellites that can read number plates - that simply isn't true.
Moreover, there is no telescope in existence that can resolve a flag of that size on the moon which is 125cm long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. To explain why understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide Apollo landers at the six landing sites.
However, the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaans 1and 2 and China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wadewilson84
Thank you, you listed them all. Apologies, this did not show in my notifications. I will answer them all - one a day to keep it manageable. Incidentally, I have just flicked through them and every single one has been addressed before, as I suggested time and time again. There's nothing new here. And what's frustrating, you could find the answers yourself if you had the will to do so. I'm doing this under the assumption that you are genuinely interested in hearing the answers. Let's commence with the first - which hilariously, you can find being previously asked and answered on Quora:
1/ Can you explain why NASA - despite everything van Allen had written on the dangers of radiation - has sent the first astronauts through the radioactive belts without any specific protection, and without even sending a monkey first, in order to evaluate the effects of radiation on a biological organism as complex as the human being?
James Van Allen's initial publications following the discovery of the belts were in the in the late 1950s. By the time that NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program a decade later, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
The Van Allen belts are no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled US and Soviet scientists to calculate, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth.The VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wadewilson84
You only need to post the one comment, try consolidating them into a single reply.
I explained to you, your reply disappeared due to shadow banning, likely because it contained a link. The same thing happened to me.
"why are you so bothered to feel the need to reply to every other comment disagreeing with your belief? Unless you’re paid by NASA or the government itself, I really don’t understand. Please, tell me."
Known science is not a question of belief, and at no stage have I mentioned mine. All of this can be independently verified - nothing to do with me. Conspiracy theory can be destructive and dangerous. I am simply challenging false and unsubstantiated claims on the internet. Why does that trouble you so much?
"Kelly Smith said Van Allen belts are dangerous for astronauts as well, not equipments only and you said they’re not an obstacle."
Kelly Smith said "right now we need to solve these problems before we can send humans into this region of space". As explained, the problems that he referred to related to the then new Orion capsule which employs completely different electronics to Apollo. These govern life support systems. Why is it the same things over and over and over again?
"Again: question unanswered."
It is answered, it simply isn't what you want to hear based upon your incredulity, pre-conceptions and what online conspiracy theory has told you to think.
"I’m not asking unscientific answers"
Do you mean "asking for"? Because in your post that's what you complained about.
"I’m asking concise answers and a link to all the explanation, otherwise it seems like you want to drown me in a million words that only make everything totally unclear."
On the contrary, I have furnished you with answers that are very clear straightforward regarding quite involved subjects. for example, Kelly Smith was referring to the development of the new Orion capsule for manned flight. It's that simple. Regarding my previous answer, James Van Allen's initial assessment of the VABs in the 1950s was very different to his later publications based upon the measurements and data obtained by US and Soviet scientists. Look also into the work of Sergei Vernov.
"About the belts: why are they dangerous only when you want to?"
What does this even mean? As explained the VABs present no significant obstacle to a manned spacecraft passing through their sparsest outer region at high velocity and in a short space of time. If you placed a crewed spacecraft in an orbit traversing their densest regions it would take about a fortnight to kill everyone on board. Why are you happy to take NASA and physicists word that they exist and yet you reject the very same sources telling you that it is possible to traverse them?...because conspiracy theory said it isn't.
I have a question for you. Are you now prepared to accept that contrary to your claim, "I know for sure all of them haven’t been answered" that this is demonstrably false?
1
-
@wadewilson84
‘Conspiracy theories are destructive and dangerous’? For who? NASA and the government only, as far as I know."
Nope, they have very little bearing upon NASA. However, some can indeed pose problems for government as we saw with the Q Anon nonsense and Russian interference with the electoral process. Otherwise, some pose no threat at all - although the people that believe in them can. Are you seriously suggesting that flat earth beliefs have any bearing or carry any threat for government? The societal toll is very grave though, since they promote anti science, sell the illusion of knowledge to the uneducated or those that have absolutely zero understanding of a subject whatsoever. They can also be highly agenda driven, and replete with ignorance and prejudice whilst harming others. Look no further than some of the bereaved families of the Sandy Hook massacre. Also, you'd do well to remember that Timothy McVie was a conspiracy believer...or was that supposedly a false fag too?
"About the rest of the explanation: it still doesn’t make sense"
No, it doesn't make sense to you, and as explained, your personal incredulity has no bearing on reality. Others are fully able to comprehend it.
"first because you’re the only one who says that"
Again, demonstrably false. Added to which, that is precisely what the Engineer refers to in the video.
"others give different explanations"
Such as?
"and second because if technology is has so downgraded through the years, just use the same one used in ‘69. It worked so well, didn’t it?"
Technology hasn't "downgraded through the years" - at no stage did I or anyone else say that. It is completely the reverse. The rope core pre-written memory used by Apollo was primitive computing technology but as a result, very radiation resistant. It is now obsolete. As explained, Orion utilises onboard systems that use modern high density electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. I have explained why. This needed full testing and validation before crews could be sent through the VABs.
"And let’s be clear: if you want to believe that, that’s perfectly fine, I don’t care."
As explained, science and technology is not about belief and at no stage have I mentioned mine. That would be the junk online conspiracy theory that you place your faith in and tells you what to think based upon zero expertise and scientific insight.
"All I wonder is why do I have to buy it too? That’s it."
Because you asked the question. If you wish to disagree and don't like the answer based upon your emotional investment. pre-conceived ideas and ignorance of science and technology - your personal incredulity - that has absolutely no bearing on the real world and doesn't mean that the question hasn't been addressed.
1
-
1
-
@wadewilson84
"Your explanation on how ‘conspiracy theories’ can be dangerous to others clearly shows that you are a paranoid"
The unintentional irony at this stage is of the scale. Is this actually serious?
I gave you examples proving this. Again, nothing to do with me. Why do people believe in conspiracy theory? Rampant paranoia. That and a chronic lack of education, critical thinking skills and an abundance of circumstances that facilitate fallacious and self serving lines of thought. It also sells the illusion of empowerment and superiority to non-achievers. Conspiracy theories thrive on disinformation, are perpetuated by charlatans for their own gain, can be detrimental to the mental health of those that believe in them and as the ludicrous Q Anon illustrated, can even be politically subversive. Medical staff, healthcare workers and teachers are attacked by dumb anti-vaxxers, who put entire communities in jeopardy by refusing to vaccinate their children, political extremists hi-jack these beliefs and push damaging agendas, and the victims of genuine tragedies have been harassed and victimised. Again, look into what these freaks did to the victims families of Sandy Hook. And yes, the promotion of anti-science is indeed dangerous.
It seems to start with their believing that "the Government", NASA, scientists, teachers, and other powerful influencers in their lives, have been lying to them all the time, all their lives, for reasons that they cannot enunciate, and this general feeling that "something is wrong here" permeates their world view. Charlatans on the internet capture these simple souls and sell them beliefs such as Moon landing denial, 9/11 denial, flat Earth, antivaxx and sundry other crap, usually for profit. Adherents to these belief systems are impervious to evidence to the contrary, and prefer the company of like minded folk to that of people who try to educate them. Endless repetition of questions, followed by denial or avoidance of the responses addressing the questions, seems to be a feature of this as you are testament to.
"Having a different opinion or belief about any topic is never dangerous and the examples you mentioned can be applied to anyone, not only to ‘conspiracy theorists’."
To explain again - know science and technology is not about opinion. And opinions are fine, so long as you don't attempt to leverage them on others and foist them over fact.
"I have friends who believe the Earth is flat, some of them insist more than others, but I’m pretty sure no one of them would ever harm or threaten anyone just because they disagree about the Earth's shape. On the other hand there are communist protesters like ‘just stop oil’ and others who actually do harm others with their protests and I would honestly kick their asses when they do, but as long as we just talk about our different opinions and points of view about any topic and no violence is involved, they can believe whatever they want for all I care."
Society is polarising. These divisions are being intentionally manufactured and driven. It used to be simply social media companies stoking anger and outrage - which we know they did - but purely for profit...because such anger and outrage sells. These broadening gaps in society are becoming more sinister, fuelled by political ambition and it thrives on precisely that, opinion valued over fact. The internet has given the village idiot and the raucous pub stool philosopher a voice. Individuals that were previously ignored. Sadly, it's easier to stir up hate and anger than it is understanding and compromise. The dialectic is dead as is logic and reason to these people.
"So please, calm down, let people believe what they want and stop seeing dangers where there are clearly none."
I'm perfectly calm. What this boils down to is the fact that I challenged claims that you are invested in, and you people simply detest that.
You yourself could easily get a valid answer to these ridiculous 'questions' if you suspended your preconceived nonsense, used the internet responsibly and for its intended purpose, as the information is freely available. The problem is that you don't consider any answer valid that doesn't involve an enormous conspiracy about which you are one of a special minority who is clued-up enough to know, and are therefore superior to the brainwashed mass of "sheeple". The real, valid, non-conspiratorial answers don't allow you to pretend you have privileged information, and hence don't stoke your ego in the way that you desire.
Why are you incapable of addressing my question? Are you now prepared to accept that contrary to your claim, "I know for sure all of them haven’t been answered" that this is demonstrably false? Again, I am sat here looking at question 1, word for word on Quora which generated 10 responses. Why are you so in denial? You could have established this for yourself. Why do you lack the integrity, humility, dignity and self-respect to acknowledge your mistake.
"You know for sure" - and therein precisely lies the problem here.
1
-
1
-
@wadewilson84
"I am interested in the answers as long as they’re convincing and your first one was not."
No you're not, the answer (not "mine"), simply wasn't what you wanted to hear and the reason that you don't find it "convincing" is because of your own personal incredulity and that you prefer to defer to what quote mined conspiracy theory tells you to think. Orion is a new craft, it has high density modern electronics and these needed testing and validation before future crews can be sent into the VABs and beyond. It's that simple. The alternative, is your inference that Kelly Smith accidently let slip in a NASA promotional video that humans have never been sent into the belts, NASA failed to notice this, and it was released by accident. Seriously? Listen to yourself.
I have never, to repeat, never, met a moon landing conspiracy theorist that has any actual knowledge of physics, astronomy, engineering or the technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme. Entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists, 10.000 public sector organisations and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet have absolutely no issue with the validity of the Apollo Programme. In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than a community of insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believers in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Yet, you're "not convinced"? "You know for sure" .
Why are you incapable of addressing my question? Are you now prepared to accept that contrary to your claim, "I know for sure all of them haven’t been answered" that this is demonstrably false? Again, I am sat here looking at question 1, word for word on Quora which generated 10 responses. Why are you so in denial? You could have established this for yourself. Why do you lack the integrity, humility, dignity and self-respect to acknowledge your mistake?
1
-
@wadewilson84
"Anything you say about me can easily apply to you as wel"
Well let's see shall we? Just for starters -
1/ I don't allow junk online conspiracy theorists to tell me what to think.
2/ I actually have knowledge about the subject under discussion.
3/ I do not value my own opinion over fact.
4/ I am prepared to admit when I make a mistake.
5/ I am not "sure I know" - I avoid conjecture and preconceptions and simply refer to established independently verifiable facts.
6/ I do not allow subjectivity and pre-conceived beliefs to skew my world view.
7/ I actually understand that an internet connection does not substitute or supplant for an education and I know how to use it responsibly.
8/ I am willing to address everything that you post here.
9/ I am not in denial of myself.
"you’re just too arrogant (and paranoid) to accept the fact that yours is also a blind belief that you take as scientific fact just because it comes from people with titles."
Sigh. This again? Known science is not about "belief" and it isn't about what "scientists say" and it's nothing to do with me. As explained, it is self-evident, axiomatic and has a voice of its own. To be accepted it must be independently verifiable, reproducible and falsifiable, which is the basis of the scientific method. Entire branches of science and specialist areas of expertise have no issue with the veracity of the Apollo moon landings. Yet you, a random conspiracy believer, with clearly no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, "are not convinced". So let that sink in, you are not convinced about something that you demonstrably don't understand - yet you allow yourself to have an opinion on it regardless, which you attempt to leverage here. You represent everything that is wrong with internet access.
"Let me remind you that ‘people with titles’ said there was a super deadly virus that could only be stopped by wearing masks, social distancing and the magic jab. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised that you bought that shit as well."
So in addition to being an expert on astrophysics, rocketry and spaceflight you are an authority on immunology, virology and epidemiology too? Clever lad.
SARS-CoV-2 was a completely novel disease. There was no defence and ultimately it claimed 7.5 million lives - many of which in developing or impoverished countries. Have you ever met or spoken to a public health workers from India from 2020-21? I have. Of course you haven't, but assuming that you actually had a world view beyond your online echo-chamber and internet bubble, you might ask them to recount the horror of the Delta Wave and the lack of available medical oxygen supplies. Covid vaccinations prevented 14·4 million 95% credible interval deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8 2021.
Wait, are you actually now attempting to suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was also faked? - And I'm supposedly the arrogant and paranoid one?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianfp8081
"Ummmm NOooo"
How old are you? - Serious question.
"manipulation implies exerting mere INFLUENCE; not total control. Let's look at a couple of other examples. A husband manipulates his wife... Is he in TOTAL CONTROL OF HER as though she were a computer program; or is he merely exerting persuasive INFLUENCE? A government manipulates the public to support a WAR effort in a foreign country... Is the government in TOTAL CONTROL OF the consciousness of the populace? Or is it merely propagandistically framing the scenario in a way that maximises INFLUENCE?!? (Again; key word is INFLUENCE). So NO; manipulation does NOT imply TOTAL CONTROL"
Semantics. Technically, and in a mechanistic sense, manipulation means to manage or skillfully utilise a process. The personal connotation that you are referring to implies control. As I explained to you the term "weather manipulation" is a misnomer and no, it is not possible to "influence" the weather above the micro level aside from unintentional, inadvertent anthropogenic climate change which is affecting weather patterns.
Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.
"AS I SAID BEFORE; NO ONE (other than yourself. IS SUGGESTING WEATHER OMNISCIENCE!!!"
At no stage did I suggest that you were - whatever that means. However, if you are referring to control over the weather, which you were, you are again incorrect, because that is also precisely what chemtrail conspiracy theorists allege - and since chemtrails is subject of this video, then yes I did indeed mention it...because so did you.
"(Again; key word is INFLUENCE). So NO; manipulation does NOT imply TOTAL CONTROL"
And again, we can only modify the weather at the micro scale. manipulation implies a degree of control and this is impossible.
Returning to your OP, to remind you, you claimed the following...
"Oooooooooooh, this did NOT age well..."
- Subsequently amusingly posting a link to an abandoned project to seed hurricanes from 74 years ago. You have a very poor memory because when questioned as to why, you replied with this...
"Joes talking about how "Obviously we can't control the weather...)"
You're not very good at this are you?
1
-
@brianfp8081
"My caps isn't malfunctioning, I use BOLD to denote EMPHASIS, the way a human beings voice fluctuates during speech"
Indeed - you clearly struggle with sarcasm in addition to logical discourse.
"Secondly, I just demonstrated with MULTIPLE EXAMPLES that the term "manipulate" Is CLEARLY at the very least NOWHERE NEAR as narrow a term as you are pretending; or at WORST; simply doesn't mean that which you claim."
No - you responded with your own subjective interpretation, I furnished you with a summary of the dictionary definition.
"You say I m not very good at This? That's pretty amusing; considering your ONLY ARGUMENT boils down to "Manipulation means weather omniscience; which isn't possible. Since weather omniscience isn't possible; therefore weather manipulation isn't happening..."
At no stage have I used the phrase "omniscience" - that would be you. And your point about strawman?
"It doesn't matter how old I am, since your the one with the rhetorical and literacy capacity of a fourth grader..."
Quick tip. If you really feel the need to comment on another's literacy, perhaps learn some rudiments of written English and at least comprehend the difference between a determiner and a contraction. You're as opposed to "your"
"I live how you can type multiple paragraphs; all while managing to simply state and RESTATE the ONE ARGUMENT THAT I have already dismantled and demolished."
Have you? How so?
"Every post you reply just digs you deeper into the hole; and yet you just REFUSE to put down the shovel"
And if irony were a raw material, you'd be sitting on quite the stash there mate.
"how do you not see that YOU are the one debating semantics; my other examples show that the term.manipulation can be consistently used in the context of merely implying exerting calculated influence. You can debate the semantics all YOU want; saying "That's not what manipulation means"; but it just means that you are the one with the overly narrow interpretation of the term...i.e. you are getting bogged down in semantics"
You used the word "influence". It is not possible to "influence" the weather above the local scale.
To return to the point - a reminder of your OP...
"Oooooooooooh, this did NOT age well..."
- Subsequently hilariously posting a link to an abandoned project to seed hurricanes from 74 years ago. When asked as to why, you replied with this...
"Joes talking about how "Obviously we can't control the weather...)"
So your original point by your own admission is that contrary to Rogan's claim, "control" is possible. That "shovel" you mentioned...
Incidentally, you needed an apostrophe - Joe's - the contraction for "Joe is". Clear now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1/ On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 (I suppose that was inexplicably faked too?) and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
2/ 9/11 certainly wasn't an 'inside job' correct. al-Qaeda claimed full responsibility and the evidence that they planned and executed the attacks is incontrovertible.
3/ All vaccination programmes carry with them the possibility of a small element of risk - but this is negligible in comparison to the benefits. One vaccination that I haven't myself personally had is for Small Pox. Is there the remotest chance that your tiny conspiratorially addled mind can work out why?
What does any of this have to do with 'the government'?
And meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely honest, accurate, reliable and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest, agenda ad disinformation? Righto then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KalvinMauveMusic
"around 8 seconds maybe 12"
Fascinating. You are evidently unaware that condensed water vapour and the physical laws of the atmosphere are neither obliged nor duty bound to conform to the arbitrary expectations and time limits imposed by a cretinous and credulous community of scientifically illiterate dullards that subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to reduce a cloud to a conspiracy theory.
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
"They dont expand and form clouds that block out the sun."
You sure about that are you?
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/~BerndKaercher/JAS57_464-480_2000.pdf
"Ice crystals melt that's the physics"
Ha! You're going to have an awkward time explaining a cirrus cloud then.
"and I have been studying them for over 30 years"
Really? You should have mentioned earlier. So have I. Having obtained a post-graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two decades ago, after previously working as a mountain guide across four continents, subsequently specialising in ground based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) I have collaborated on studies into the microphysical properties of contrails and the extent of radiative forcing associated with the phenomena. I now work in research capability. We can discuss it in more detail if you wish. And yourself?
"and they never existed 30 years ago"
Persistent contrails have been observed, recorded, measured and quantified since the early advent of powered aviation. You have been "studying" them for over 30 years? The entire fields of meteorology, aviation and atmospheric science have been doing so for almost a century. Can you guess who I'd sooner give credence to? Then of course there's these guys - the following paper is almost five decades old.
" Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
Feel free to falsify the applied mathematics in either paper.
I suggest that instead of trying to bluff your way parroting junk conspiracy theory which may work over the comments section of a video entertainment platform, you actually dedicate some time to actually learning basic rudiments of meteorological science, aerospace engineering and atmospheric physics. Start with dew points, DALR and SALR, relative humidity and ice supersaturation.
"WHY do you think that is ?"
Because you weren't even looking until you were hoodwinked by a crap internet conspiracy theory which told you what to think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This is my question, because if an aircraft flying through can change a vast portion of the atmosphere, then we are dealing with a much more sensitive system than previously thought"
And it's a legitimate question. Contrail cirrus is the cumulative result of localised effects - chiefly due to the exponential increase in commercial air traffic and routes flown.
"but, .. if the airplanes have this effect, then you can bet someone is staggering and staging the flights, for the purpose of mitigation or causation."
To be fair to you, smart routing has indeed been suggested in spite of the logistical difficulties.
"We do have weather weapons, we the public do not know where they are located or how they operate. but we do know we have them."
Then how have you established this? Although the radiative forcing of contrails can as you noticed have a significant impact, manipulation of the weather is technologically limited and exists predominately in the realm of cloud seeding. Control at the macro or synoptic level is beyond the capability of man...although ironically unintentional anthropogenic influence is altering weather patterns across the world. Contrail cirrus is one such example.
"And I would think weather control is used for both mitigation and causation"
Agree, although as I said, this is localised. A large amount of research into averting the formation of hurricanes and cyclones is in progress.
"And with 27,000 commercial flights daily in the US, this RF effect could be deemed useful in perhaps a myriad of ways"
I can't see how.
"It would seem, mitigation or causation would entail decisions of flight paths, timing and altitudes ,.. and then there are so many other factors, such as loss of wetlands, damming rivers, deforestation etc etc... many agendas to consider..."
Yes, the variables are highly involved and complex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ValMartinIreland
The Soviet Union/CCCP as it was then.
By the time of The Apollo missions, and actually, by Shepherd's first Mercury flight, NASA had already established at least 30 ground stations on five continents; several islands; and aboard ships sailing the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. This required the complicity of foreign nations and governments. However, countries such as Australia were eager to directly participate and the U.S. encouraged them to take the helm of the communications stations. NASA selected the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to receive the remote Apollo 11 moonwalk readings, or telemetry. Whilst the 85-foot antenna at Honeysuckle Creek to the south, which tracked the LEM and the moonwalks. Spain for example, offered Robledo and Fresnedillas.
There were also independent institutions and facilities most famously Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, which was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time as Apollo 11, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 that I mentioned, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings that Sir Bernard Lovell's team had made. But there are also many, many others, such as Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees), The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy and the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies. This in addition to thousands of amateur radio operators/technicians and astronomers across the globe. NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories. There was even a group at Kettering Grammar School who using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buzzedalldrink9131
"wrong read Van Allens book"
Visit a library? You can't even punctuate a sentence properly. What book are you referring to? Could you also provide a source and reference in which he, the physicist that originally made calculations to allow the Apollo transit through the belts that bear his name, also said it was impossible.
"sounds like you have no idea how to do research"
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
"there’s a thing called a library. You should go there and learn about radiation and rocketry"
And what specifically did you learn yourself about radiation and rocketry that invalidates the Apollo moon landings? Odd that - because entire branches of science such as physics, specialist disciplines including aerospace engineering worldwide,, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalists, over 10,000 private sector enterprises, independent and opposing nations, and each of the 76 other space agencies all understand that the Apollo moon landings were real. All domains with considerably more expertise and understanding than a random, arrogant yet insignificant conspiracy believer mouthing off over the comments section of You Tube that claims to know better.
Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them. Assuming you have even a shred of integrity and humility then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ Instead of bullshitting on the internet what do I really know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future and avoid making such dumb and ignorant statements on on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The landline call placed through the existing microwave network to Houston was then patched to the Deep Space Network, whereupon it was relayed via radio transmission using a very large radio dish directed at the moon.
In contrast, understand that the signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device. The current 4G communication band is 0.8-2.6GHz, and the main communication frequency band used by 5G is also below 6GHz, your signal can dip as low as a trivial -30 dBm. The transmitters used in space have exponentially greater power than the few milliwatts of a cell phone, using a high gain receiver and directed focused antenna arrays. The Apollo radio transmissions broadcast at 20 watts, to a dish that was 65 feet in diameter which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module. They also had line of sight, i.e. there was no obstruction between the Earth and Moon.
A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and have towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. They are entirely different scenarios.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Please don't take this personally, because I have no doubt that your intentions are benign Greg - but you are without rival the most inept and incompetent wannabe conspiracy theorist that think I have ever encountered online - and on the comments section of YouTube that really is quite an achievement.
"The link has evidence on the aluminium count on Mt.Shasta snow. It is ten years old. I'm sure there are newer reports."
Unbelievably, your link is taken from "Contrail Science" which is a chemtrail debunking site set up by Metabunk's Mick West. Your confirmation bias is so desperate you didn't even bother to check your source. Here is their full summary of "What in the World are they Spraying" containing your extract in its full context which completely demolishes the Mount Shasta pond tests - one of the cornerstones of the movie.
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/
And why Mount Shasta? - simply because chemtrails conspiracy protagonist Dane Wigington lives a few miles down the road in his seven acre ranch. You'll find that there is also a discussion about the ubiquity of aluminium, but allow me to explain a few things to you myself in the hope that you will avoid future humiliation. Please read the following carefully.
Aluminium and its compounds comprise about 8% of the Earth’s surface; aluminium occurs naturally in silicates, cryolite, and bauxite rock. Aluminium has combines with other elements to form compounds. Natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, and direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
None of these supposed chemtrails tests have ever found aluminium in its "free form" as conspiacy theorists claim. On the few occasions that samples have been submitted to analytical laboratories (for example the pond sludge given to Basic Laboratories, Redding CA), they have simply done what they were tasked to do. It's also important to stress that the results do not mean that there is metallic aluminium present in the water. The international standard test method used is a technique called ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry). This works is by turning the sample into a plasma (essentially a very hot ionised gas, up to about 10,000 degrees C). This breaks down all the substances in the sample into their constituent atoms (ions, to be precise) and then analyses them according to their individual mass. So any substance containing aluminium, whether that is aluminium oxide, or clay, or granite rock, or whatever, will be broken down and give a signal for aluminium ions. This should only be used for (relatively clean) water samples. It is obviously not designed for such samples containing large amounts of solids and sludge. Further, rainwater can have random amounts of aluminium in it, depending on how much dust there is in it, and the type of dust. Plus the collection methods are crucial. If done poorly as in the case of the Shasta tests, then the majority of the aluminium can actually come from deposition - i.e. the settling of dust, and not from the rain. Again, to reiterate, Basic Laboratories simply tested what they were given....they are not privy to the flawed sampling, nor the diabolical methodology and the lack of adherence to the scientific method. The link that you provided shows the analytical report which has subsequently been annotated by conspiracy theorist and fellow charlatan Francis Mangels. Would you like to discuss his abortive rainwater samples while we're on the subject?
If you were to allege that "these" findings are a consequence of chemtrails which the perpetrators of this hoax do, you would not only need to demonstrate cause and effect but you would also need to detail the robust methodology to not only ensure discrimination of your samples but to differentiate them from existing sources of both anthropogenic and natural origin. Not one of them has.
"This is the end of my correspondence with you. I wish you the best. Thank you."
I think it is for the best given that all you have accomplished on this page is to humiliate yourself. However, I also wish you well and genuinely commend you on your courtesy throughout and civil replies.
1
-
"Your opinion. Live and die by It."
Science is not a matter of your opinion or mine. Rather it is testable, measurable and independently verifiable. And yes, I do live and die by the scientific method. Are you still seriously suggesting that this video is capturing inadvertent chemical spraying????
"What do Chemtrails have to do with Geoengineering? Maybe you missed something"
I can assure you I didn't. Chemtrails are the erroneous claim that contrails, either aerodynamic as in this footage, or exhaust are evidence of a programme of global chemical spraying. The inception of this nonsense can be traced back to Coast to Coast AM and the sensationalist whim of late night shock DJs such as Art Bell on a brief to increase listeners and raise advertising revenue. Since the advent of the internet, proponents on the coattails of this racket have duped the gullible and the scientifically illiterate with clickbait confirmation bias and in the process intentionally conflated this conspiracy theory with areas of geoengineering in order to gain legitimacy for their ludicrous claims.
Geoengineering is a broad umbrella term encompassing strategies as diverse as marine cloud brightening, carbon sequestering and albedo modification. Most funding and attention goes into ocean fertilisation however in March of last year Harvard rolled out their $16m project intended to research SAI aiming to understand the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption should a last ditch solution to global warming ever be required. Small scale trials commence this summer and will involve as little as 1kg of material - initially water, but if successful - likely calcium carbonate and aluminium oxide. As is the case with volcanic aerosols, these would be invisible and released in the mid stratosphere at double the height of the contrails that you are observing. This would also likely be in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns. Once again, what does SAI/SRM have to do with the fallacious claim that a contrail is evidence of chemical spraying?
"and why not watch "What in the world are they spraying" for a start."
Because I am a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist and Michael J Murphy is an unscrupulous conspiracy theorist duping the gullible and naive with a series of baseless pseudo-scientific nonsense.
"If you are still angry at me (one has to wonder why)"
I bear you no ill feeling - rather pity.
"then check out Clifford Carnicom."
Cliff Carnicom? Why? - Like I said, I'm not interested in online self referencing profiteering conspiracy theorists. Got any real and reputable scientists and legitimate analytical studies/hard data in respect of your chemtrails? (This should be amusing).
"Also I might add that there are numerous craft landing in different weather conditions. Some of which produce contrails."
And you have established this how?
You mean these?
https://youtu.be/dfY5ZQDzC5s
It appears that you don't understand the difference between an exhaust and an aerodynamic contrail.
Look, "chemtrails"...
https://youtu.be/ZlDnd3B1rhs
You then bizarrely posted this....
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe_9gSO6TZA"
So you link me to a You Tube chemtrails conspiracy theory video, made by a proponent of the chemtrails conspiracy theory, about the chemtrails conspiracy theory as evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory? Genius.
So so far, your recommendations are the following...chemtrails conspiracy theorist, Michael J Murphy , chemtrails conspiracy theorist Clifford E Carnicom and chemtrails conspiracy theorist Ccrow 777 - an individual who will also have you believe that the moon is a hologram.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@syedrabeeh
"Cut the crap / 1969 —- they said it was shot on a Leica and there is no way that camera could have been operated unman at that time , also how did you take the footage back without recovering the camera or the film."
I've read this several times - and I think you meant 'unmanned' yes? Could you explain precisely why remote control technology was impossible in 1971/1972? Since you haven't the first idea what you are talking about it's necessary to explain to you that the GCTA that captured the departure of Apollo 15, 16 and 17 was not used in any landings prior to this due to the fact that it was only the later J Missions that took the lunar rovers.
"also how did you take the footage back without recovering the camera or the film."
This comment is so breathtakingly stupid - even for you - I'll leave you to work out why.
"Bro take a deep breath and look at our atmosphere, no human have ever left exosphere"
Actually 24 human beings have journeyed beyond the boundary of the exposphere, which extends to approximately 6,200 miles from our planet.
Perhaps you are referring to the geocorona. A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet, far further than previously postulated. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona are. These observations that have not been made before could be done only at certain times of the year, when the Earth and its geocorona came into view for SWAN.
You realise that by "atmosphere", this means 0.5 atoms per cc on the lunar surface? Of course you didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buttafan4010
"Al oxide and Barium Oxide are the chemical names of reflective nano particles used to increase the amounted of sunlight reflected away from Earth and back into outer space."
Absolute nonsense. Firstly you are referring to the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which aims to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Although aluminium oxide has been suggested, there isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Barium oxide? Where do you even get that from? Moreover, it isn't even flammable. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
"Al-Oxide is also one of the main ingredients of a certain type of solid rocket fuel - very flammable"
Solid rocket propellant uses aluminum powder as the fuel and a mineral salt, ammonium perchlorate, the oxidizer. Contrary to your claim, aluminium powder is used because it has a high volumetric energy density and is difficult to ignite accidentally.
"as evidenced by the Al-Oxide outer reflective coating of the Hindenburg that was the first thing to catch fire do to a static electricity spark that occurred when the airship was rushed through stormy conditions that caused the static elec. build up (speed + stormy air conditions = static electricity like shuffling feet on a rug.) ...all in order to make it to a scheduled welcome ceremony that the Hindenburg was running a little late for"
Again, absolute rubbish. The build up of static was indeed caused by the framework of the Hindenburg which was constructed from duralumen - an aluminium alloy. but the first thing to ignite was the leaking hydrogen.
"Like Reagan ordering the launch of the Challenger in sub freezing weather conditions that caused the O rings to not seat properly ... so Reagan could boast of it's launch at the State of the Union address the next day."
Nonsense. The final authorisation to launch came from head of the programme Jesse W More. The Rogers Commission found that there was a serious flaw in the decision-making process leading up to the launch of flight 51-L. A well-structured and managed system emphasising safety would have flagged the rising doubts about the solid rocket booster joint seal. Particularly in the light of Roger Boisjoly's warnings who correctly predicted, based on earlier flight data, that the O-rings on the rocket boosters would fail if the shuttle launched in cold weather. Morton Thiokol's managers decided to approve the launch the shuttle despite his dire warnings.
Incidentally, The blow-by/O-ring failure on the right hand SRB caused a breach in the joint that it was designed to seal then allowing pressurised hot gas to exit the SRB motor and burning through the adjacent aft SRB strut and the ET - both of which then separated. As a consequence the entire launch vehicle was promptly torn apart by aerodynamic forces. The cloud that you see is a consequence of 1.6 million lbs of vapourising liquid hydrogen and oxygen - some of which subsequently ignited - hence the orange glow. The tragedy is therefore often incorrectly referred to as the Challenger explosion. Footage of the event shows the cabin exiting the cloud more-or-less intact. Contrary to popular belief, Challenger was destroyed by aerodynamic stresses far beyond its design tolerance, not an explosion.
"Cabin voice and telemetry recorders show that the 7 astronauts were alive until the intact crew cabin hit the water at 25 Gs. They had water in their lungs."
Again, absolute rubbish. Where the hell are you getting this from? After vehicle breakup, the crew compartment continued its upward trajectory, peaking at an altitude of 65,000 feet approximately 25 seconds after breakup. It then descended striking the ocean surface about two minutes and forty-five seconds after breakup at a velocity of about 207 miles per hour. The forces imposed by this impact approximated 200 G's not 25, far in excess of the structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels. The separation of the crew compartment deprived the crew of Orbiter-supplied oxygen, except for a few seconds supply in the lines. Each crew member's helmet was also connected to a personal egress air pack (PEAP) containing an emergency supply of breathing air (not oxygen) for ground egress emergencies, which must be manually activated to be available. Four PEAP's were recovered, and there is evidence that three had been activated. The nonactivated PEAP was identified as the Commander's, one of the others as the Pilot's, and the remaining ones could not be associated with any crew member. The evidence indicates that the PEAP's were not activated due to water impact. It is possible, but not certain, that the crew lost consciousness due to an in-flight loss of crew module pressure. Data to support this is: The accident happened at 48,000 feet, and the crew cabin was at that altitude or higher for almost a minute. At that altitude, without an oxygen supply, loss of cabin pressure would have caused rapid loss of consciousness and it would not have been regained before water impact. PEAP activation could have been an instinctive response to unexpected loss of cabin pressure.If a leak developed in the crew compartment as a result of structural damage during or after breakup (even if the PEAP's had been activated), the breathing air available would not have prevented rapid loss of consciousness.The crew seats and restraint harnesses showed patterns of failure which demonstrates that all the seats were in place and occupied at water impact with all harnesses locked. This would likely be the case had rapid loss of consciousness occurred, but it does not constitute proof. Impact damage was so severe that no positive evidence for or against in-flight pressure loss could be found. Finally, the skilled efforts of the team from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the expertise of the associated consultants, could not determine whether in-flight lack of oxygen occurred, nor could they determine the cause of death.
"We were not told the truth about that either, nor WMD in Iraq, or the Truth about the Gulf of Tonkin, nor about medical cannabis, incubators in Kuwait, etc etc. All governments lie to their people and all national leaders are merely our managers."
Simply because a government of previous administration has lied or deceived its people, and you are correct, history is rife with examples, it does not however automatically afford legitimacy or credence to "chemtrails" or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice of devising. Surely, surely you are able to comprehend that.
What does any of this have to do with your OP about aluminium oxide accelerants and again, the subject of this video which is misidentified aircraft contrails?
1
-
@buttafan4010
Likewise, thank you for your civil and considered response. As you say, the avoidance of ad-hominem abuse in favour of constructive discourse is so refreshing - particularly in this era of populism and increasing polarisation in which the dialectic has been lost.
Yes, of course I question official narratives. Should we trust our government? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that a government is always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or that suspicion detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
To reiterate, simply because a previous government has lied and deceived, it does not then follow that chemtrails (or any conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) must be true. To believe so would be a syllogistic fallacy, affirming the consequent, through the undistributed middle.
"So... Alan Specker's magic bullet hypothesis and the top 20 or so floors of the twin towers crushing 80 or so floors underneath, are not violations of conservation of momentum?"
You mean Arlen Specter? What many fail to appreciate, that the single bullet theory doesn't exclude additional shots, or additional bullets hitting the president. Most witnesses and analysts believe that a total of three shots were fired. Whether those additional shots were fired by Oswald or by a second gunman — perhaps from a nearby hill now referred to as "the grassy knoll" — remains a subject of intense debate. Subsequent forensic analyses and NAA analyses found that a single bullet duplicated almost exactly the path of travel postulated. What is in no doubt however, is that the Warren Commission was shoddy and poorly conducted.
You claim to be a man of science. The collapse of the Word Trade Centre does not contravene or contradict know physical laws. The intense heat softened or melted the structural elements floor trusses and columns which was sufficient to trigger the collapse. The floor trusses were the first to sag and fail. As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way, starting an unstoppable sequence. In such a scenario, the dynamic forces are so large that the downward motion became unstoppable.
It's important to understand that the gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, this equated to a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours) - that's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb!!
Approximately 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass.
Thanks again for your courteous response, but I fail to see what any of this has to do with your OP or the subject of this video? - a ludicrous conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Lots of people in these comments obviously never look up! "
Well, I was introduced to alpine climbing at the age of 11, obtained a post graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two decades ago upon which my subsequent background was atmospheric science, specialising in ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength) and have a keen interest in astronomy. Will that do? And yourself?
"Wake up to a clear sky, PLANE TRAILS fill the sky during late morning/mid day, you SEE them spread out, and by late afternoon it's completely overcast."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Contrails are often the precursor of an approaching frontal system and unstable atmospheric conditions.
"I understand it's hard to go against what you believe"
Known science is not about "belief"
"I myself always struggle with researching opposing views to my beliefs"
Precisely what have you done to critically appraise and question the veracity and validity of this online hoax or the probity of its perpetrators?
"but for fuck sake you can SEE it happening."
And even better you can actually understand what you are looking at given a rudimentary knowledge of meteorology and aviation.
"As children do you remember those trails lingering for any longer than 30 seconds?"
Yes I most certainly do. Why shouldn't that be the case?
"Top comments are all bashing people who question this stuff and its sickening."
But you don't "question this stuff". Questioning involves objectivity, independent verification, a critical faculty and a knowledge of the subject domain.
"NASA has a cloud making machine lol they showed the thing on national TV. "
Sigh, no - the stapline of your dishonestly appropriated You Tube conspiracy videos simply told you that. That'll be the Stennis rocket engine test facility in Mississippi. As I recall the clips capture the test-firing of an RS-25, an engine that was used on the Space Shuttle and will be used to power NASA’s SLS. There is further footage of the an RS-68, an engine used in the Delta IV family of rockets made by the United Launch Alliance. However, the engines can’t be seen in the video; they’re hidden by the test stands. These rocket motors burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The by-product of this combustion is water vapor.. That stuff you are seeing is just super-hot steam rising into the sky and condensing to form a cloud which may then precipitate. Do feel free to produce the footage though. Of note, there are also military smoke generating machines such as the Russian TMC-65
"I guess they didnt change the weather during Vietnam? That's a conspiracy too I bet, anyone know how long ago that was?"
Operation Popeye. Actually the science of cloud seeding is dubious and its deployment during the Vietnam War primarily to deluge the Ho-Chi-Mihn was of debatable success due to the fact that it tended to coincide with heavy monsoons. Cloud seeding does not produce or create clouds. 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.
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. 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 this have to do with the chemtrails conspiracy theory under discussion in this video?
1
-
@edwardvanvlack6368
"My comment wasnt a finger pointed in your direction."
I understand that Edward.
"I appreciate your response."
Thank you - and I appreciate your civil reply.
"We must have lived in different areas as children because growing up my sky wasnt filled with checker boards."
Not to the extent of today - but persistent contrails are nothing new. This phenomena was first observed in the early years of aviation and has been recorded, documented, photographed and researched since. The unprecedented expansion of commercial aviation sector has resulted in the increased prevalence of contrails. This is an industry that generates 2.7 trillion a year, employs 65 million people, conveys 51.2 m tons of freight per year and transports 3.6 billion PAX per annum which is set to double in the next 15 years. Contrail coverage will get much, much worse before it gets better.
"Atmospheric aerosol injections, or, weather engineering is nothing new either."
What does either have to do with a contrail in the wake of a commercial aircraft?
"A lot of science actually is based upon belief due to so much being built upon theory."
Known science is reproducible, testable and informed by physical laws which are both ineluctable and axiomatic. It is also subject to the scrutiny of the scientific method. I'm a meteorologist - would you like to discuss it in more detail?
"You cant have facts that are built upon an unproven theory"
The formation of persistent contrails are not an "unproven theory". Perhaps you should heed that during the next chemtrails conspiracy video that you watch.
"Harvard University plans to use chemtrails to "dim" the sun. That's probably fake news too."
Actually they want to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols thereby reduce incoming insolation. Here's what they have to say about it...
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/about#tracks
Here is the first proposed small scale trial scheduled for this summer to measure dispersion and perturbation involving mere kilograms of material - initially calcium carbonate (chalk). I suggest that you read it.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
You mean conducting research into the viability of stratospheric aerosol injection? What does this have to do with either a contrail or the subject matter of this video which is debunking the chemtrail hoax - the erroneous belief that contrails in the wake of predominately commercial air traffic cruising in the tropopause and lower stratosphere are evidence of some intentional programme of global spraying.
"John Brennan also refers to aerosol injections in relation to climate."
Did you actually listen to what he said? As a guest speaker, the theme of his address to The Council on Foreign Relations (a thinktank) was "Transitional Threats to Global Security" during which he also addressed possible future technologies that don't even exist yet. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, in the unlikely event that it would ever be deployed as a last ditch solution to combat climate change, would have geo-political ramifications and pose significant implications for governance. Brennan also broached anti-ageing technology.
Here's the full transcript to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"There are plenty of articles out showing the sun dimming chem trail technique. If you inject chemicals into the sky, behind your plane...that'll be a chemtrail."
If you say so. Strikes me that chemtrails are whatever you want them to be. Sounding rockets deposit a trace trail of lithium, even fireworks contain your aluminium, barium and strontium. There were some 30,000 tons detonated last year in America alone - Illuminati confirmed!!!!
Geoengineering in the form of SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory other than the desperate attempts of the perpetrators and believers in this nonsense to conflate the two in a bid to gain credibility and vindicate their ill informed claims. The chemtrails hoax alleges that persistent contrails in the wake of commercial aircraft cruising in the troposphere and lower stratosphere are evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying. SIA exists solely in the form of paper based proposal and computer modelling, hasn't even reached the stage of small scale trial, wouldn't be visible as a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the contrails under discussion in this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@souljahroch2519
"...keep laughing, dumbass. Your jokes are killing US All"
Hilarious isn't it that you people accommodate and parrot any random confirmation bias on the internet without actually verifying it first? Have you actually bothered read this? When you actually get round to reading CIA Document 1035-960, "Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report" instead of the misleading blog post surrounding the link you provided, you'll find that there is nothing in there about using the term "Conspiracy Theory" to discredit people. Instead it focuses on addressing the claims directly, and suggesting those making the claims are communists.
You said this, remember.
"Conspiracy Theorist is a term created by The CIA in order to disparrage ' (sic) critical thinkers' during the JFK Assassination 'Cover Up' which is arrant nonsense - (Incidentally, if you must regurgitate this stuff, at least spell it correctly).The CIA didn't "invent the term conspiracy theorist" you fool. A cursory search of the Oxford Dictionary reveals that the phrase was used in 1964 - three years before Dispatch 1035-960 appeared citing the following -
"Conspiracy theorists will be disappointed by the absence of a dogmatic introduction."
New Statesman 1 May 694/2
You may also wish to find "The Conspiracy Theory of Politics of the Radical Right in the United States by William C. Baum"
https://www.worldcat.org/title/conspiracy-theory-of-politics-of-the-radical-right-in-the-united-states/oclc/18821548
Or Karl Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies", 1950. In which he writes:
"what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of the social sciences; I call it the ''conspiracy theory of society'."
Academic though, since the earliest appearance of “conspiracy theory’ in the OED goes as far back as 1909 to an article from the American Historical Review:
"The claim that Atchison was the originator of the repeal may be termed a recrudescence of the conspiracy theory first asserted by Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia in 1880." Amer. Hist. Rev. 14 836 T
We can go back further than that. How about The Journal of Medical Science 1871?
"It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Beade"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VsRMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1g7IT8eEBKSi2gW2_ejmDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theory%22&f=false
In 1881, the phrase appears in Rhodes’ Journal of Banking: “As evidence of a conspiracy this showing is pitiful, and in any view, the charge is ridiculous, as no conspiracy theory is needed to account for the facts.”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AtcuAQAAIAAJ&q=%22conspiracy+theory%22&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7ob8UZL2PM6EygHNrYDoAQ&redir_esc=y
Perhaps form 1890, "Some Kind of Political Conspiracy Mainly Ridiculed"
"The conspiracy theory may be well founded, but then again it may not."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ziIgAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&pg=PA608-IA7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theory%22&f=false
Also on the same topic 1895"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GkIxAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&pg=RA16-PA27&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theory%22&f=false
1899, from an article discussing various conspiracy theories regarding South Africa. And an early debunking:
"Mr. Balfour proceeded to discuss one theory of conspiracy and to dismiss another."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cHdNAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22conspiracy+theory%22&pg=PA227&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theory%22&f=false
If you are purely referring to the use of the term in the pejorative sense, then this can be traced back to historian and political commentator Richard Hofstader.
And your point about "dumbass" was precisely what?
1
-
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true.
And meanwhile online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Righteous628
"When China gets there and provides independent corroboration then I will believe it."
There is already independent corroboration. Also, known science is not a question of belief. Meanwhile, China are not interested in sending missions to the moon in order to laud America's past achievements or at the behest of a community of online conspiracy believers.
"But you can already see the storm of propaganda USA is "launching" by claiming that China wants to "take over the Moon"
There will certainly be a scramble for its resources which raises fascinating legal challenges.
"There is absolutely no limit to how low the American Government will go to employ stupidity, deception, corruption and agression."
Because online conspiracy theory is entirely harmless, benign, accurate, honest, not in the least bit deceptive, manipulative or exploitative and with your best interests at heart - completely devoid of bias, agenda or ulterior motive. Righto.
"They are trying to make an excuse to blow up the China rocket ship to prevent China from going to the moon because when China goes,it will finally expose the 50 year lie of American manned Space flight supremecy."
Genuinely, no offence meant, but there are occasions, even in the comments section of You Tube that someone floats a notion so ludicrous, or submits something that is so transcendently stupid that one is perplexed by the sheer variety of overwhelming valid counterpoints that simultaneously present themselves. In such times you find yourself left to suffocate in the overwhelming paralysis of indecisive bewilderment, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlight, which suffers for its immobility when any action would be preferable to none.
"Take a look at Shanghai China,China is 2 generations ahead of America in terms of technological advancements"
Such as?
"Because all America does is make weapons, biological and conventional then sow seeds of discord and conflict and then through proxy or directly, sell the weaponry to both sides of the conflicts."
The unintentional irony at this stage is as excruciating as it is hilarious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lorichet
"Apart from them, you haven't said much."
He has actually. He summarised all of your personal incredulity and arguments from ignorance that this thread is also testimony to and the fact that you yourself admit that you didn't read it means that you are unable to pass comment.
However to return to the subject of Bill Kaysing, you said this -
"Kaysing was promoted from senior technical writer to service analyst to SERVICE ENGINEER. It's very easy to look up his bio."
The 'Service Analyst' role was clerical, curating, archiving and filing technical documentation, whilst the 'Service Engineer' role is a complete misnomer. It meant that he was on the shop floor, but very much in the teaboy, 'pass the wrench' tidy the workbench and sweep up capacity. As you say, it's very easy to look this up. He finished his career at Rocketdyne in the capacity of 'Publications Analyst' basically proof reading press releases with some copywriting and duties.
"Kaysing was a service engineer for Rocketdyne; so he provided technical support through all stages of the engine, including launch. His job required him to see everything."
This is completely false. He provided no 'technical support' at all. As has been pointed out to you, Bill Kaysing had a BA in English literature and no engineering expertise or credentials whatsoever. Moreover, as has also been explained to you, he acrimoniously left Rocketdyne in May 1963 under a cloud following what he later claimed was unfair treatment of a colleague. This was over 4 years before the first Saturn V was launched.
1
-
@lorichet
"And now you're parroting the same old lies about Kaysing too, huh, Yassassin?"_*
Ha! you are defending Bill Kaysing whilst branding someone a liar? Surely the irony isn't lost even on you?
"A Service Engineer would have provided TECHNICAL SUPPORT for actions like equipment processing, transportation, installation, checkout, and for the launch itself." ~ Bryan Kidder, Communications Director, Pratt & Whitney"
Could you provide the full context and source of this quote?
To reiterate, Bill Kaysing had a degree in English literature and absolutely no engineering credentials whatsoever. Nothing you can say will change that. This is pure semantics. As explained, technical support in his limited capacity would have meant simply fetching parts and components from stores, ensuring that documentation, procedures and specifications are to hand, or simply lugging a toolbox. Moreover, Kaysing wasn't even employed at Rocketdyne during any of the Apollo launches.
And how does any of this afford legitimacy to Kaysing's ludicrous claims? This is a man that alleged that the Rocketdyne F1 engines from the were replaced with "more reliable engines" which were concealed under the existing engine bell nozzles. 🤣Apparently, this was one of the secrets he alleges that he came across during his career. He betrays his complete ignorance of the Apollo programme in claiming that being much smaller, the new engines would not be able to propel a rocket to the moon, not realising that the job of the SI-C was to haul 3,100 tons off the launch pad and to to an altitude of 42 miles and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour.
See, the problem with your lame appeal to authority is that in so doing you have no choice but to accept the testimonies of thousands of genuine propulsion engineers and designers that unlike Kaysing, actually do have engineering credentials to their names. You choose instead to disregard that and rely on one opportunistic conman, with suspect mental health, bearing a huge chip on his shoulder, that divorced himself from reality, estranged and alienated himself from the world around him and his loved ones and had no specialist knowledge or expertise whatsoever in the subjects that he discusses. Essentially, he went from proof reader to fantasy writer for a quick buck. Moreover, even if Kaysing had have had an engineering background, that wouldn't alter the fact that "We Never Went to the Moon" is an error strewn farrago of factoid, falsities and outright lies that can be exposed and dismissed with even a cursory amount of independent verification.
1
-
@lorichet
Sure, I'll play your puerile online baseball.
"You said Kaysing provided no technical support at all." Strike one."
In terms of your interpretation of 'technical' - no he certainly didn't. He had a BA in English Literature. (Home run).
"You said "technical support in his limited capacity would have meant simply fetching parts and components from stores, ensuring that documentation, procedures and specifications are to hand, or simply lugging a toolbox." Strike two."
Absolutely. As I have explained, this is a matter of semantics and your own subjective interpretation. The supposed 'technical support' would have consisted of Kaysing being a mere lackey in relation to the activities and action of qualified engineers. To reiterate- Kaysing was not qualified. The role title was a complete misnomer. (Home run).
"You said "Kaysing wasn't even employed at Rocketdyne during any of the Apollo launches" -- ignoring the fact that he witnessed the testing of those F1 engines. Strike three."
Source? When? Where? Please produce this.
The first F-1 was not delivered to NASA until October 1963. Kaysing had left Rocketdyne the previous May. In December 1964, the F-1 completed its first flight rating tests. Testing continued into1965. Test firing was conducted at Stennis, Mississippi and the first full ignition of the SI-C was conducted in 1966. Kaysing was based in Canoga Park, LA. And even if he had have witnessed any testing - what's your point? So did many contractors and Apollo personnel. Again, your lame appeal to authority means nothing. (Home run).
"You said "This is a man that alleged that the Rocketdyne F1 engines from the were replaced with "more reliable engines" which were concealed under the existing engine bell nozzles." which is false; so strike four. Your statement doesn't make sense, btw."
My statement doesn't make sense? Kaysing alleged that the technical issues with the F1 engines were never surmounted and so they employed smaller more reliable engines albeit not powerful enough to take Apollo to the moon. To reiterate, the purpose of the F1 engines (together with the J2s) was to lift a 6.2 million pound rocket off the pad and place 155 tons of payload into orbit. Smaller engines would never have accomplished this. Moreover, once in LEO, a single re-ignitable J2 engine was responsible for trans lunar injection. Since the entire world witnessed the Saturn Vs rolled out and on the launchpad, then the only logical corollary based upon Kaysing's ludicrous claim was that he thought these 'smaller engines' were concealed under the F1 engine bell nozzles which were dummies/a facade. And yet no one noticed. Possibly the most ridiculous of all his assertions. (Home run).
"I didn't bother with the rest of your regurgitation of the propaganda about a dead man who isn't around to sue for libel."
Then how do you know it was "regurgitation of propaganda" then? Your self-defeating logic really is the most amusing part of all this, next to the fact that you are defending and opportunistic liar and fraud. If anyone should be suing for libel/slander it is the personnel involved in Apollo. Incidentally, Kaysing did file for defamation and he made a complete hash of that too. It was against Jim Lovell who reservedly branded him as "wacky". The case was summarily thrown out after he submitted what is according to even Ralph Rene, "a load of drivel" That's when you really do know you're talking complete crap. My favourite quote surrounding this comes from a commentator at the time; -"One hopes Kaysing consults someone other than his attorney, who happens to be himself."
"As for the "thousands" of engineers who "confirm" that the moon landings happened, which number I very much doubt, NASA engineers would lose their jobs if they didn't go along with the official fairytale. So their "testimony" isn't worth squat."
And yet somehow Kaysing's is? Seriously, I doubt whether even you could be dim enough to actually believe what you just wrote. Many of those engineers involved in Apollo left NASA after the cancellation of the programme - not to mention the myriad of contractors. Allied to which, irrespective of NASA, the authenticity of the Apollo engineering is supported by specialist fields of propulsion engineering/rocketry, entire branches of science and the associated physical laws mathematical axioms that speak for themselves. Entire disciplines versus a 'fairytale' from a bitter deluded opportunist, with a BA in English literature, questionable mental health, and that isn't worth "squat" unless you are suitably gullible and naive to regard such fanciful nonsense at a legitimate source. Which evidently you are. 🤣
Now could you as requested provide the full quote and its context from Bryan Kidder. Could you also support your claim with independent evidence that Kaysing was privy to 'testing' of the F1 engine? (despite the fact that he left the organisation under a cloud in May 1963?) Thank you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it took Operation Paperclip and some German rocket engineers working alongside and in tandem with thousands of engineers to "get us to the moon".
von Braun was indeed a member of the Nazi party, but he joined simply though expedience to get support and funding for his work. He despised Hitler and all that he ideologically stood for.
He did not directly murder anyone. He had sleep-walked into a Faustian bargain—that he had worked with this regime without considering the darker implications of the Third Reich and the Nazi regime. As Technical Director at the Army Rocket Center at Peenemünde his work attracted more and more attention in higher levels. His refusal to join the party would have meant that he would have had to abandon his life's work. Of course he bears some responsibility for his own actions but in the case of concentration camp labor, there wasn’t much he could do to help. Yes, he still bears some moral responsibility for being in the middle of that situation, seeing the concentration camp labor personally, face to face but powerless to effect change. Von Braun admitted visiting the plant at Mittelwerk on many occasions, and later referred to conditions at the plant as "repulsive", but he maintained throughout his life that he never personally witnessed any deaths or beatings. By 1944 he was certainly privy to the atrocities but he denied ever having visited the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp itself - and there is no evidence that he did, where 20,000 died from illness, beatings, hangings, and appalling working conditions. Yes the slave labour was being used - more people died though this that the actual V2 itself, but contrary to your claim, he is not directly responsible for thousands of dead civilians, no more so than those that lead the RAF bombing campaigns of Berlin, Dresden and Cologne, or Robert Oppenheimer was for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The world was at war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rawveganterra
"Who in their right mind trusts their...government to tell them what to think..."
Lame strawman.
No one. Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. As you correctly say, no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims that the moon landings were fake, or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A weak minded syllogistic logical fallacy.
"The government" is irrelevant. The scientific, technical and historical evidence in support of the moon landings that you are wholly ignorant of is manifest with a voice of its own.
And meanwhile, nothing says informed, honest and accurate like a former cab driver turned conspiracy theorist, convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry and a proven liar and fraud with absolutely no specialist knowledge of scientific expertise whatsoever.
Some more puerile emojis? Run to the hills? - From a gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with a mental age of an eight year old? Why?
1
-
@rawveganterra
Incorrect. As I have repeatedly explained to you the scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence is manifest, demonstrable and has a voice of its own. Nothing to do with "belief", nothing to do with me. And yes there are hundreds of hours of motion camera and broadcast footage from the nine Apollo missions to the moon in addition to 18,000 photographs. There was also a third of a tonne or moonrock that was returned from the lunar surface, some of which was gifted to 135 independent nations whilst an entire branch of science called geology, mineralogists, petrologists and independent analytical laboratories have authenticated and studied the Apollo samples.
The issue is, that you yourself have chosen to "believe" an ex cab driver, known charlatan and con artist with zero specialist knowledge or credentials and have regarded this as a legitimate source of information about a subject that you have no understanding of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
@BurninWires
"I heard it with my own ears as I watched him say it."
Buzz Aldrin has never said "we never went to the moon".
"Quickly tell me how the president talked to the astronauts on the moon by telephone2
Microwave link between Washington and Houston, routed to the Deep Space Network, then to the moon via S-band through a 200 foot wide radio telescope dish. Shocking I know.
"watched by millions. No time delay at all"
There was a time delay though. The communication signal speed is the same as the speed of light. The moon is 384,400 km away. The speed of light is 299,792 km/s. This means, even considering additional time delays through relays and equipment that would equate to a fraction over 3 seconds.
However, since the recording of the conversation took place on Earth, and Nixon was also on Earth, as soon as the astronaut’s voice is heard, Nixon can and does answer immediately and we hear it immediately and without delay. The time delay is only apparent when Nixon finishes a sentence… we don’t hear a reply from the astronauts for about three seconds… about 1.5 seconds for Nixon’s voice to get to the moon, and another 1.5 second for the astronauts reply to return to the Earth.
There are also edited versions of the exchange on some documentaries that have removed this lag.
Why is it even necessary to explain this? Also, I'm curious, why do you people think that ill-informed falsehoods and ignorance in any way supports your contention than the Apollo moon landings were faked. You don't even understand that a phone call can be linked to radio communication.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeyjones9041
"Moron"
Why the need for abuse.
-"Bill Gates funded the research on a process where hurricane intensity can be manipulated. Just one simple Google search."_
Fascinating - then you'll have no problem producing the link at source will you? Obviously, you'll have the good sense to avoid cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites. Go ahead then.
"Weather modification has been going on for decades by various militaries, civilian entities, and other government backed research. Plenty of info out there about it."
See above. Weather modification is the technical term for cloud seeding which is practiced on the micro scale.
None of this has anything whatsoever to misidentified aircraft contrails discussed i this video that have been have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heinzwernerwegener6545
"A jet engine which is designed to guarantee a smooth installation of a landing ferry with a thrust that is throttled to produce so little thrust that no blade of grass or a grain of dust is moved. Not even one of the tiniest hints of heat or pressure on the original shots. Is this serious?? No further comment!"
Is this serious? What the hell? What does this nonsense even mean? To reiterate, a vertical take off/landing jet produces 24,000lbs of thrust - directed downwards. This does not make an impression even on grass. In comparison, the descent engine of the LM at the point of low gate landing was making a mere 2,700lbs of thrust - and yet you expect this to make a crater on solid rock.!?
To attempt to explain to you again, the exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter. By the time the LM was proximate to the surface a lot of fuel had been depleted to the point where it had a mass of ~15,000lb. But in the moon’s 1/6g that equates to a weight of only ~2,700lbf. To reiterate, the Descent Engine was about 59 inches across the nozzle, so that is an area of 734 square inches. So even at full throttle, the DPS was only creating a pressure of about 10000/2734 = 3.7 psi. Throttled back to 10% this was only 0.37 psi. But that is the pressure at the exit of the engine bell! The exhaust had another 10 inches or so to expand into a vacuum before contact with the lunar surface, even if the engine was shut-off with the footpads on the surface (as it was on Apollo 11). On all the other landings, the engine was stopped before touchdown anywhere up to 6 feet above the surface, with the Lunar Module free-falling the last few feet. Moreover, contrary to your false claim you can discern in the photographs, scouring and discolouration of the surface. No further comment - other than the fact that you are a complete and utter buffoon.
"No further comment"
Is that a promise? Wouldn't that be nice for everyone?
"With such explanations, one can also claim that 2001 WTC 7 has "suddenly" disintegrated to dust, although it was never hit by an aircraft or any debris parts, this is very very difficult to explain to anyone - that's why no one speaks anymore of the suddenly to dust-decomposed WTC 7 (concrete) building between other undamaged buildings... if someone can explain - try (and why it was no longer mentioned in all the years afterwards) so exited to hear the truth at least here...."
So the usual tangential non-sequitur and deflection from a token dumb believer in online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hitler03
From memory, the dogs Veterok ("Breeze") and Ugoyok ("Little Piece Of Coal") were launched aboard Kosmos 110 by the Soviet Union in 1966 – as part of an evaluation of prolonged effects during space travel of radiation from the Van Allen Belts on animals between 1966 and 1969.
The U.S. launched three missions in the Biosatellite series. A total of six flights were planned. The first mission in the Biosatellite series, Biosatellite I, was also launched in 1966 I believe. The scientific payload, consisted of 13 select biology and radiation experiments containing a variety of specimens, including insects, frog eggs, microorganisms, and plants. Biosatellite II carried a biological payload similar to Biosatellite I. The primary objective of the Biosatellite II mission was to determine if organisms were more, or less, sensitive to ionizing radiation in microgravity than on Earth. In 1968 the first successful Soviet Zond ("probe") was launched containing a biological payload of turtles, wine flies, mealworms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter was included in the flight.
1
-
"They have admitted to using cloud seeding all over durijg droughts there are videos on youtube of pilots cloud seeding in texas"
Cloud seeding isn't secretive. There are organisations that freely advertise their services and contracts over the internet for private hire. How do you admit to something that isn't denied? Cloud seeding isn't actually all that widespread, the materials used are negligible in quantity and the environmental impact is zero. Also its efficacy is questionable and the results, inconclusive and erratic.
"the military uses chaff"
Yes a radar countermeasure.
"and the barium strontium aluminum NANOparticels so it is a vapor to bounce or help radar"
No, chaff is not nano sized, it does not involve barium or strontium and it is not a vapour.
"And watch a weather map where a westher doppler.radar is used the could systems will literally for a bubble around the radars proximity"
??? If a weather system is close by then doppler radar will detect it usingvelocity data. Most modern weather radars employ the pulse-Doppler technique to examine the motion of precipitation, but it is only one aspect of their capability in processing of the data. So, while these radars use a highly specialised form of Doppler radar, the term is much broader in its meaning and its applications. In Clear air mode, the radar sensitivity is increased and it can detect dust, fog, temperature inversions and other atmospheric disturbances that are not precipitation related. When the radar detects precipitation again, it automatically switches back to precipitation mode.
"there not hiding it they have ised it to cause drought in forwign cou troes before invasion2
Such as?
"there are many patents on it"
On what precisely?
"i dojt think its nefarious there trying to help areas of low rainfall or shift climates, its a natural progression in tech... "
As I said, cloud seeding really isn't very effective.
"As a farmer im.sure.you woukd.love for them.to cloud seed above your property so your crop.that your family.depends on doesnt fail,.. "
Again, it actually isn't particularly useful.
"All my.table water here in conroe texas has traces of baruim strontium.and aluminum ... "
It will do, since all are naturally occurring in nature and can also originate through anthropogenic activity. None of these are used in cloud seeding and the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails under discussion in this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neverlostforwords
That contrails are condensed atmospheric water vapour in the form of billions of ice crystals as a product of combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel at altitude is understood. Contrails have been documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation.
"So: why should anyone believe assurances that all aircraft trails are merely traditional contrails, and that the patterns and clouds we observe are formed from contrails, when the top scientists in the field admit that they don’t yet fully understand contrails?"
Because "top scientists" aren't casting aspersions upon their existence, like any specialist field, they identify that there is still much more to be understood about the process that governs their formation and expansion.
Marine biologists don't fully understand the process of coral bleaching and die off; seismologists don't yet have a predictive methodology for earthquakes, cetologists have yet to account for the behaviour patterns behind observed supergroups formed by humpback whales, geneticists are continually refining their understanding of the human genome, theoretical physicists are developing mathematical models that better describe quantum gravity - we may enhance our knowledge and understanding but that doesn't invalidate what has already been established in terms of known physical laws.
Anyone questioning that plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic are anything other than contrails is perfectly at liberty to obtain analytical data in order to prove otherwise - yet none of you have. There are no such legitimate studies, no data gathered and no credible scientists that claim that aircraft trails are anything other than contrails. Why? because the rational world understands what contrails are. - That they are formed by the process of burning a hydrocarbon fuel in cold humid air is not in question, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more to be understood about their microphysical and optical properties in relation to their life cycle. Thats precisely what the scientific method aims to do.
"However, according to top atmospheric scientists such as Chauvigne et al (2018), contrails are not well understood."
You have yet again employed your usual tactic of cherry picking, albeit very badly and this time from an abstract that you clearly don't understand. Had you have read the entire paper you would have learnt that the study recommends a statistical method based upon in-situ optical measurements and through the application of Principal Component Analysis demonstrates that studying contrail optical properties is an apposite model and approach by which to identify and discriminate between the different contrail growth stages and to better characterise the evolution of contrail properties.
What is your point?
These are all methods fully at our disposal - odd that remote sensing has never been employed to enable similar analysis of your supposed chemtrails or that such sophisticated atmospheric modelling the world over has failed to detect them. Must be those "principles of compartmentalisation and access control based on need-to-know, that can be adopted."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neverlostforwords
"Reiterating, my impression from reviewing research on the subject of contrails is that the field is fairly nascent."
Not really - more continually evolving, particularly in terms of the microphysical stages in their evolution. It is by no means a large body of work but there is certainly renewed interest die to contention over the extent of contrails as a radiative forcing agent.
"I don't think I would cherry-pick (one of your favourite phrases) any single phase or step of the contrail life cycle (such as ice crystallisation) and call it settled when paper after paper identifies significant uncertainties about contrail properties, formation, the contrail cirrus cloud formation lifecycle, consequent climate forcing, and so on."
One of my favourite phrases? If you weren't so prone to it, I wouldn't have need to say it would I?
Once again did you read the paper in its entirety? It recommends an enhanced methodology by which to facilitate greater understanding in the evolution of contrails. That they are anything other than billions of ice crystals formed in frigid, humid conditions is not in contention.
"My research background is in another field (confidential)"
Well it certainly isn't within science. Why "confidential"? - I have been completely transparent wth you.
"however I am very used to stepping outside my field for cross-disciplinary research."
Are you sure about that? Because you're not evidencing anything of the sort. Here is some more of your confirmation bias that you have uncritically accommodated from another thread that demonstrates a complete lack of critical appraisal. This nonsense is so farcical that it can be routinely debunked at a cursory glance with only a modicum of scientific knowledge and sceptical thought process.
"1. Scientist: PhD graduate in biochemistry claiming to have developed chemical mixtures in chemtrails for a lab which was contracted for various chemtrail-based projects, answers a wide range of questions starting at:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1744569/pg1
2. Pilot: Pilot admits that chemtrails are "a necessary evil"
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7126#.WnWwVKiWYdU
3. German aircraft mechanic admits that he fitted planes for spraying chemicals and that he had to wear a mask when fuelling the tanks as the chemicals were toxic : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Phln_z7-E&t=5s
4. Doctor who treated the pilots who sprayed chemtrails: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFG2y_Mxl3Q
5. USAF Whistleblower talks Chemtrails / Geoengineering,
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnML02C7AXc
6.
http://blog.livedoor.jp/discoverthetruth/archives/4018363.html
7. Weatherman, ex-military, discussing so-called clouds, admits they are military planes spraying chaff: “Then you see these bands of very distinct cloud cover “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfpnaohx-kE
8. German pilot does not deny spraying has been occurring, when confronted by a passenger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcjbuPXElQc
9. Senator Herbert Kohl, US Senate “The government has created weather-tampering techniques so that the ‘new world order’ will be able to starve millions of Americans and control the rest. “This is followed by supportive comments from Senator Robert Fletcher.
(C-span, accessible in part at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9mN7hek5nw )
10. NASA scientist Dr Douglas E. Rowland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z2iRormxkw
11. Airport employee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLbQT_uR7So"
Just our of interest and as a "cross-disciplinary researcher" - do you still regard the above as legitimate? Because if you do, I find that quite concerning given your purported professional capacity.
"Finally, regarding responsiveness in discussions, I certainly cannot match your astonishing record. One might suspect that you were being paid per response. "
In responding, my post count would therefore to be equivalent to yours. You posts are littering chemtrail debunking videos of which there are principally about a dozen - many of which I have not replied to.
"One might suspect that you were being paid per response. (smile)"
At least can you accept that such an assertion is laughable.
"Yes, East Coast. I am in Melbourne."
Beautiful. I lived in Auckland for some years and visited NSW quite a lot whilst my Father was on sabbatical at the University of Sydney. Only been to Victoria once though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I'm 71 years old and when jets would fly overhead the contrail left behind would dissipate rather quickly just behind the aircraft."
That isn't true though. The persistent contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"For years now when jets fly over the CHEMTRAIL stretches back as far as you can see then leaves a haze all over the sky."
A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, low air temperature and at a given vapour pressure, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture.
Think about it. Any idea of the weight of material contained in one of these horizon to horizon trails that you are seeing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
"I've always live near DTW and the sky is full of all these crisscrossed trails that seem to last forever."
The skies are full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, then of course you would expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace.
"All engine combustion byproducts (that you see) are mainly water vapor and this doesn't linger"
Water vapour is an invisible gas - you don't see it. However, as I explained, if the ambient air temperature is suitably low, relative humidity high and at a certain vapour pressure then a contrail will form. In conditions of supersaturation in respect to ice, then this will draw upon available atmospheric moisture - the jet exhaust is merely the trigger event and 99% of the visible trail is coming from the the atmosphere. This is precisely why contrails are able to linger, expand and increase in mass - no different to the formation of a cloud other than the artificial trigger event. Also, jet engine exhaust contains soot and sulphides which act as hygroscopic nuclei that may increase the formation of ice crystals.
"look at automotive exhaust, even in the bitter cold the exhaust dissipates quickly but when the vehicle is burning oil the exhaust lingers, something other than water vapor. This guest is full of shit."
Your automobile is not equivalent or analogous to a large turbofan jet engine rated up to 115,000 lbs of thrust, continually burning a hydrocarbon fuel at 1,100°C and 4 litres per second, emitting a stream of 600°C superheated exhaust in an ambient ice saturated environment < -60°C whilst travelling at speeds up to and occasionally in excess of 500 knots.
1
-
@trueamerican7034
"What I stated were my observations"
Anecdotal over empirical then.
"I assure you that what the contrails of my yesteryear are different from so called recorded history of 80 years ago."
And I assure that they aren't. There are simply more of them.
"As for the atmosphere it's hazier today than when I was young, the crystal clear skies were baby to darker medium blue and clouds well defined, this doesn't really exist today."
I was in the western Sahara two months ago where the air was very dry and that's simply not true.
However, globally, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere because warmer air can hold more moisture. This is very concerning because as a greenhouse gas this water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space.
"You'd be out late and on a clear night the skies were full of stars, you don't see this today."
Yes you do - that's not true either. Also, the percentage of cloud cover during the year will vary with geographical location.
"While I don't dispute what you say, I don't have the qualifications to, but yesteryear is different as recorded for different possible reasons. This would take a lengthy discussion. If you think I'm lying, mistakenly remembering or embellishing the past were definitely at an impasse. I assure you my memory is nowhere as cloudy as today's skies."
I don't think that your lying but I do think that you fail to appreciate that contrail coverage is far more prevalent than when you were young. Moreover, in your first post you claimed that contrails cannot stretch across the sky or expand and increase in mass.
In 'Flight to Arras' the legendary French pilot and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942) ...precisely what you are describing then.
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 50 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
Thank you for your civil reply - much appreciated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Naturally found aluminium. get out pal."
Interesting. You said this...
"Aluminium is a man made metal. Doesn't exist naturally in its metal form"
Then you said this...
"And as a "metal" it's the most abundant within the earths crust"
Actually, the upper layer of the earth's crust, called SIAL because it is composed of rocks rich in silicate and aluminium minerals. Aluminum occurs most frequently as a compound called alum (potassium aluminum sulfate).
What's your point? - When has what you refer to "pure aluminium" been found in nature.
Regarding poison, the most toxic heavy metals are Lead, Mercury., Iron.
Cadmium, Thallium, Bismuth and as a semi metal - Arsenic. Again, these are abundant and all around us in our daily lives. The metals may enter the body by ingestion, inhalation or absorption through the skin or mucous membranes. They are then stored in the soft tissues of the body. The heavy metals once absorbed, compete with other ions and bind to proteins, leading to impaired enzymatic activity resulting in damage to many organs throughout the body. Saying that, heavy metal poisoning is rare, even in industries where there is an increased risk of exposure.
However, in micro quantities our body is composed of almost every natural element found in nature. This is as true for metals as it is for water or carbon - a “metal” is any element other than hydrogen or helium. Iron for example is contained in hemoglobin and myoglobin which are required for oxygen transport in the body. Anemia is the primary consequence of iron deficiency. High iron levels on the other hand can enlarge the liver, may provoke diabetes and cardiac failure. The genetic disease hemochromatosis results from excess iron absorption.
Returning to aluminium - what's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JAFTW
Yes, because that's what the perpetrators of this CT have lead them to believe in a desperate attempt to gain credence to their ridiculous hoax - where in reality, nothing that you mention has anything to with the trails that these people are misidentifying. Solar radiation management is not known as 'Strategic Aerosol Injection', that is simply one branch of it. Incidentally, that would be 'Stratospehric Aerosol Injection'. Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails...what precisely is your point?
Marine cloud brightening has been confined to isolated experiment whilst cirrus cloud thinning is precisely the opposite of the contrails that all these claims were based upon. Neither would result in a trail.
As is the case with SAI, CCT is purely the province of mathematical modelling. The basis of your claim was this:
"The U.S. gvmnt. has been openly using geoengineering practices for ten plus years."
Not in the case of Solar Radiation Management they haven't which as explained to you, with the exception of ground based albedo modification and a couple of experiments into marine cloud brightening is entirely hypothetical.
Cloud seeding meanwhile has nothing to do with geoengineering and neither are related to the persistent trails in the wake of jet aircraft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Uh huh. So no hard answers then. No pix Hubble. No pix Webb..but we can see the dawn of time. Yup."
So you ask questions but completely ignore the answers - perhaps because they are too 'hard' for you to comprehend? So why post worthless opinions about something that you demonstrably don't understand? Do you seriously believe that tens of thousands of astronomers and astrophysicists wouldn't have also seized upon this gotcha moment, or could it be, just conceivably, that they know more and have a higher level of specialist knowledge than a self-opinionated nobody spouting garbage over the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
To answer your question, an expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide Apollo landers at the six landing sites.
However, the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaans 1and 2 and China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"why are the bugs dying? Butterflies, bees, trees?"
Because the only possible cause is those thin white trails six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand. There is no other conceivable explanation, no ground pollution, no varied causes of environmental stress, no contamination, no encroachment of habitat - nothing, just "chemtrails".
"Please see the lady who was a California crops claims adjuster for the State of California. She lays out the whole story"
Oh jeez, you mean Rosalind Peterson. Ok, let's do this if we really must. As you correctly said, this is Rosalind Peterson a crops loss claims adjuster. Think of her as a sort of agricultural insurance broker. You may also have discovered the related footage of her purported testimony to the UN. It wasn't. It was an annual climate conference held at the UN. Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC is simply the name of her website.
In 2012 Peterson concluded that there she did not think there was any good evidence to show the trails were anything other than normal contrails. Here's the full quote...
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate.And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft."
She is talking about her decision not to get involved in a lawsuit against "chemtrails". She refused because she is also "smart enough" to realise that there is a complete lack of substantive empirical evidence and that the claimed 'science' is total garbage.
What her partners Forgette and Dicicco failed to understand themselves is that they had become embroiled in a money spinning shameful scaremongering hoax originally perpetrated by Coast to Coast AM, since exploited by charlatans such as Clifford Carnicom and A.C. Griffith, who similarly infiltrated the Mt. Shasta movement, who then, abetted by Michael J. Murphy, spread the hoax even wider. Unsurprisingly, the supposed court case never materialised.
What the proponents of this or any 'lawsuit' need to understand themselves is that all of these connections will be scrutinised by the judicial system and will be examined and once known, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. Everyone involved will be screwed, their questionable credibility shot. This is precisely why this so called 'mountain of evidence' never progresses beyond the fringe sections of YouTube, fake news sites and biased subjective conspiracy sites. It is also why this theory has not been independently subjected to the scientific method and no legitimate studies have been published.
That is where this "lawsuit" was heading, and Rosalind Peterson was shrewd enough to jump ship. She has since distanced herself from the chemtrails hoax entirely. What's your point?
"Pilots have lawsuites because they are getting ill from breathing all this shit in."
I'm aware of the case of Matt Bass - likely cause, organophosphate poisoning although in the case of Bass, the results from the post-mortem were inconclusive. Aerotoxic syndrome is caused by the “bleed air” system to filter air through cabins. Air is sucked into the engine compressor (the cold part of the engine) before it is siphoned off into the air-conditioning units, where it mixes with the recirculated cabin air. Problems occur when the oil used to lubricate the combustion parts of the engine heat up and chemicals leak back through damaged or inefficient seals into the compressor – and from there into cabin air. Filters in the air-conditioning units are designed to remove bacteria, viruses and dust. Obvious leaks, identified by smoke or are known as fume events and can cause acute toxicity, with symptoms ranging from runny nose to memory loss, severe headaches, loss of balance and muscle weakness. But the constant low-level, stealth seepages are, crew and pilots claim, just as much of a problem. Here you go...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/world-health-organisation-report-toxic-cabin-air/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"GEOENGINEERING TRAILS ARE REAL.and its true, its not necessarily dangerous.. It's being done to block the sun et cetera"
The branch of geoengineering that you are referring to is called Solar Radiation Management and aside from ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening - is entirely hypothetical. It does not aim to block the sun per se, rather seeks to reduce incoming insolation. The Main thrust of this is a principle called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is intended to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. Again, SAI is a hypothetical concept, has not progressed beyond research proposal and computer model, would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails you are seeing, and would not even result in one. You are simply describing aircraft contrails.
"I'm not gonna sit here and listen to this guy try to tell me that something I'm seeing with my own eyes ,that I'm not seeing."
No one disputes what you are seeing, as I said, those are contrails. SAI doesn't exist and beyond the planned SCoPEx trail involving a balloon and a few kilos of still to be determined material, it's unlikely that it ever will due to the sheer impossibility of international governance.
"Trails from the back of planes with spaced propellents that propel the trail in one direction or the other"
What?
"Exactly spaced rivulets that vaporize outward"
I think you're describing fallstreaks and pendules here from the sound of it. Also, contrails don't vapourise as such, they sublimate.
"And you're telling me that that is vapor from from temperature difference from a plane going through a cloud ???"
No one is telling you that.
"et cetera or meeting the cold atmosphere??"
Ambient air temperature is one factor, yes.
"Since when does vapor stay in the sky for the 20 minutes that it's spreading, but for hours later?"
The air is constantly full of water vapour. Water vapour is an invisible gas. Respectfully, please let me explain this to you, because your knowledge of meteorology and aviation seems to be somewhat limited and it is simply a case of understanding what you are looking at. And please, don't get indignant as a result. Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of the combustion process are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. The aircraft exhaust was merely the trigger event where 99% of the ice is from atmospheric origin. Exactly the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
"And it seems to me that it's always people being smug about it ..they can never just say their side of the argument ..the people who stand against the theories always come at it like the people who believe it are crazy and that in itself says a lot...I mean either you don't care that you look stupid or someone's either paying you to keep your mouth shut ..maybe it's the media outlet that you're on.. Who knows what your motivations are.. But people who can't discuss with facts and immediately start calling someone crazy because they disagree with them.. Even if they're claiming it's just an observation...is a red flag"
The trails that you are describing, persistent spreading contrails, have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.The science behind this is supported by physical laws and mathematical axioms meaning that is self-evident, ineluctable and has a voice of its own. Nothing to do with differing 'arguments' or opinions. I am perfectly happy to discuss this or the unrelated field of geoengineering research with you further in a civil an courteous manner.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@everettmagnusson9154
"In 1969 a typical TV transmission tower was 1000 ft high. Just saying"
Just saying what precisely? What does this have to do with the Apollo Programme?
"It doesn't matter anymore if something is faked, back then there was no VCR to record or Internet to look back on. The public saw a one shot program, and they thought that would be the end of it. Weird huh"
No, it's not in the slightest bit weird - and the footage was subsequently available by VHS and DVD in the years following and has been for decades. And what do you mean by "one shot programme"? You make no sense.
Between 1969 and 1972 there were nine manned missions to the moon with six landings. Since then, the Apollo Programme has been forensically dissected by entire branches of science and specialist fields and disciplines, investigative and technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century. It was completely transparent and there is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, the physics of every mission profile, the engineering of every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject. The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies on the planet. There are some 10,000 private sector organisations and venture capital initiative invested in space exploration.To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions who base aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo. Then there are the professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities whose work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program.
You have yet to answer the question though. Instead of waffling about transmission towers and "one shot" space programmes, could you please explain what a 1960s TV set has to do with the cutting edge, bespoke technology developed for and harnessed by the Apollo Programme, in addition to summarising precisely what areas of it were lacking? Go ahead, try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The_Not_So_Great_Cornholio
They aren't. Not sure why you think that they are.
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
The expansion that you refer to tells you that all you are seeing is condensed atmospheric water vapour. What chemical can similarly linger and increase in mass? Also, the weight of material in these trails are measured at millions of lbs - vastly exceeding the MTOW of the aircraft producing them.
Contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or, they may not necessarily form at all. This is dependent upon the prevailing atmospheric conditions and the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. At the altitude that aircraft cruise, the temperatures are very low. In cases of high RHi and sufficiently low vapour pressure, a contrail will endure because it is unable to sublimate back into its invisible gaseous phase - water vapour. If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will not only persist, but will grow and increase in mass. The water in the jet engine exhaust has merely precipitated the trail, where 99% of the ice budget is being drawn from the available moisture in the atmosphere. This is precisely why contrails can be over 100 miles in length and weigh millions of lbs. No different to a cloud - which is ultimately all that they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
Why do you people take such exception to being challenged?
"So, in a round about way, you are saying that they did manipulate the weather. And that they did it 50 years ago."
I didn't say anything of the sort. Experimentation into cloud seeding dates back seventy years. It depends what you mean by 'manipulate the weather'. As I explained cloud seeding is an attempt to modify it on a local scale and it certainly isn't anything remotely close to controlling it.
"So, why does it sound like you are saying the opposite?"
No idea - seems to be a lot to do with your own lack of comprehension.
"I didnt mention the potential effects beyond the fact the US Gov had promised not to do it anymore, because the actual impact could not be determined."
The US government did not pledge that at all. There are county and state sponsored cloud seeding schemes all across the USA in addition to private businesses that specialise in it. You are referring to 'The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (Geneva: May 18, 1977, which prohibits "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury".This includes the deployment of cloud seeding on the battlefield.
"To say it is a 'technical impossibility' says to me that you know about as much as the person i was saying was an inept expert. That or you need a refresher course on the English language."
I said that "controlling the weather" is a technical impossibility, which it is. Cloud seeding is not "controlling the weather" it is an attempt to modify it on the local/micro scale with very unpredictable and erratic results.
"How would you know it is impossible? What was done 50 years ago remains our capabilities?"
To repeat - what was done 50 years ago was not "controlling the weather".
"These sound like the ramblings of an utterly unscientific mind. And one that is naïve to how newly developed technologies are created and controlled/utilised."
There is no emergent or nascent technology that can control the weather. As I said, it is a physical impossibility. Science itself and the physical laws that it answers to tells you that - and since the latter are axiomatic, they have a voice of their own.
We can discuss the science in detail if you wish - your choice.
"Go back to bed buddy. If anything untoward is going on, you cant help us solve it...."
What precisely do you mean by "anything untoward"? There is nothing secretive or mysterious surrounding the principles of cloud seeding and the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified contrails that naive conspiracy believers term 'chemtrails?.
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
Oh Jeez, you were almost there until you disappeared arse end up into the conspiratorial rabbit hole talking about testosterone and fluoride.
You are a tad confused about cloud seeding. The practice aims to introduce additional nucleation into existing clouds that are already conducive to precipitation to prematurely induce or intensify rainfall. This is why, from aircraft, it is usually conducted at comparatively low altitudes, typically in the region of 2,000 - 6,500ft, in order to target existing stratiform/cumulus masses.
Cloud seeding is dispersed via at least four methods--[1] Aircraft, most commonly light aricraft retrofitted with flares containing 16.5 grams of silver iodide. A typical run lasting 90 minutes will dispense around 150grams of AgI into the cloud mass. [2] Burn sticks containing silver iodide, placed in desirable spots on the ground. [3] Rockets, often also fired in order to prevent the formation of crop-damaging hail (some tea growers also use them], sometimes with radar-reflecting "needle" wire dipoles scattered through the silver iodide, to enable tracking of the release points; some hail rockets are at least partially reusable. [4] Surplus AA (antiaircraft) guns, whose shells contain silver iodide instead of high explosive. The Chinese make extensive use of cloud-seeding AA guns, - the shells' fuses can be set to burst at any desired altitude within the guns altitude capabilities.
The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels. Since silver iodide and not elemental silver constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant by peer-reviewed research. Moreover, cloud seeding does not leave a lasting trail and is not conducted in the stratosphere where contrails are formed and there are no rain bearing clouds.
I'm sorry, to reiterate, cloud seeding is not controlling the weather. It is an attempt to modify it on the micro scale and actually very unreliable. It does not create rain clouds and it is very hard to quantify. Controlling the weather is a technical impossibility.
If yo wish to term cloud seeding as 'chemtrails' then more fool you - your choice, but don't expect to be taken seriously in the real world or rational circles outside of the internet.
To clarify again. Cloud seeding may prematurely induce rainfall and that may mean that it happens in an area that it would not, but this is very hit and miss and hardly the definition of control. Cloud seeding is an attempt to influence the weather on the micro scale. Control of the weather at the local, macro or synoptic scale is a technical impossibility.
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
"Its a bad start for you"
Why? - by your decree? You need to understand that simply saying something over the internet does not make it true.
"Fluoride in our water supplies, and micro plastics in our water due to our use of plastics have both been proven to significantly drop testosterone levels. And it is also factual that levels have dropped on average in males by 40% since 1970. I didnt say there was a nefarious plan in place to lower testosterone, simply the fact that this mess, thanks to fluoride and micro plastics, has unfolded."
Firstly, you clearly need to comprehend that fluoride is not added by all water authorities. Because it can strengthen and re-mineralise damaged enamel, making it more resistant to decay, it may be added to public drinking water and also toothpaste and mouthwash. Fluoride is a mineral that occurs in nature and is also naturally present in water, including our food. Where additions are made it is less than 0.1 ppm. Long term, fluorine/fluoride may affect serum SHBG and testosterone level in adult males but no direct causality has been established and test subjects and studies have focussed upon excess fluoride intake. You'll find a lot of scaremongering on the internet that has leapt on several pivotal publications/papers but omits to mention that these are still inconclusive in addition to the high levels of concentration of the test subjects.
In respect of microplastics, they are not only present in our food and water, but in the air we breath. Our households alone are full of them. It has been demonstrated that chronic exposure to microplastics induced male reproductive toxicity and decreased testosterone levels.
There are a multitude of potential causes for the decline in testosterone that you mention and as is usually the case cannot be attributed to a sole factor in isolation. It could be increased obesity/BMI, assay variations, diet/phytoestrogens, declined exercise and physical activity, fat percentage, drug use, and as you suggest, environmental toxins.
"You can waffle technicalities of cloud seeding until the cows come home. I understand the official stance on it."
There's no waffle in my reply whatsoever. And that clearly isn't the case as you have demonstrated from your previous comments.
"What i wont countenance is the assumption by you that nefarious plots could not be underway, using some of the techniques we actually know about. I am not arguing for the reality that they are or are not being undertaken, but that the possibility for it to occur through insidious measures exists"
That entirely depends upon what you are referring to. If you are now shifting the goalposts away from the known principles of cloud seeding, of course a government or authority may be deceiving or acting covertly without the knowledge of the public. Governments are often self-serving and may act without the people's consent. Should we trust them? Of course not, but that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that your government is always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.Simply because a government has lied historically it does not then follow that chemtrails (or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) or one's paranoia or suspicions must therefore be true. - A syllogistic logical fallacy.
"If I wanted to poison certain areas of the planet, and I had the resources and institutions in place to enact it, I could do it using much of the technology used to perform cloudseeding currently."
🤣Good luck with that. I can't think of anything more ineffectual and blatant.
You clearly didn't read my response to you that you branded 'waffle' - and yet again, you demonstrate that you have zero understanding of the practice of cloud seeding.
"Unless you are telling me that no potential toxins fit the bill as a compound for water molecules to gravitate towards and bind to, allowing the 'rain' to fall where i wanted it to mostly?"
You seem to have absolutely no understanding of the factors affecting toxicity.
"Anyway, it would be entirely feasible for these chemtrails, which dont seem to act like normal water vapour, to be a form of cloudseeding."
What 'chemtrails'? Chemtrails are simply misidentified contrails. What the hell are you talking about? Water vapour is an invisible gas. As I explained to you - at the altitude that contrails are formed, there are no rain bearing clouds to seed, which is why it needs to be conducted at a comparatively low altitude - stratiform and cumulus masses. Contrails are simply condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals. their duration and length are governed by ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Contrails expand and spread due to supersaturation and when the latter prevent sublimation. In such cases water vapour in the jet exhaust is merely the trigger, 99% of the trail is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture which is why they can contain millions of lbs of ice.
I dont think you have the first idea how our major political and financial institutions were formed, why they were formed, or the agenda they operate within. Would you like a history lesson? I can make time for you buddy :)"
If it's anything remotely approaching your tenuous grasp of science and nature, I think I'll pass on that if it's all the same to you.
"Our definition of 'control weather' may differ slightly, but otherwise, i am talking hypothetical possibility, and you may be talking purely about cloudseeding in relation to the semantics of the word 'control'."
And you would be wrong again. To clarify, control of the weather is a technical impossibility. We can attempt to modify it in the micro scale - and cloud seeding is one such example of that, but outright control is impossible. Clear now?
"Cloudseeding is not my area of expertise2
Y'don't say.
"but history, world politics and political subversion are. To make the leap of faith that all these areas are controlled by well intentioned people, who's mistakes are incompetent rather than complicit by design is a foolish stance to take."
'Hanlon's Razor'. As I have already said, it is an unfortunate fact, however, that a minority of conspiracies do in fact exist and some folks seem to treat them as justification rather than exceptions that prove the rule
"I started this thread, unable to accept the use of the world impossible, to describe theories about nefarious plans surrounding cloudseeding. I never said anyone was doing it, only that it was possible."
And my response was simply that control of the weather is a technical impossibility - which it is.
"If you were saying people wouldnt do that stuff nefariously, then i would at least see where you are coming from. Are you saying cloudseeding could not be used to poison parts of the planet using toxic rain fall, enabled by cloudseeding technologies?"
Using the practices that I outlined to you - no it would not be possible due to the negligible quantities of the materials that it allows you to deploy. If you are then suggesting that a tanker could be filled with chemicals which are then released into the atmosphere, that would no longer be under the guise of cloud seeding would it? There was a from memory a technique employed in Malaysia I think, using large vats of saline solution deployed from the back of Hercules aircraft, but if you wanted to 'poison the population' it's hard to think of a more ineffectual method. Which makes the notion of contrails being 'chemtrails' at six to eight miles above your head even the more comical.
"Im not asking if you think it is being done, only if you think it is possible"
It's not just that it isn't possible, it's more a question of why would you? It would be utterly ineffectual, impossible to conceal at the quantities of material you would need to even make the slightest impression in which case, you may as well launch an outright chemical attack. There's a reason why Assad drops barrel bombs on his own civilians as opposed to dressing it up as a cloud seeding operation.
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
My reply is split into two posts due to the length.
"And now i know what kind of mind I am dealing with :)"
So a self-proclaimed armchair psychologist in addition to historian and scientist then?
"You have made your mind up clearly - We both recognise the symptoms of the last 50 years upon humanity - I simply suggest that it may not be accidental. You say it cant be proved - That does not mean it is not happening, just because you didnt receive a report on it."
If you are referring to falling testosterone, I pointed out that there are a myriad of variables that are likely to be responsible as opposed to one single factor. I also said that science has not established causality between this decline and exposure to fluoride. There is correlation demonstrated, but only in cases of high concentrations.
"What kind of vegetable would provide reports on nefarious actions, so you could easily uncover it?"
What on earth are you talking about? If there is a clear link then independent scientific enquiry will identify it. As I said, where additions are made to water (and not all water authorities do) it is less than 0.1 ppm.
"What you are aware of, and the depths to which certain people may sink, is covered by a largely bought and paid for set of communication channels."
The absolute default claim of the conspiratorial mindset. As I said, it's no use alleging something if you can't qualify it or are able to offer zero in the way of empirical evidence. I have no regard for "bought for or paid for set of communication channels". We are talking about the scientific method and independent enquiry. I also share the indictment on private sector involvement in the peer review process - particularly in respect of the proliferation of low quality journals and the institutional pressure to publish marginal or trivial findings, but it is easy to exaggerate the extent to which this impedes discovery. Scrutiny through peer review is still rigorous and although far from flawless, this independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee. Moreover, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate or institutional interest. Irrespective of any views upon the power wielded by either peer pressure or private industry or mainstream communication channels, fraud and malpractice in science is no more common - and harder to get away with than other professions. This is quite simply because we have the requisite tools and the mechanisms at our disposal to expose the facts through impartial and objective application of the scientific method - which if correctly employed would not only validate any findings, but act as a leveller. Also, being governed by laws and axioms, science has a voice of its own.
To remind you - it was you that stated that it had been proven that fluoride is causing a drop in testosterone levels. This is demonstrably false.
"Shame you are not interested in a history lesson - That is my forte"
I actually wonder whether you manage to keep a straight face when writing this nonsense. ou probably do since you seem to have zero in the way of self-awareness, irony and a rather over inflated view of your own self-worth. No thanks, I prefer to listen to historians and heed history itself as opposed to a Dunning-Kruger afflicted pseudo-intellectual over the comments section of a video entertainment platform.
"Population control has always been a barometer to which they aspire. You might call it coincidental and multi variant in its causation, but that does not in any way means it is unintentional."
Ah, the mysterious "they". That old chestnut. Tell me, how's that coming along?
"You probably think Putin is a monster, but he is simply one side of the same coin. I agree he is a monster, but i know that he is aligned with many more monsters, many of whom drape your national flag around their shoulders."
What national flag would that be?
1
-
@Nick-mb7wc
"Where you simply trust, like a naïve child, i have serious reservations about those who govern us. Based on the many lies, murders and multiple sources of 'human devolution' occurring, coupled with the structure of world governance we have in place, I have little faith in the humanity of those that lead us."
At no stage have I mentioned "trust"? - quite the reverse. To reiterate, Governments are often self-serving and may act without the people's consent. Should we trust them? Of course not, but that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that your government is always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.Simply because a government has lied historically it does not then follow that chemtrails (or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) or one's paranoia or suspicions must therefore be true. - A syllogistic logical fallacy.
"You say it wouldnt be possible to feasibly poison people without having that truth uncovered. But, you are not cutting edge on these principles. The truth is you and me have no idea what is concocted behind closed doors."
Do you have an army of straw men at your disposal? I said nothing of the sort. I said that controlling the weather was impossible and that using cloud seeding - or alleged 'chemtrails' as a method of "poisoning people" would be laughably ineffective and utterly pointless.
"However, the facts on the ground tell their own story, while you say you can attribute it to multiple possibilities and refuse to countenance the possibility of intent, it does nothing to either confirm or dispel that reality."
Yes they do - and we know the factors that are responsible. Aircraft contrails and cloud seeding are not amongst them.
"My concern is that I no longer doubt that we have been systematically and subversively attacked for generations. The systems and institutions in place currently, have continually lied to us for generations too. A real history lesson would at least inform you that the elements who sit atop our pillars of society are nefarious individuals with no moral compass among them. From the League of Nations, to the CFR, to the UN, and the soon be be concocted Global UN 2.0, the power structure that governs us is now moving away from national sovereignty and into global control. Your ability to make decisions, which your elected leaders are supposed to enact, is being stolen from you right now. Again, this is not a response to the unfolding political landscape. The unfolding landscape is the catalyst for this change in global power. You are stuck where you are - Your health has deteriorated, reproductively and physically, your energy supplies are on the ropes, you are fearful of nuclear war, your economy is being collapsed right now. If you dont believe it is a concocted plan, then you must be utterly terrified by the apparent incompetence that is leading us down this path. Either way, you are soon going to cry out for a newly formed governing body, to help ease your multi-faceted burdens."
As I said, governments will always betray their people - but if you can't identify where and when and how, then your supposition is utterly worthless. Everything that you detail here is an inevitable consequence of technological acceleration outpacing ethics, mass consumerism, the resurgence of nationalism and systems which are unsustainable. And yes - political incompetence is rife. Again, Hanlon's Razor - It is an unfortunate fact that a minority of conspiracies do in fact exist and some folks seem to treat them as justification rather than exceptions that prove the rule.
"Where you see chaos, i see design. I stressed clearly that i have no idea if these type of atmospheric technologies are being used to poison. To me, it is simply one more area where they could."
I don't see chaos - I see science. Nature is inherently chaotic and ultimately the greatest leveller. What atmospheric technologies? As I said, cloud seeding which you referred to would be a comically useless way to attempt mass poisoning of populations - and if it were occurring through atmospheric deployment, it would be detectable. We are poisoning ourselves and the planet through industrial and urban pollution and choking on our own consumption.
"That is all this is about - Transferring power from independently elected representatives, to unelected global governing bodies. Granted, back in 2001, i estimated that Syria and Iran would be used as the catalyst for this change - 20 years ago. However, the ends are the same, however it is sold to us on the ground. There is an inescapable march happening, and it happens right under your nose. And once more I state with absolute certainty, whatever is unfolding, you have no ability to help society at all. Soon, your rational and not intellectually devoid mind will cry out for that dystopian structure. You will do that because you are always playing catch up. We all got too comfortable, we all got too far from the power structure we need to enact our wishes."
"Dystopian structure" - nice oxymoron. I like that.
"You and me are equally screwed. So, dont tell me that the drop in male testosterone is not by design. Dont tell me that Covid was a natural outbreak, governed by well intentioned idiots."
It certainly isn't by design. It is a consequence of a range of factors. All the evidence points to the fact that SARS-CoV-19 was due to a zoonotic leap. I am not telling you anything - science tells us that. If you wish to contend otherwise you need to present your data as opposed to your beliefs.
"You are not stupid clearly. But, you are so far behind the curve, that you simply dont even begin to look with objectivity."
Objectivity? Jesus, is unintentional irony a national sport in your country? I suggest that you read your own posts back as cringeworthy an exercise as that will be for you (assuming that you had even a modicum of self awareness).
"You see chaos - I see clear design. I am no Nostradamus, but amazing how predictable every step has been over the last 25 years that I have been paying proper attention."
No - I look for independent verification and evidence through proven causal relationships as opposed to assumption, supposition and conjecture over subjects and topics of which there is clearly an significant absence of knowledge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tittyrino
NASA said no such thing, With the cancellation of Apollo the capability to go to the moon was lost together with the funding, not the technology. Don Pettit phrased it very badly when he termed it as "destroyed", but he was referring to the loss of a heavy lift rocket, and the closure of the plants, the retirement of the expertise and tooling, the cessation of the production processes all associated with Apollo as the direction switched to the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS. Building it all back has been a protracted and painful process which has been hampered by piecemeal and drip-fed funding from Congress. Artemis has superseded the old obsolete technology of Apollo but it still physically survives, as do all the schematics, mission data and reports as testament to the Apollo era.
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, about subjects you demonstrably have no knowledge of whatsoever, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ricardasbg1049
Can I suggest that you consolidate your replies into one single comment? (perhaps attempt to do so without the reliance upon so many childish emojis if you can?). Good lad.
"you use words like science, math, physics and not providing any of them."
Happy to discuss any aspect of them with you.
"If you not interested in his content why you even here 😁 personal attacks incoming 😁😁😁 this is the best what you have"
What personal attacks? I have no need for ad hominem fallacy. I am simply making observations.
"So we went to the moon you say?"
The overwhelming consilience of scientific, independent and third party evident says that. I am irrelevant to this exchange.
"Why were never been back there?"
Because Apollo was cancelled by Congress and with it the heavy lift capability.
"If it's money than I think it is much cheaper to go now then it was years ago. As we have much better technology. And technology got cheaper over the time."
Firstly, the funding for Apollo was virtually limitless whilst Artemis and the Constellation Project that preceded it has been piecemeal and drip-fed. Secondly, the technology is very different to Apollo and in spite of the advances this does not come cheaply. It is still extremely expensive to send a manned mission to the moon.
"So let's get some super computer, get some rods, tin foil and build a lunar module. Then we are all set 😁😁 to the mooon!!"
Perhaps you should read up in the actual construction of the Lunar Module?
"Nasa scientist said. We need to solve the problem's of solar radiation, van allen belts before sending humans though this dangerous radiation. You never even saw this as you on YouTube"
This again? Yep - and I've heard it over and over and over and over again from conspiracy believers that have fallen for quote mined dishonestly appropriated videos and lack the will or the objectivity to actually understand the context. You are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, who was discussing the new Orion capsule in a 2014 video chiefly aimed at children called 'Orion Trail by Fire'. Orion was designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, as I already mentioned, the technology is very different. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. The challenge to be solved for Orion was therefore a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design which used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems for modern systems such as life support and environmental control. Smith was referring to challenges related to the new technology. The Orion capsule has been tested twice in this environment - in 2014 it was sent into the densest regions of the Van Allen Belts and passed with flying colours. Last year's Artemis 1 mission was over 25 days in duration.
At no stage did Kelly Smith say that it is too dangerous to send men to the moon now - although at the point of that video being made, Orion did need to be validated through unmanned test flight procedures.
1
-
@ricardasbg1049
"can you do another essay"
If by that you mean a few paragraphs replying to your two posts, then by all means. Do you have any further questions regarding Kelly Smith's comment? Are you genuinely interested in the answers? Earlier you said this - "you use words like science, math, physics and not providing any of them." So which is it? I can discuss the latter in great detail if you wish - or would you be more comfortable with a few sentences and a series of emojis? Space flight is very complicated.
"What about the rockets in to the space? Is it not too cold to burn fuel or how combustion works in space?"
A liquid fuelled rocket launched into space is already burning fuel. If the engine is required to be re-lit, then this is done through an oxidiser and an ignition source in the combustion/thrust chamber. Alternatively, hypergolics which require no oxidiser or ignition will simply react and combust on contact. Because space is a vacuum the notion of external temperature is redundant. Spacecraft need to be protected from the radiative heat from the sun as much as they need to be insulated to prevent heat from radiating away. There are both passive and active methods of thermal management.
"Do you need to stop and fill fuel at the spacestation?"
a rocket engine is not continually firing. To journey to the moon a rocket needs to perform a burn for a set duration of time in order to overcome the pull of the earth's gravity and be captured by the moon. This is called Trans Lunar Injection - a speed of 24,995mph. Once the burn has been made, the spacecraft is coasting the the moon, but continually losing velocity due to the force of Earth's gravity exerted on it. Once it is captured by the lunar sphere of gravitational influence, much like reaching and passing over the crest of a hill, it will start to accelerate again. It then needs to perform two burns to enter and stabilise lunar orbit, otherwise it will slingshot back around towards Earth again. To return to earth a further burn is performed and the craft is then in 'freefall' back home. The spacecraft simply need to have the fuel capacity to perform these burns, gravity does the rest. At the point of re-entry, the craft will have accelerated from the initial TLE burn velocity of 5,680mph to around 25,000mph as it gathers velocity during its fall back to earth.
1
-
1
-
Why have you felt the need to cut and paste the majority of this comment from a erroneous paper plucked and cherry picked from a low quality pay to publish journal? This is so full of falsities, assumptions and flawed science, it's almost impossible to know where to start.
Firstly, the author. It's Alen J Salerian ffs - who if you don't know is a struck off psychiatrist and has no expertise in radiobiology/radiation whatsoever. His licence to practice was revoked following immoral or unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine. At the time a federal judge in southwestern Virginia was forced to declare Salerian as “mentally incompetent” to assist in his own defense and was forced to indefinitely postpone his trial on felony charges of distributing narcotic painkillers to people with no legitimate need for them and prescribing more than 800 pills a month to four members of a major western Virginia drug-trafficking ring. The guy has blood on his hands. Following his spectacular fall from grace and once his empire had crumbled he became a full blown conspiracy whack-job and took refuge deep into the rabbit hole. Your post is nothing more than a hilarious appeal to authority. Furthermore, Salerian is utterly devoid of a conscience, completely without moral scruples, integrity and intellectual honesty.
Not only are his figures completely to cock, so is his science.."1.8 Sv in 3 hours of travel through the radiation belt during the mission."???? What??? Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. So, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). The Alpha and Beta particles within are easy to shield against. Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems. 100 rems are equivalent to one seivert.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the spatial and energy distribution of the VABs. Electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. In the most intense part of the Van Allen belts, one would have to stay there six days to receive a lethal dose of 300Rads. By using trajectory and speed, the astronauts passed through in one hour receiving a measured dose of about 0.9Rads. The Command Module's Inner Hull varied in thickness from 0.25 inches to 1.5 inches of aluminium alloy. The Outer Hull vairied from 0.5 inches to 2.5 inches in thickness of steel. Between the two hulls was a layer of fibrous thermal insulation.
The VAB consists of a high population of low energy particles, easily stopped by the spacecraft's hull. Only the relatively low population high energy particles would penetrate the crew compartment, resulting in a low radiation dose for astronauts on Apollo translunar missions. When shielding against charged alpha and beta particles, the last thing that you want to use is lead due to the bremsstrahlung effect.
The main danger beyond the protection of the earth's magnetosphere in cislunar space comes from CMEs and solar particle events. They were very fortunate, because between Apollos 16 and 17 there was an SPE. a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Although serious they would have returned to earth with sufficient time to be treated. The key is time and intensity. Furthermore, with notice, the aluminum hull of the lunar module would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. Astronauts on the lunar surface absorb about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. That's 5 to 10 times higher than the rate experienced on a trans-Atlantic passenger flight and about 200 times what we get on Earth's surface. Charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), which are accelerated to tremendous speeds by faraway supernova explosions, contribute about 75% to this total lunar-surface dose rate of 60 microsieverts per hour. So it wasn't an issue for the Apollo astronauts but any prolonged habitation would necessitate shielding.
Regarding Grissom and the crew of Apollo 1, they were not the only ones to be vocal about the design issues and managerial flaws blighting the early Apollo programme. Many throughout the programme had voiced similar concerns. The disaster was caused by a stray spark and the combustible flammable materials within the capsule that were easily ignited due to the pure oxygen. The hatch was inward opening, so the crew couldn't get out of the pressurised capsule. The harsh reality is, that Kennedy's goal of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade would never have happened had it not been for the tragedy of Apollo 1.
You haven't the remotest idea what you are talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually modern high bypass turbofan engines are pretty clean burning and actually aviation in comparison to ground based pollution is far less of a hazard to human health - however, Emissions from airports and increased volume of air traffic will indeed contribute to the prevalence of respiratory and even neurological health conditions whilst the increased air traffic means higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere.
An aircraft burns a hydrocarbon fuel - the chief product of that is water and C02. The carbon footprint of the aviation sector is indeed a concern.
In terms of emissions, Ulrich Lohmann is a member of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich. Besides other things, she is seriously involved in efforts to assess and potentially reduce the atmospheric pollution induced by aviation, particularly in terms of nanoparticulate combustion exhausts. Here is the original abstract of the paper published by Atmospheric Environment which she coauthored. Here's the original paper - read it for yourself.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016302424?via%3Dihub
The detected metallic compounds were all internally mixed with the soot particles. The most abundant metals in the exhaust were Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, Ti and Zr was also found. They further investigated potential sources of the ATOFMS-detected metallic compounds using ICPMS. The potential sources considered were kerosene, engine lubrication oil and abrasion from engine wearing components again in trace quantities. Such an analytical method is very sensitive to the concentration of the analysed compounds which can be as low as one part in 10−15.The elements present in jet fuel are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in diesel and petroleum.
Road going diesel contains similar trace metals and the emissions at ground level are all around us. In addition to Nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and pm2.5 - there are the huge quantities of metal particulates associated with an internal combustion engine and brake pads to consider. You are breathing these on a daily basis at ground level and such pollution that you seem oblivious to is thousands of times more harmful to health than the commercial air traffic that you decry.
3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted. The other 96.5%? All those trucks, cars, ships, trains and tankers? All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. Shall we turn to that now? Do you drive?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When Jets burn multiple tonnes of fuel per flight, and fly millions of time per day, the toxic emissions emitted is not just "Trace quantities "
Individually they are. Collectively, as I said, they account for 3.5% of global pollution.
"And Jet exhaust is not just water vapor and ice. It is indeed chemicals... Nasty, harmful, toxic chemicals."
The chief by products of burning a hydrocarbon fuel are C02 and water. I was referring to a contrail in that the visible trail that you see is a result of the latter frozen as ice crystals. In terms of exhaust, I have already furnished you with a comprehensive analytical study of both jet fuel and the exhaust itself.
"It sounds to me that you just don't like the phrase, "Chemtrails" Well, whether you dislike the connotations or not, they are indeed Chemicals coming out of Jet engines."
Indeed...dihydrogen monoxide in the main.
"Call it Contrails if you like, that shit's killing us all softly."
As I said, a contrail is predominately composed of ice crystals. As a proportion of global pollution - in particular particulate from industry and urban traffic, jet exhaust is negligible. However, the carbon footprint is concerning.
Once again, do you drive? and I take it you have never flown?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NotJanine777
"If you want to believe we went to the moon, you carry on."
Known science is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned either that or my own. Nothing to do with me, the evidence in support of the moon landings is demonstrable and incontrovertible so I'll go with that thanks.
"My points above still stand as you haven't 'debunked' any of them."
Your 'points' are simply ill-informed nonsense or pure conjecture on your part whether I or anyone else debunks them. On the subject of which, I addressed and summarised all of the content of your post, so let's see shall we?
Firstly you claimed it is impossible to have the vacuum of space next to the Earth's atmosphere, so from that I conclude that you are one of these deranged space deniers and flat earthers. In response, I asked you to account for the decrease in pressure with altitude. You failed to do so, so that's that.
Secondly, you asked how it is possible for anyone in a pressurised suit to "look normal" (whatever that means) insisting that "he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man". I pointed out to you that would not be the case as the A7Ls were only pressurised to 3.7psi (4.2psi current suits). I'd hardly call that "over inflated" would you?
You then insisted that "the only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them." To clarify again, in addition to entire branches of science and specialist fields/disciplines worldwide, the Apollo missions have also been examined with forensic detail by historians and investigative journalists whilst also bearing scrutiny from individual nations, independent third parties and each of the 76 other space agencies. In short, areas of expertise and individuals far more accomplished, skilled and clever than a random, insignificant, gullible conspiracy junkie that thinks that consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiratorial crap over the comments section of You Tube makes him sound significant, informed and knowledgeable.
Finally, you absurdly stated that Stephen Fry is unable to qualify his comments in spite of the fact that they are all independently verifiable, You then went on to say that part of his job is to make sure that people don't know the truth for which you have zero evidence in support of, so as the one making the claim, the burden of truth is incumbent upon you, not me.
Should you need any further clarification, then do not hesitate to ask.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Pilots have nothing to do with fueling the plane, nor do the ground crew have anything to do with checking the chemical makeup of the fuel for extra additives."
Fuel storage facilities are normally located on the periphery of the airport, far from where the aircraft receive their fuel. Transfer fuel lines often pass under aircraft runways or taxiways or tankers will convey it to the aprons. Fuel is tested upon delivery. An engine failing in flight, because of fuel starvation, is a situation all pilots and airlines would like to avoid. In order to do so, and to ensure the continuing accuracy of the FQI, performing thorough fuel checks before start, throughout the flight and after arrival at the parking stand is essential
You appear to be suggesting that it would be a routine endeavour for the mysterious "they" to impregnate jet fuel with some additive that you are unable to specify which creates the trails that you are seeing.
"There are innumerable scenarios whereby nobody in the airline industry would even have a clue they are aiding in the process, so no need to worry about them blowing the coverup."
Nobody in the airline industry? So, you are therefore suggesting that the petrochemical organisations that produce and refine jet fuel have been collectively co opted, coerced and controlled by some secretive initiative intent on impregnating the fuel that they supply for two decades whilst the entire aviation sector worldwide and jet engine manufacturers remain completely ignorant to this. Ok then.
"Not once when i was a kid did a plane fly over and the trails stayed and then filled the sky"
Then you weren't looking very hard then. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. The following image from a meteorology text book is 75 years old:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
Since the 1970s commercial aviation worldwide has undergone huge unregulated growth. The amount of air traffic and routes flown have soared so the phenomena you refer to is far more prevalent.
"from a single plane not increased traffic."
A single plane "filling the sky"?? No you haven't - and if you had, you'd need to explain how. Any idea of the weight of material contained in these persistent spreading contrails and the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? Of course you haven't. You also need to actually name these mysterious chemicals that when released are not only able to linger, but expand and increase in mass just like - well no shit - condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"Same with crosshatching and looping patterns."
You mean course changes and holding patterns?
Crosshatching? - The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"Maybe it's just like those old garbage cars, spewing smoke as they pass...maybe the planes just need a tune-up."
Condensation? No not really. Are you equally perplexed by a cloud?
"Maybe we need to look into it a little more than just calling folks "Conspiracy Theorists", because they ask a question you don't like."
Maybe we just need to learn some very rudimentary aviation and meteorological science before gullibly consuming and regurgitating a dumb online hoax derived from the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
1
-
@ancientclown
"What area of the world am i speaking of when i refer to observations in the sky?"
You didn't specify. Where are you located?
"There are a great many places that don't see a high degree of airline traffic...being off the beaten path and all....there are also areas Commercial travel is just not allowed to fly over."
That do see these supposed contrails? Such as? - that are relevant to this discussion?
"And yes, i have seen a single trail stay from one side of the horizon to the other"
So have I - very common...a persistent contrail well in excess of 100 miles long. Like I said, have you any idea of the weight of material contained in one of these trails and the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
"Don't tell me what i have and haven't seen, deal with the data as you get it"
You post intimated that one aircraft had filled an entire sky. Read it back. Data? I invite you to actually provide some, you could be the first chemtrail believer to do so. What you actually gave was anecdotal personal incredulity. Given that you claim that the sky is full of these alleged 'chemtrails', there should be thousands of in-situ analyses at source to choose from using optical array spectrometry. Just one will do. In your own time.
"continually expand until the sky was completely overcast, it took less than an hour"
You surely realise that the atmospheric processes that produce persistent spreading contrails will also produce cloud cover - because after all, they are one and the same. As requested, could you identify these strange chemicals that are able to linger and increase in mass? - just like, well what d'ya know? - condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"and they DON'T look like clouds"
How convenient for you to say so...and why would that be? (Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be intermittently malfunctioning).
"I have absolutely no idea how or why"
That much is abundantly clear.
"but i do know that's not normal"
I assure you it is - as I said, it's called condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"Trust me, i know what con trails look like, i know sometimes they can be short, sometimes long and sometimes you can't even see them at all and all that without any degree....just by a lifetime of observing. (Which has also made me familiar with cloud formations)"
Then why do you subscribe to the chemtrail hoax? - because aircraft contrails and meteorological phenomena are precisely what you are seeing.
1
-
@ancientclown
"Let me start where you finished off. Not once did i say anything about chem trails."
This is a video about "chemtrails" You said that the trails that you are seeing are "not normal". You questioned horizon to horizon trails and the fact that they expand which by your own admission you do not understand. You also cast aspersions upon the chemical additives in jet fuel, whilst referring to a "coverup". So what precisely are you saying?
"I only pointed out Pilots don't need to be in on it, IF something nefarious were occurring."
In on what? What do you mean by something nefarious? And actually, no you didn't. Ludicrously, you also suggested that there are "innumerable ways" that this "nefarious" activity could be concealed from the airline industry.
"it could be a terrorist plot"
What could be? the persistent contrails that you are describing? A "terrorist plot" that occurs daily around the world? and what does this have to do with your insistence that: "not once when i was a kid did a plane fly over and the trails stayed and then filled the sky."?
"It's funny, that though i didn't specify any locations, you were already telling me how air traffic can cause all these things...but you didn't have any of the data about traffic frequency or altitudes, nor did you ask before shaming me for not knowing the obvious....is that sound science making conclusions without seeking any data?"
I have asked you your location and I have requested data - yes? All that I can go on is your anecdotal claims and form your descriptions, the fact that you clearly don't understand what you are seeing. Horizon to horizon contrails and persistent spreading contrails in addition to the flight patterns and grids that you observe are perfectly normal, as are the accompanying phenomena that produce them.
"Perhaps if you folks stop being so condescending and judgmental, you might learn even more stuff than everything you think you already know."
Said the one making ill-informed statements and unsubstantiated allegations. Atmospheric science is my background, however, I am irrelevant. Your dispute appears to be with civil aviation regulations and the physical laws that govern atmospheric science - both of which have a voice of their own and both of which are independently verifiable.
"You sound like the guy that told Jocelyn Bell she was only observing interference when she really discovered Pulsars."
Difference being Jocelyn Bell is an astrophysicist and an expert in her field who abides by empiricism, is able to substantiate he claims and adheres to the scientific method - as opposed to random You Tube user that defends a baseless scientifically illiterate hoax predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails and lacks even the remotest understanding of aviation or basic meteorology.
"If she'd of listened to him and ignored it, then we'd still be in the dark."
Instead she was able to qualify her hypothesis. In the 25 years of this hoax, there is not a shred of evidence in support of the chemtrail theory.
"When i say the trail filled the sky, i don't just mean from one side to the other, i mean as in, no more sun or blue stuff behind it. It looks more like a high level fog or weird haze than clouds, which seems unusual on a clear day, when there's not a cloud in the sky."
Yes, a persistent spreading contrail. Would you like me to explain the physical process behind this?
"I've travelled alot in my days, coast to coast Canada and across the States, and i've been well off the beaten path many a time, places you are lucky if you see or hear a plane at all in the day, let alone any high traffic."
And I have done the same. both in your own North American continent and across the world. What's your point?
"I don't have enough data to come up with any answers or theories...all i have are questions as to why that would occur when the data at hand doesn't seem to say it should?"
What data at hand doesn't say it should? The physical laws that govern contrail growth are known and understood. And as I said, persistent contrails have been measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered flight. There are hundreds upon hundreds of analytical studies into their formation and evolution.
This particular paper from 1972 uses optical array spectrometry to measure the growth in the ice budget of a persistent contrail. Precisely what you are witnessing. At the very least read the introduction.
http://cires1.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf
You have still yet to answer my question. Do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in the persistent spreading trails that you are witnessing versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them?
1
-
@ancientclown
"again, at no point do i say chem trails, and only describe ABNORMAL events. My point being, you were the one that stuck me in the chem trail conspiracy group when i was just asking questions....i increase my knowledge."
And to reiterate, on a video about "chemtrails" you said that the trails that you are seeing are "not normal". You questioned horizon to horizon trails and the fact that they expand which by your own admission you do not understand. You also cast aspersions upon the chemical additives in jet fuel, whilst referring to a "coverup". So that'll be 'trails' and alleged 'chemicals' then. Moreover, you did not "ask questions", rather made a series of rather arrogant, ill-informed statements.
"Think you need to read this again; ""I only pointed out Pilots don't need to be in on it, IF something nefarious were occurring." because though you think you know what it says, you obviously don't understand what it means."
That was not what you said in your OP - that was you furiously backtracking later. Also, "in on what" precisely?
"You're also lacking in humour"
On the contrary, I found this hilarious..."There are innumerable scenarios whereby nobody in the airline industry would even have a clue they are aiding in the process, so no need to worry about them blowing the coverup."
And again, I'll ask you, what "coverup" are you referring to?
"No...you didn't ask where, time of year, weather, altitude, or anything until AFTER i pointed that out. Yet you were already throwing your science all over the place, showing off all these grand deductions without any of the data...."
The burden of proof is upon you to provide that data - the onus does no lie with me to establish an absent or negative based upon your personal incredulity. All you offered was anecdote - and from what you described which is all I had to go on, there is nothing abnormal about your observations.
"and NO, contrails that remain and expand covering the entire sky on a clear and sunny afternoon is not normal...."
Could you explain why? I take it that you're also perplexed by the emergence of cirrus clouds?
"The data at hand would not suggest that a contrail should completely cover the sky"
"A contrail" would not have "covered the sky". However if the conditions were conducive to the formation of a persistent spreading contrail then it is entirely likely that they would support the growth of cirrus clouds too, which is all that a contrail is.
"Again, i've never said they were chemtrails"
I'll ask you again - what actually are you saying then?
"...You again fail to understand what was said and instead start making baseless claims against me.
Jocelyn Bell was a student at the time and the scientist used her work to claim the Nobel prize..the same scientist that said: "Nothing to see here", gotta love the strong morals of scientists. He claimed there was a difference between the Captain of the ship and the crew saying; "land ho", yet his ego failed to recognize there is also a difference between the owner of the ship and the captain that charts a course through the waters of discovery, when the owner is saying it's just turbulence go around it."
And you with your appalling analogy fail to understand that you are not Jocelyn Bell, who actually understood what she was observing and was able to produce evidence to substantiate it. All that you have offered is baseless anecdote based upon your flawed observations and misunderstanding of aviation and atmospheric science. I urge you to read your OP once more.
"When i'm talking about being off the beaten path and you say (and notice how i actually take what you say and not make up what you say), "And I have done the same. both in your own North American continent and across the world. What's your point?" When you fail to recognize the point of that, how do you hope to understand any of the rest?"
But you didn't make one. You have travelled North America off the beaten track where you don't see an aircraft...that's all you said. So what? Again, what's your point? To remind you, this is what you said...
"I've travelled alot in my days, coast to coast Canada and across the States, and i've been well off the beaten path many a time, places you are lucky if you see or hear a plane at all in the day, let alone any high traffic."
So have I. What's your point? If you are contending that you then witnessed these trails, then clearly, contrary to your belief, you actually were in an area traversed by air traffic.
"You're not being scientific when you make claims like .
"This particular paper from 1972 uses optical array spectrometry to measure the growth in the ice budget of a persistent contrail. Precisely what you are witnessing." Reaching conclusions without any data, because you are smarter than everyone else, and you don't need it.
You queried how a contrail was able to expand. You have not provided any data - simply anecdote. As the one contending that your observations were abnormal, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why. All I can do is go by what you are saying and such anecdote is worthless.
"When you are in areas that don't receive alot of air traffic and suddenly have planes flying overhead crosshatching the sky....that's not normal."
Again, it suggests merely that contrary to your misconception, the area in question does indeed receive air traffic. But again, this is simply your own anecdotal insistence again.
"When you have a perfectly clear summer afternoon and a plane flies over and the contrail fills the sky and blots out the sun....that's not normal."
Could you explain why?
"If it was, with all the air traffic we would never see the sun"
A contrail may be short lived, persistent or persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Whether it does or not is governed by the interrelationship between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Are you equally perplexed by daily variations in cloud cover?
"Now i'd reach up and grab some samples, but i'm still a little short and not having all kinds of fancy equipment only leaves me with questions, not jumping to conclusions."
As I have explained to you - there are thousands of in-situ analytical studies of contrails using ground based remote sensing...yet none of your supposed abnormal trails. Odd don't you think that the entire branch of atmospheric science and environmental monitoring worldwide remain oblivious to these supposed abnormalities. Perhaps they're as in the dark as the global aviation sector? You know better though.
I'll ask you again; could you identify the precise chemical that can not only linger, but expand and increase in mass...wait for it....just like condensed atmospheric water vapour. Also, do you have any comprehension of the weight of material contained in a horizon to horizon trail versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
Thought not.
1
-
@ancientclown
"It was only after that i shared what i thought was abnormal from my own experiences, because that's how science works."
No, science works through empiricism and substantiation not worthless anecdote and insistence.
As I said, all that you provided was a series of preconceptions based upon your personal incredulity, stating what you decree to be not normal.
"I was hoping there might be some intelligent people here and the discussion might shift to air quality, etc."
Then actually start by saying something intelligent why don't you? Instead of this for example...
"Pilots have nothing to do with fueling the plane, nor do the ground crew have anything to do with checking the chemical makeup of the fuel for extra additives.There are innumerable scenarios whereby nobody in the airline industry would even have a clue they are aiding in the process, so no need to worry about them blowing the coverup."
and this...
"Not once when i was a kid did a plane fly over and the trails stayed and then filled the sky"
and this...
"I have absolutely no idea how or why, but i do know that's not normal."
and this...
"It looks more like a high level fog or weird haze than clouds, which seems unusual on a clear day, when there's not a cloud in the sky."
and this...
"contrails that remain and expand covering the entire sky on a clear and sunny afternoon is not normal"
and this...
"The data at hand would not suggest that a contrail should completely cover the sky"
and this...
"When you have a perfectly clear summer afternoon and a plane flies over and the contrail fills the sky and blots out the sun....that's not normal. (If it was, with all the air traffic we would never see the sun)"
Perhaps spend some time humbly looking at and reading the links that I provided then exercise a degree of self-appraisal and introspection.
"But i have trouble hearing anything you say with your head so far up your ass."
The irony...was it intentional?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ancientclown
"Did you even watch it, because no he's not saying the same thing and even provided a couple of conspiracy theories proven to be true."
Such as?
"but i can provide many more...numerous black ops to pull from where Government lies to the people.."
Indeed - so can I - but to repeat again because you seem to be struggling here,
that does not automatically afford legitimacy, validity or license to believe in any random conspiracy theory of our arbitrary choice or of one's devising. To conclude such would be a syllogistic logical fallacy, affirming the consequent, through the undistributed middle. Surely you are able to understand that? A simple yes or no will suffice.
"If someone puts forward an argument, in support of a conspiracy theory, we should consider that argument. To simply dismiss an argument because it is a conspiracy theory is a mistake, one with potentially tragic consequence's."
Were you not able to comprehend that?"
Absolutely - but in order to advance that 'theory' for it to gain credence, you would need to substantiate it. There is not one shred of evidence in support of the chemtrails conspiracy theory or the suggestion that your comical claims are anything other than the result of commercial aviation.
"Because there HAVE been many seemingly implausible conspiracy theories that turned out to be true...like the CIA slipping people LSD or bringing and selling Crack in LA."
When was that theorised?
I notice that you have completely disregarded the links that I furnished you with in response to your claims. You are also desperately avoiding my questions. Here they are again:
For the sixth time of asking now. Could you identify these mysterious chemicals that when supposedly secretly added to jet fuel can linger, persist and increase in mass? - just as we would expect condensed atmospheric water vapour to do anyway. Do you have any idea of the weight of material contained in one of those horizon to horizon trails that you identified versus the MTOW of the aircraft that produced it? These trails are in excess of 100 miles long - where could the material possibly be coming from. Again, perhaps look at the Knollenberg study that I provided you with. Then see if you can answer the question this time.
1
-
You are referring to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is entirely hypothetical and has not graduated beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. And it wouldn't use "industrial waste" either, likely sulphates to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols.
The "debris on the top of mountains" that you refer to is nothing more than Dane Wigington (one of the main perpetrators of this fraud) and his attempts to dupe the feeble minded, gullible and scientifically illiterate. He took snow pack samples from the lower slopes of Mount Shasta and had them tested by an analytical laboratory. The international standard test method used is a technique called ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry). This works is by turning the sample into a plasma (essentially a very hot ionised gas, up to about 10,000 degrees C). This breaks down all the substances in the sample into their constituent atoms (ions, to be precise) and then analyses them according to their individual mass. So any substance containing aluminium, whether that is aluminium oxide, or clay, or granite rock, or whatever, will be broken down and give a signal for aluminium ions. This should only be used for (relatively clean) water samples. It is obviously not designed for such samples containing large amounts of solids and sludge. This is why it is impossible to differentiate his supposed sprayed contaminates from existing sources of natural and anthropogenic origin. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
False. Three did.
Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel? Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”). When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.”
However, as explained, three of them, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelsworld6292
"Becasue NASA themselves say their a problem you fool"
The Van Allen Belts are indeed "a problem" and certainly "dangerous" particularly the densest parts at the centre of the belts which NASA intentionally flew Orion capsule into, which as he correctly said, "we have never sent humans into". The unmanned test that he is referring to in the video was conducted on December 5, 2014 and was an unprecedented success. Question for you; why do you think Professor James Van Allen use the word 'belts' to describe the regions of trapped radiation he discovered?
Incidentally, if you must insist on anonymously branding people as a "fool" from behind your keyboard, perhaps ensure first that you comprehend the basic rudiments of English grammar and can at least differentiate between a determiner and a contraction.
"You didn’t bother to watch the video"
If irony was a material that could be refined into a pure form, you’d have quite the stash. Hilarious, since you didn't bother to get past the mindless confirmation bias of the sensationalist strapline.
Well given that I quoted from it and placed it in the correct context for you I can assure that I did - having been familiar with the original before it was misappropriated by you conspiracy nutjobs.
Once again, It is a video about the then upcoming first unmanned test flight of the new Orion spacecraft acknowledging the challenges of the space radiation environment which had to be solved for the new design. Like I said, Orion completed that flight shortly after that video was made and the mission was an overwhelming success.
Orion is being designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics and a glass cockpit - architecture that is far more vulnerable to high energy particle radiation than the solid state electronics of the Apollo era.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgam3y/orion-radiation-survival
The "challenge" to be solved for NASA in respect of Orion and its purpose was therefore completely different to the Apollo mission hardware.
Let's remind you of your comment again...
"Then you have the Van Allen belts to contend with, something NASA scientist use to talk about why there hasn’t been a trip back, but we’re suppose to believe the original technology got them there and back?"
No NASA scientist has ever said, as you incorrectly allege, that the VAB have prevented us from going to the moon .
My question again:
Given the composition, inclination and orientation of the belts, why do you think that they posed a problem to the Apollo mission trajectories? And how would you venture that problem was solved?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@veritasomniavincit7
"and adont forget the motley crew of disgruntled “astronauts” in the press briefing."
This again - seriously? It's the same thing mindlessly regurgitated over and over and over again. As previously stated, you obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology. Righto.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions. Whilst at it, find footage and images of them beaming after recovery in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer.
“how’s that kool-aid…”
Never ceases to amuse when a gullible believer in online conspiracy theory types this cringeworthy cliché in the complete absence of irony or self-awareness. The Rev Jim Jones would have had a field day with you goons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinswinyer3176
"Stop, and think... Back in the 70's, NASA supposedly sent Human ASTRONAUTS to the Moon. If this were true, then why would they only be sending a single Dummy dressed up in a Space Suit on their supposed next mission instead of just sending up more human astronauts?"
The sole purpose of the mannequin was not to measure radiation. The 'moonekin' was wearing the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. This was fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration. This enables engineers to compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion provided data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluates the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 was 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reaches an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. The mannequin was testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincides with peak solar activity which is a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
"Yes, NASA has already started that on their next Mission to the Moon, they intend to send along a Single Dummy dressed in a Space Suit instead of human astronauts... Why would they do that?"
They didn't. Completely false. The next mission, Artemis 2 will be a crewed flight and the four astronauts will be announced early next year.
Why are you changing the subject and avoiding the question? I'll ask you politely again. Please may you detail the physics and the measurement that determines your contention that were humans "to pass through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, they would be so badly contaminated with high radiation that it would most likely be fatal to them". I look forward to your answer supported by the data that confirms this. Thanks.
1
-
Impressive basement that. Hold on, Hollywood? Fascinating. Not Shepperton, Elstree or Pinewood UK? And what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? No wait, Area 51 Nevada? Or shouldn't that be the Utah or Arizona deserts? No, no, Devon Island Canada surely? You absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'Hollywood basement" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Clever lad!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eo3064 And you sound like a gullible, naive conspiracy believer that was born yesterday. Aircraft have produced persistent and spreading contrails since the early advent of high altitude powered flight and for the best part of a century. These have been documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied. Your caps lock doesn't make your statement any truer.
In 'Flight to Arras', the legendary French pilot and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940.
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 50 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Azmalik786
"what evidence do i have? How about a video taken from my 20 min walk yesterday which clearly shows 5-6 aircraft releasing these so called ‘contrails’?"
That's not evidence - that's simply your own flawed grasp of reality and insistence based upon personal incredulity. Because you have zero understanding of aviation and atmospheric science, you see a contrail and you have gullibly allowed internet conspiracy theorists to provide your explanation as opposed to independent verification through known meteorology. You then think that this substitutes for an education and makes you sound clever and informed over the internet. I have yet to meet one conspiracy believer that actually has even the most rudimentary understanding of the subject or topic that they arrogantly claim authority over.
You said that they are the "same 5-6 'aircrafts [sic] flying round again and again" - prove it. Regarding your video - let's see it then.
"Not only that but 3 weeks in a row everytime these aircraft go around spraying their ‘contrails’ in the sky, the flu, the common cold, COVID, all become rife in the area."
Because of course the sole possible explanation can only be those white trails six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand.
"Is your science the same science which you have been taught from school? The one which believes in the Theory of Evolution and how the sun is bad for us?"
It's not my science and science is not a question of belief. No, it is the same known science that you are ignorant of and is axiomatic and therefore demonstrable and has an independent voice of its own. Science that requires evidence and verification as opposed to ignorant anecdotal claims by a bunch of cretinous gullible clowns over the the comments section of a video entertainment platform. And of course forget science - because online conspiracy theory is entirely consistent, reliable, accurate, informed, not in the least bit deceptive, manipulative or exploitative and being entirely free of agenda, has your best interests at heart. Righto then.
What on earth are you rambling about now? Sunlight is essential as a source of beneficial hormones and vitamins and a boost of serotonin. It can however be very dangerous through exposure to UV radiation which causes premature aging of the skin and damage that can lead to skin cancer. People of all ages and skin tones should limit the amount of time they spend in the sun, especially between mid-morning and late afternoon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes they really did.
Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture.
1
-
@LuisHernandez-of8ho
"no they didn’t"
Yes I assure you that they did. Commercial aviation has seen decades of unregulated growth. There are simply more aircraft in the sky and more routes flown so persistent contrails are more prevalent.
Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of aviation. In 'Flight to Arras' Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
"Myself all my friends and family talk about this all the time when I was younger we would see the trails condensation trails is what they’re called and they would disappear within minutes now they turn into big puffy clouds"
As I said a contrail can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not form at all. In cases in which they linger, conspiracy theorists/believers brand them as chemtrails.
"Stop the bullshit they never turns into clouds when I was a kid everybody my age knows that"
The following image is taken from the pages of a 75 year old meteorology textbook:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
"How old are you anyway how long have you been in the United States"
I am 54 and resident in the UK. However, I have also lived in California and NYC USA and Ontario Canada - and yes, I've observed persistent spreading contrails all of my life. However, I am irrelevant to this conversation. The physical laws that govern contrail formation and persistence are axiomatic and thereby have a voice of their own.
"will you can say that in the 70s and 80s condensation trails turned into giant cloud because that’s fucking bullshit"
No, it's supersaturation and wind shear - basic meteorological science. And why the unnecessary unwarranted abuse?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Where do you think chemtrails started"
I can answer that precisely. In 1996 a paper was published by the Air Force entitled "Weather as a Force Multiplier," in which a group of college researchers speculated about how they could use weather manipulation as a form of combat. The paper was explicitly presented as a work of speculative futurism about what could happen in the year 2023, but it raised suspicions in the civilian community. Allied to this, A poorly researched piece of environmental journalism by William Thomas in 1999 appropriated and misinterpreted the 1991 patent for Welsbach seeding and in 2001, HR 2977, the ludicrous "Space Preservation Act" was accidentally presented to Congress ruining the career of Dennis Kucinich. Astonishingly, all this is still batted about over twenty years later as supposed evidence of the chemtrails hoax.
Against all of this during the late 1990s, shock radio host Art Bell was spreading the notion to his gullible late night audience that contrails were evidence of a government programme of regular chemical spraying. Coast to Coast AM is a commercial radio station and still manufactures sensationalism and conspiracy to order thereby boosting ratings and selling more advertising space. With the advent of the internet, the conspiracy theory industry has burgeoned and through social media and lucrative lunatic enabling platforms such as You Tube suddenly everyone had a voice. On the back of the nonsensical Michael J Murphy movies, homemade footage of regular contrails from commercial aircraft and regular meteorological phenomena began to be captured and uploaded with a clickbait strapline and some "scary" music. Meanwhile at the top of the tree, to those perpetrating this racket, Chemtrails became part of every self proclaimed "truther's" product line with several protagonists now intentionally conflating the hoax with a branch of geoengineering research known as albedo modification - or Solar Radiation Management, which they envisaged would legitimise and afford credence to the scam.
So in response to your question, it was the late night radio shows of Art Bell that originally sold the idea that conventional contrails were evidence of everything from mind control to depopulation. The notion that it was connected to geoengineering (SIA/SRM) s largely attributed to Dane Wigington and his fraudulent geoengineeringwatch website.
Chemtrails are simply a monetised hoax perpetuated through vacuous self-referencing internet echochambers and clickbait confirmation bias. There is not one shred of objective or independent evidence in favour of their existence nor is the theory supported by the physical laws of aviation or atmospheric science.
To return to your original point, what does Operation Popeye have to do with a contrail in the wake of a commercial aircraft?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronlenore6418
You're really not that bright are you? There, you said it again...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research
And as I said, appreciating that 'research' does not involve mindlessly gorging on junk You Tube videos, cherry picked clickbait confirmation bias, quote mining, association fallacy and self-referencing chemtrail conspiracy websites - how precisely did you do yours?
To reiterate, you are the one making the claim therefore the burden of proof is incumbent upon you - the onus does not lie with me to search for something that doesn't exist. You wouldn't bring a case to court as the prosecution and expect the defendant to "do their own research" instead of presenting your evidence. There is no such 'declassified' document - so how can I possibly look for it? You are talking horseshit and you've been called out on it.
'Chemtrails' are a baseless conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentional conflation on behalf of the perpetrators of this hoax in a lame attempt to add legitimacy to their claims. Gullible chemtrail believers then uncritically lap up this false equivalence and regurgitate it over the internet without knowing the first thing about the subjects that they claim authority over - far less, basic meteorology, aviation, or atmospheric science. Odd don't you think that the entire fields of atmospheric science, meteorology, environmental monitoring and aerospace engineering worldwide - y'know, the people that actually understand the physics of the atmosphere - remain completely oblivious to these supposed 'chemtrails' yet a community of online armchair conspiracy theorists and self-appointed overnight 'experts' think that they know better because the internet told them so and they don't understand what they are looking at?
I absolutely guarantee that you are referring to sounding rockets, but you are too cowardly to back up your claims knowing that you haven't actually got the first clue what you are talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@khandneter463
"Now instead of you asking me without the rude attachment I wrote from your comment above, maybe I would of gave you the information."
As I said, I haven't been in the slightest bit rude. I simply asked you to substantiate your statement that "the government has admitted to using chemtrails" - and don't you people just loath that? To reiterate, you made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. The onus does not lie with myself or another party to search for a negative based upon your personal incredulity and your regurgitated false equivalence. If you are unable or unwilling to qualify your claim, then it is utterly worthless.
"I shared some information that I have researched and you come along talking shit."
Parroting junk online conspiracy websites is not "research". If you think that I have 'talked shit" then go ahead and demonstrate how. No use in simply saying it. And your point about rudeness was?
"Now you a grown man, I hope, go find the information yourself, RESEARCH, instead of constantly asking me to give you information and then right behind that claiming I don't have such information, who does that? That's weird!"
Asking you to substantiate your claim is weird? That you are wholly ignorant of science and the scientific method is manifest, but pray that you don't ever end up in court as the prosecution.
"Obviously you want to play this back and forth game with me because maybe you don't have anything else to do, well I do."
If you were capable of supporting your statements then it wouldn't be back and forth would it?
"If you feel that I don't have such information on Chemtrails that the government admittingly said that they are spraying chemicals under the guise of Global warming treatment, then go on about your business. Common sense should tell YOU that instead of you telling someone you don't know what they know or don't know, what they have or don't have, then go on about your business and have a nice day."
You appear to be referring to hypothetical research into Solar Radiation management which has nothing to do with "the government" nor the misidentified contrails discussed in this video upon which the chemtrails hoax is predicated. If you wish to term such theoretical research as "chemtrails" then more fool you, but don't expect such association fallacy to be taken seriously in the real world outside of your vacuous internet echo-chamber should you ever choose to interact with it.
"You don't know what I know"
In common with your conspiratorial ilk, very little - that much is demonstrable. Because let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
"and you don't know what I have and you never will."
I am inviting you to present it. We both know full well why you can't. As I said. I can absolutely guarantee what you'd come back with.
"So if you don't believe it, dismiss it, no harm done"
Known science is not a question of 'belief'. Moreover, research into SRM has never been denied. What does that have to do with persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and the best part of a century?
"Again, you are a grown man, go research it for yourself if you need to know, instead of you trying convince yourself and I that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about."
Atmospheric science is my background. Furthermore, I guarantee that I am vastly more knowledgeable about the origins, content, background and main perpetrators of your junk conspiracy theory than yourself. The responsibility lies with you to demonstrate that you "know what you are talking about" - and up to now you are failing dismally. That you delude yourself otherwise is to be expected.
"You have a nice day, I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you on this issue and I'm not opening and reading your rebuttal, it will be deleted on sight."
Of course you're not - because you people are incapable of debate, utterly unable to critically appraise your own pre-conceptions and without exception, fail to evidence your claims. As conspiracy believers you are also without exception together with religious fundamentalists, the most closed minded people on this farcical farrago that we call the internet.
"Again, RESEARCH."
Appreciating that "research" does not involve declaring overnight armchair 'expertise' following squandered evenings in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias, out of context quote mining or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites...do feel free to share, how did you undertake yours?
To remind you. You stated the following:
"There is information of the government admitting to using Chemtrails."
Do you think you could possibly get around to presenting it at some point? Thanks in advance.
1
-
1
-
@ThaTurdBurglar
"you simply have not looked."
I can assure you that I have. I have been alpine climbing since the age of nine, worked as a mountain guide across four continents, obtained post graduate qualifications in Applied Meteorology and Climatology a quarter of a century ago and since specialised in remote sensing now working in research capability. Understanding the skies had been essential to my livelihood and the lives of those in my duty of care. So yeah, you could say that I've had more than the occasional glance over the years.
"Spraying chemicals from planes is as old as planes themselves... documented history my friend."
So are the contrails that you are witnessing and misidentifying which have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Here you go, this is a 75 year old image from a meteorology text book, look familiar?...
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Look up Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and learn something"
SAI is a hypothetical branch of geoengineering that has yet to graduate beyond research paper, mathematical modelling and even reach the early stages of small scale trial. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"The only people getting sucked into lies are people who don’t know how to do research"
The irony - was it intentional?
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinbford20
Eh? - these weren't conspiracy theories though.
The claims of collusion with Russia were allegations not a conspiracy theory. With over 200 witness interviews and roughly 1 million documents reviewed, the comprehensive campaign conducted by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies to seek influence within President Donald Trump's campaign is exposed, helping Trump win the 2016 presidential election and amplify polarisation and division within American society. Far from a hoax, as the president so often claimed, the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort. The timing of the Durham Report that concluded that the FBI acted hastily and in the absence of corroborating evidence stoked Trump’s narrative that he has been repeatedly targeted by officials in a political “witch hunt”.
Let's take the covid lab leak claims. The consilience of the scientific community (virology) is that it resulted from a natural spillover, but it could equally be the result of research-related activity, such as a lab leak or even a fieldwork incident - we simply don't know. That is also accepted as a possibility However, there is no equivocal evidence either way, just largely historical precedent and circumstantial evidence. There have however been a multitude of studies which indicate a natural origin for Sars-CoV-2 and this data/literature has steadily grown in volume since the outbreak. This year a published study examined samples taken from raccoon dogs, bamboo rats, palm civets: (these are just some of the animals whose DNA has been found in swabs taken from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China,) The swabs also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease. The analysis, provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over from animals to humans at the market. Conversely, there is not one paper offering evidence that a lab leak was responsible to have passed peer review because the is no substantive data to support it. Additionally, although the DOE have backed the recent FBI intelligence assessment indicating a lab leak, they have a 'low confidence level. According to guidance from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “A low confidence level generally indicates that the information used in the analysis is scant, questionable, fragmented, or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from the information, or that the IC has significant concerns or problems with the information sources.” Again, this does not mean that the possibility of a lab leak should be ruled out. In my view, it's a very strong possibility that we won't ever determine the source. Pinpointing the site of a spillover is tricky and becomes increasingly challenging with time. Also, matching the genetics of those initially infected by Alpha with sequences derived from animals to isolate the host is a very difficult task. In terms of the lab leak possibility, as relationships between China and the West continue to deteriorate, the situation continues to be so politicised, and whilst Beijing refuses to cooperate the necessary transparency to allow an independent forensic investigation into research activities at WIV, we have nothing more than circumstantial supposition.
Regarding Covid vaccinations, they prevented 14·4 million 95% credible interval deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8 2021. Of these, 0.053% had an adverse reaction. In the EU alone, those that suffered a fatal reaction to vaccination represents 0.52% of the 2,169,191that died of coronavirus.
Death has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered. This includes cases of anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction that can occur after any kind of vaccination. To put this into perspective, there are 120 deaths per million in road accidents per year in the USA. Presumably, you don't drive or allow yourself to be driven?
No, the attempted insurrection of January 6th 2021 was not proven to be an "inside job" at all. That is completely false.
What about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal? - it was never a conspiracy theory.
"would you like more?"
Yes - by all means, go ahead. You're clearly struggling so far.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So we haven't been back to the moon because NASA says that it's impossible to pass through the Van Allen Belt"
Incorrect - and NASA have made no such statement. They "haven't been back to the moon" because Congress cut the funding and the programme was prematurely cancelled 1972. This meant the abandonment of a heavy lift capability up until the development of the SLS. Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018.
Regarding the Van Allen Belts, (note the plural, since contrary to your misconception there are in fact two - with a third that is transitory), NASA fully understand how to safely traverse the belts. They consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
"which is the excuse for why we sent an unmanned rocket to the moon recently, to "get the data needed to know what we need to pass through the V.A.B. so that we can finally leave earth orbit"
Again false. Firstly, that statement is made up and a lie. Once more, NASA have said no such thing. Artemis 1 was an unmanned test of a new launch vehicle and capsule.
"This makes no sense"
It makes no sense to you - and such personal incredulity is one of the main reasons that junk online conspiracy theory is perpetuated and spread by individuals with zero knowledge of spaceflight. Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo. It will spend months, years out of the protection of the Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics.
Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, in the case of modern high density systems, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 was 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reached an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. One of the mannequins was testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincides with peak solar activity which is a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its high-tech systems.
"but according to NASA, we destroyed that technology and it's too hard to rebuild it"
This again? Really? How many times?
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase - "destroyed" and he didn't say "it was too hard to rebuild it". Why do you keep lying? Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?...yet again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaredprince4772
"Your appeal to authority fallacy is duly noted and rejected as the bullshit it must be in an argument of facts."
And is your ad hominem abuse.
As I said, this is my background, which simply makes me familiar with the scientific literature which is the subject of your contention. I myself am irrelevant.
"Even with radiative forcing, the resulting cover is minuscule in our vast skies."
Actually that isn't the case - and my original reply to you concerned the extent of radiative forcing. These calculations emphasise the importance of
obtaining a reliable estimate of the global role of contrail induced cirrus and of understanding the extent to which they add to natural cirrus cover which is heavily dependent on reducing
the uncertainty in the magnitude of contrail-induced radiative forcing.
"The articles themselves that you linked indicate that there is a higher error than previously thought."
See above.
They are papers not articles. And you've read them all since I have posted them have you?
"They also indicate that the nighttime and daytime effects cancel, more or less."
Were you incapable of comprehending my last reply? Because contrails cool the surface radiatively during the
day and heat the surface during the night, as I pointed out, this can reduce the daily temperature amplitude. The net effect however, depends strongly on the daily variation of contrail cloud cover however. Also, aircraft emissions may cause indirect climate forcing by changing the particle size of natural cirrus clouds. This indirect forcing may be comparable to the direct forcing due to additional contrail cloud cover.
In point of fact, I am of the same opinion as you, that overall the effects are over-exaggerated. However, science is not about 'opinion' which is why further work and research is needed.
I welcome your replies, but could you please try and respond in an dignified and civil manner and minus the condescension? Much appreciated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The mixing, compressing and burning of kerosene produces oily, hot Carbon Monoxide (CO) which attracts moisture inthe freezing high altitude where jets fly. The condensation evaporates quickly behind the aircraft, leaving no trace."
Absolute nonsense. A contrail is formed by water vapour in aircraft exhaust condensing into ice. Yes, this may be aided by the presence of hygroscopic nuclei in the exhaust, but this effect is negligible. In conditions of low ambient air temperature, high relative humidity and at a sufficient vapour pressure a contrail will form. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture which forms 99% of the visible trail (the exhaust being only the trigger mechanism) - The same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are.
"Chemtrails, however, are usually formed like a thick, braided rope, and linger and stay aloft, slowly opening into a feather shape, then slowly drifting, sometimes for hundreds of miles before complete dissipation."
You mean just like those persistent spreading contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of aviation? In 'Flight to Arras' the legendary French aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
The following paper is five decades old.
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
So precisely what you have been describing then.
"Some people have captured samples"
No they haven't.
"and they are strangely Aluminum and Barium."
What would be strange about that? Do you understand what ICP-MS is?
*_"There's that phrase again (Conspiracy Theory) used to "debunk" and take
attention away from any outside research or questioning the set narrative,
spoon fed to GQ Public."_*
No, it's used to describe a conspiracy theory, which is all that your chemtrails are. Independent research??? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Eddie Bravo, 'What in the World Are They Spraying' and Judy Wood??? Are you serious? I think you just answered that question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mccari09
"when I say coming in to land and taking off I do not mean when they are actually landing or taking off... I mean whilst they are still at high altitude."
So when you say landing and taking off, you do not mean landing or taking off? Impeccable logic there.
"The only time a contrail should persist is when the airplane is low enough so that on a cold day the water vapour stays frozen or by high altitude atmospheric temperatures causing the same freezing."
A contrail is the product of the interplay of temperature, pressure and humidity. In conditions of high RHi the contrail will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state. Where the ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, most of the moisture is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture budget.
"You and I both know that the contrails consist of water vapour and particulates from the exhaust."
Incorrect. Water vapour is a gas and therefore invisible. A contrail is composed of condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals. The particulates from the exhaust are largely trace, but sulphates and soot will increase scavenging and can also act as CCNs in the formation of contrails.
"I understand that persistent contrails are in fact possible but what I am seeing does not make sense!
How can a planes exhaust cause a beautiful sunny day to turn into a dull haze?"
Supersaturation. As I explained, the contrail draws upon available atmospheric moisture budget. In these conditions, they will not only endure but expand and merge, becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus. The process is explained here.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"They never used to do this... in the 33 years I’ve been on this world I have never seen planes do what I see now."
the following paper - one amongst many - is almost five decades old.
" Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
"I don’t need to be a aeronautical engineer or whatever just to notice some thing different."
To understand what you are looking at or make an informed judgement, then you simply need a rudimentary knowledge of independently verifiable and objective aviation and meteorological science instead of baseless online conspiracy theory as your explanation. Try it.
"Where I live one can drive about 30 miles into the Yorkshire dales of the uk and get above the haze. From there you can see the flight paths of the planes easily yet none of them seem to match up with the trails i observe"
How have you established this?
The UK is beneath the North Atlantic tracks. What are you contending is abnormal?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You conveniently omit the age of disinformation. It's "never been so easy" for baseless conspiracy theory to gain traction amongst the poorly educated and scientifically illiterate. Even where used responsibly, the internet should only supplement an education, it does not supplant for one. Moreover, every conspiracy theorist that I have encountered has zero expertise in or knowledge about the subject concerned. Appreciating that 'research' does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, ask yourself honestly, how do you do yours?
With conspiracy theory, what I have encountered to a man is Dunning Kruger afflicted illusory superiority through which conspiracy believers seem to believe that an internet connection can afford the higher levels of expertise or specialism of the branches of science that they decry or reject. My background is atmospheric science - no appeal to authority, I solely defer to that, not any qualification I have earned, a certificate or a piece of paper. This is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms and has a voice of its own and yet I actually have chemtrail believers attempting to 'educate' me online about meteorology based upon a few minutes frittered away on a bogus junk website.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sydtodd495
"there is no way normal exaughst could fill the entire sky from anyone's point of view."
Then perhaps that you should understand that persistent spreading contrails are a consequence of supersaturation. In such atmospheric conditions, the aircraft exhaust merely precipitates the trail, the atmosphere does the rest.
Combust a hydrocarbon fuel and the two main products will be CO2 and H2O. One gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water due to the oxygen adding to the mass - and a jet engine will burn litres of fuel a second. However, clearly as you say, that does not account for lasting expanding contrails. In the regions that aircraft cruise, the air temperature is very low. Combine this with humidity and a lower vapour pressure and the water in the exhaust will condense out as ice crystals. A contrail may be short lived, persistent or persistent spreading - or it may not necessarily form at all. It depends on the ambient conditions. If the air is of a high relative humidity, then the trail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase which is invisible water vapour. If the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will not only linger, but increase in mass drawing almost entirely on available atmospheric moisture. This is the reason that the trails that you are seeing can weigh millions of lbs - way beyond the capacity of any aircraft producing them. These trails may also be fanned out by high altitude wind shear becoming indistinguishable from cirrus cloud - which is essentially all they are. Are you equally as perplexed by the formation of clouds? (Incidentally, I think you meant to say 'exhaust').
"not to mention particles floating around."
The atmosphere is full of airborne dust, particulate and aerosols of both natural and anthropogenic origin.
"why is is illegal to gather rain Water?"
Do you mean sample it? It isn't. Gathering or collecting rainwater has been subject to some laws passed in certain states of the USA due to implications for drainage or diversion of water sources.
"why are heavy metals found all over the ground?"
What heavy metals falling to the ground are you referring to?
"Dont believe anything they tell ya when they say your safe"
Instead believe baseless online conspiracy theory which of course is unfailingly accurate, honest, not in the least bit scaremongering, manipulative or exploitative, is entirely free of agenda and has your best interests at heart. Ok then.
Incidentally, known science is not about "belief".
"they do not care about the people, this will become more and more obvious over the next ten months."
Who precisely are "they"?
1
-
@boykush3732
Sigh.
Oh Jesus wept, you just posted a link to the ludicrous Mount Shasta chemtrails rally organised by Dane Wigington. Seriously - how many times. Do you really want to go there again?
Thanks for your reply - as I said, I guaranteed what you'd come back with. It's so, so predictable.
Geoengineering is a very broad term. GGR strategies and Negative Emissions Technology are actively pursued - in particular, biochar, aforestation carbon capture/sequestering and currently, research into ocean fertilisation attracts a high level of funding. The Solar Radiation Management that you are referring to meanwhile is with the exception of ground based albedo modification entirely hypothetical. As the current SCoPEx project demonstrates, SAI has not yet even reached the stages of small scale trail. There is no 'testimony in front of congress' no 'admission' that this is in progress - research into SRM has never been secretive, how do you admit to something that isn't denied?
Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Of course jet exhaust contains nano particulate - so does your car exhaust. The prefix "nano" means one-billionth, or 10-9; therefore one nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. The term nanoscale is used to refer to objects with dimensions on the order of 1-100 nanometers (nm). The atmosphere is full of such particles and aerosols - both naturally occurring and of anthropogenic origin. You are surrounded by them and you breath them in every day. Aluminium particles in the exhaust??? There are many particles in aircraft exhaust: Cr, Fe, Mo, Na, Ca and Al; V, Ba, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, Mg, Mn, Si, Ti and Zr. These are are in minute trace quantities and trace metal contents are to be expected in hydrogenated shale oil jet fuels - you'll find the same in diesel and petroleum.
"They didnt hang around in the sky for hours"
To reiterate, persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Here again is the following image taken from the pages of a 75 year old meteorological textbook...
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
"and i still c the odd plane with a contrail and it dissipates shortly behind the plane"
A contrail is simply a form of cirrus, it may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or may not necessarily form at all - it is entirely dependent upon the prevailing atmospheric conditions in relation to temperature, humidity and vapour pressure.
"Its called geoengineering and its happening bra"
To reiterate, GGR strategies/Negative Emissions Technology certainly are underway, but excluding ground based albedo modification - SRM is entirely hypothetical and even in the unlikely scenario that it was ever deployed would have nothing remotely to do with the contrails that you are witnessing either in appearance, form or deployment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"whistleblowings by USAF pilots, regular pilots, scientists, engineers and more"
Name them - name them all, together with their credential, their backgrounds and where appropriate their full published studies into chemtrails. In the interest of credibility, you may wish to avoid the ludicrous Kristen Meghan, the farcical "Pilots, Doctors and Scientists Tell the Truth about Chemtrails"or anything associated with Rosalind Peterson. Off you go, this should be entertaining.
"plus air, water and soil samples with the very chemicals attributed to cloud-seeding in them... is evidence."
"The very chemicals" that are also used in the manufature of fireworks too - in significantly higher quantities. In fact, "the very" chemicals that are all around us in our everyday lives. So do please feel free to direct me to an independent analytical study from a credible scientist that establishes a causal link between chemtrails and these samples together with demonstrating the methodology to discriminate them and avoid contamination with existing sources of both natural and anthropogenic origin.
"Plus visual evidence from thousands of pix and videos of cloud-building blocking out the sun"
That's what clouds tend to do. Additionally there is a very large volume of current research into the extent of radiative forcing associated with cirrus aviaticus which I can refer you to if you are interested.
"Plus record breaking humidity"
Source?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joanginsberg9604
Whatever you watch on You Tube should not be automatically believed to be true - it needs to be independently verifiable - which this video is.
Sigh. This again? Really? How many times? Shasta County did not have any such 'enquiry'. You are referring to Dane a farcical chemtrails rally of July 15th 2014 organised by one of the main perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax - Dane Wigington, which culminated in a march to the Shasta County Supervisors chambers where they proceeded to bore the shit out of the few people present. Basically, nothing more than a bunch of ill-informed conspiracy cranks in a town hall. Most of these are Wigington's local cronies, others, career conspiracy theorists. One of them, Jeff Nelson, who has early onset dementia was even dressed up as a pilot, and another, Iraja Sividas, y'know, the clown that thinks that a contrail should be analogous to your breath on a cold day is a local maths teacher. Yes, there are I concede two medics present - but although Stephen Davis was a Chiropractic he is now a Certified Traditional Naturopath quacktitioner - and peddler of all manner of snake oil and woo. Dr. Hamid Rabiee a Neurologist at the Redding (Mercy Medical Centre) has since been struck off for sexual harassment of his patients and staff.
Nothing more than appeal to authority. There is no basis whatsoever for any of their ludicrous claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"How did they survive the radiation"
What so you mean "the radiation"? Radiation is not homogenous and comes in different forms and intensities. The Van Allen Belts consist of charged alpha and beta particle radiation that is easy to shield against. Moreover given that the belts are toroidal and the trajectories flown through the outer regions, it was possible to pass through the sparsest areas at high velocity and in a short space of time. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs). Total mission doses would have been in the region of 1 - 1.5 rems.Radiation in cislunar space and on the surface of the moon - largely GCRs - is not an issue and easy to attenuate. astronauts on the surface of the moon were exposed to a measured dose of around 60 microseiverts an hour. The main fear was a SPE/CME and since all the Apollo missions took place during a solar maximum NASA took a calculated risk. Fortunately the one that occurred during the return of Apollo 16 was not directed at the spacecraft.
"How did they take off from the moon without fuel exhaust etc"
What do you mean without fuel? The ascent stage of the LM contained separate fuel tanks - and why would you expect exhaust from a hypergolic reaction in a vacuum?
"How did they then meet up with Collins and reattach????"
And Gordon, and Roosa and Worden and Mattingly and Evans! - or were you unaware that there were a further five landings? You can also add the test flights of Apollo 9 and 10.
One of the purposed designations of the Gemini programme was to perfect orbital rendezvous. One of the main reasons that Aldrin was selected for Apollo 11was due to his MIT doctoral thesis which was on orbital mechanics.
The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) systems required very good accelerometers and gyroscopes, some of the very best that could be made. Fortunately, there’d been a lot of research and development on these devices for ballistic missile applications. On-board radar units provided very accurate measurements of the relative positions and velocities LM (Lunar Module) and CSM (Command and Service Module stack). All of these devices were state of the art for the day, and very expensive, but that wasn’t a big problem for the Apollo program.Both the Lunar Module’s AGC and AGS were connected to the gyroscope for inertial navigation and to the rendez-vous and docking radar and were part of the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS). After the LM returned from the surface, it entered a highly elliptical orbit at slightly less than 10 nautical miles and just over 5,500 FPS. This orbit would have carried it out to 48 nautical miles, but was adjusted by RCS thrust a few minutes later to roughly 62 x 44 nm at about 5,400 FPS. The LM then gained on the CSM, not just because it was going a little faster, but because it was climbing from a lower orbit, and lower orbits have shorter periods.
A little over three hours after liftoff, the LM’s orbit intersected the CSM’s at about 60 nm, and RCS thrust brought it into a nearly identical orbit of 63 x 56 nm, closing on the CSM by about 10 fps. Finally, a series of short braking burns brought the two ships into hard dock. The ascent stage of the LEM, having lifted off and docked with the CM, was subsequently jettisoned. The SPS performed the TEI burn which lasted approximately 150 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s) sufficient to overcome the gravitational influence of the moon and send Apollo on its three day fall back to earth.
"I'm calling shenanigans"
And I'm calling someone with absolutely zero knowledge of spaceflight and the science and technology of Apollo, desperately attempting to sound informed and clever through arguments from ignorance and incredulity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh ffs.
There is no telescope in existence that can resolve the details of the Apollo landing sites other than those in direct orbit of the moon. The resolution of a telescope is limited by diffraction. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see them from Earth. To explain why, understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide spread of the lunar module descent stages at the six landing sites.
However, The Apollo landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Deeky76
And meanwhile, entire branches of science, specialist fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet don't? In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory trolling the comments section of You Tube
I'm curious to learn though - since you claim to know everything, could you please account for ALSEP, the SW, SEP, PSE, ASE, HFE, CPLEE and in particular, the LPME.
Go ahead then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Powerful1776
"The Van Allen Radiation belts! 2 of them surround the Earth"
Actually, there are three - since one of them is transitory.
"and will fry your brains to enter them!"
Nope - wrong again. The VABs wouldn't "fry" anything. That would be acid that's fried your mind.
The belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. The energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
"That is why we have never achieved higher than low Earth obit!"
Low Earth orbit is defined as 1000km (621 miles). Gemini 11 used an Agena rocket of the rendezvous target vehicle to boost it to an apogee of 853 miles well before Apollo and back in September 1966. This meant it entered the inner belt. So you are wrong again.
"This was stated by the NASA engineer on video!"
This again? Really? No it was't. That isn't what Kelly Smith said at all. In a 2014 video called Orion: Trial by Fire he discussed the challenges facing the then new Orion capsule and within this context he was saying that these needed to be solved before we send humans into this region of space. Why is it even necessary to explain this? Orion was designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to the particle radiation of the VABs than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and rope core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems to the electronics and life support systems. For instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive.
Shortly after the video Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and performed flawlessly. Last year Artemis 1 traversed the VABs during its journey to and from the moon.
In common with all gullible believers haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why should he have done?
Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel?
Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”).
When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.” However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six nation's space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions. Three private/commercial missions, Beresheet (hard landing), Hakuto-R (hard landing), and Odysseus (soft landing) have also reached the lunar surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertdujin1365
"yeah it ‘happened’ a couple years later after they were fried to death"
The crew of Apollo 1 lost their lives due to a stray spark that ignited 100% oxygen atmosphere of the capsule, full of flammable material and being internally pressurised, it was impossible to escape through the then inward opening hatch. Grissom was not a lone voice - there were hundreds within the programme, including other astronauts, engineers, contractors and even management that were vocalising their dissent and concerns. Not only that, tragically, if it hadn't been for the Apollo 1 tragedy that ushered in a raft of technical changes and was a watershed in the implementation of safety measures and protocol, it's highly unlikely that NASA would have fulfilled Kennedy's pledge of placing man on the moon by the end of the decade. Stop mindlessly consuming and regurgitating dumb online conspiracy theory about subjects you clearly have zero knowledge and understanding of whatsoever.
"you probably believe that it ‘happened’ because the film was brought to you on TV - and believe science I believed it until I questioned my science teacher when I was 12 and his answers were illogical in hindsight - go figure it’s very hard to ‘disbelieve’ took me years !(!!)"
Because of course the conspiracy theory that you gullibly defer to is is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Known science is not a question of 'belief'. It is evidenced, demonstrable and being axiomatic, has a voice of its own.
"Once I figured out that Governments can lie I was still not convinced that it was a lie don’t know who you are but hope you don’t get too upset when you realise the truth…maybe you just can’t have a nice day!"
Perhaps you should have invested your time figuring out how to punctuate a sentence instead? And yet, you haven't figured out that online conspiracy theorists can lie too?
Of course governments lie - it doesn't take any figuring out and no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. However, simply because they do, that doesn't then follow that any random conspiracy theory of your arbitrary choice or devising must automatically be assumed to be true. Lazy thinking and a syllogistic logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
"a year maybe two years ago was on a program (some talk show type) a skinny young guy was explaining that we have been doing this for a while. He also said that 1% of the population would die, the host worked out that is a lot of people and said out a number. The scientist mocked him and said "oh so you can do math" the host was trying to make the audience gasp but they didn't. Strange interview...i did post it onto social media but sheep said i was a conspiracy nut????"
You are referring to David Keith tallking about the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection on the Colbert Report - and that is not what he said.
"Any how this guy with Joe is getting info from nasa, the same people who say they have lost and forgotten how to get to the moon"
NASA have said nothing of the sort. When Apollo was abandoned due to budget cuts, the technology was left to lie fallow and the expertise went elsewhere. Furthermore, this was based upon 1960s technology that has been outmoded and superseded. See Project Artemis.
"same people who said "here you go heres a moon rock" when really it was just a stone from somewhere in america"
Link? Evidence?
"The same people who took nazi scientist and made nasa what it is today?"
Operation Paperclip involved the assimilation of the rocketry expertise from Nazi Germany into NASAs expanding space programme. Without that, it is questionable whether the moon landings would have taken place during the 1960s as planned. Furthermore, had this not have happened they would have fallen into the hands of the Soviet Union.
"Living rite next to an airport i can confirm some aircraft let of trails and some do not even when at same height"
What does proximity to an airport have to do with anything? Contrails are largely produced at cruise altitudes. How have you established altitude given flight separation minima? Also, the fact that the atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogeneous in terms of temperature, humidity and pressure means that can change within mere seconds and feet.
"i film a lot of stuff"
So do other chemtrail believers. Makes for a whole load of tedious and underwhelming videos compiled from dodgy phone footage of contrails and general meteorological that they don't understand either.
"When the sun rises on a clear day see the amount of aircraft frying across the suns path with trails and just see what happens to the clouds and clear sky"
Yeah, it's called commercial air traffic and there's a lot of it up there.
"Contrails disappear but chemtrails do not"
A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Are you equally as perplexed by variations in cloud cover?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dredwick
I have completely dismantled your posts in the past, highlighting the scientific inaccuracy, assumptions, personal incredulity and other logical fallacies. You completely ignored it.
I am fully familiar with the footage of the departure of Apollo 17's Challenger ascent stage.
How about this? The Apollo Programme has been forensically dissected by entire branches of science and specialist fields and disciplines, investigative and technical journalists and some of the finest minds on the planet for over half a century. The Apollo Programme was completely transparent and there is no engineering project in history of the scale and complexity that has been so ingrained in the public eye and exhaustively covered. In addition to this, in excess of half a century, the physics of every mission profile, every design down to each schematic, specification - to every nut, bolt, switch and circuit breaker has been forensically scrutinised and technically examined worldwide. There are tens of thousands of publications, journal articles/papers and books written on the subject.
The private sector space sector is growing exponentially. Companies such as Blue Origin and Space X and Aerojet Rocketdyne are part of a huge supply chain of consisting of a myriad of contractors, partnerships and stakeholders in Project Artemis. Meanwhile independent organisations such as Intuitive Machines, Advanced Space, Astrobotic, Northrup-Grumman, Venturi Astrolab and many others are making modern lunar missions happen in addition to the 76 other space agencies on the planet. To varying degrees, the work they're doing is predicated upon what was learned during the Apollo missions and this invites large scale investment from stakeholders with serious money on the line who need to be privy to the inner workings of these ventures. There are also companies working on next generation of lunar terrain vehicles for the Artemis missions. They're also basing aspects of their work on the accomplishments of Apollo, specifically data derived from the three rovers on Apollos 15-17, which you also claim to be fake. The professors teaching orbital mechanics at MIT, Purdue, UC Boulder, and other elite universities then spring to mind. They should be alerted, since it's clear that they too have been wasting their time (their work also draws on the achievements of the Apollo program).
It's sad to think that some of the very smartest among us, the thousands and thousands of pioneering minds, scientists, engineers and technologies around the world involved in aerospace are oblivious to these gotchas. Meanwhile we have random, insignificant nobodies such as yourself, that have zero relevance to the real world, with no knowledge or understanding of these subjects whatsoever, squandering their time on internet comments sections and claiming to know better.
Have you at any stage paused to self-reflect, listen to yourself and understand how utterly absurd this is and you are? Do you share this nonsense in the real-world or people that you meet? (Assuming you have any interaction with reality).
1
-
@dredwick
You only have to reply just the once.
I did read what you said and I explained to you why I'm not going to squander my time deconstructing your nonsense again. Having done so in the past on a point by point basis, you simply ignored it and totally disregarded my counterpoints which is what you people do. There is no constructive, discourse, no debate, no concessions with you fools, simply anger, ignorance and arrogance. Confidence is the prize afforded to the mediocre. You top out the Dunning Kruger scale, imagining yourself as a genius, and geniuses dunces. Such is the inverted reality that you construct. A smart person can fake being stupid. A stupid person cannot fake being smart. As you are ample testimony to - increasingly, stupid people actually seem to believe they are smart. "I reject reality and substitute it with my own version." - Every conspiracy theorist ever. I substitute it with what someone else without even a foundational knowledge in science says or what "seems to me". Today, the world is full of subjectivists and relativists who actively sneer at the Truth and proclaim that everyone has their own truth. When you start believing your own truth, your own propaganda, your own bullshit, you become a narcissist.
My reply to your asinine nonsense this time simply illustrated that entire branches of science and specialist disciplines support the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings. That the entire programme was completely transparent throughout and from the physics of the mission profiles, down to every design, every schematic, every specification, every last switch and every nut and bolt and every image and second of footage, it has been exhaustively forensically scrutinised by legitimate areas of expertise and respective fields for in excess of half a century. The lifetime work of venerated and esteemed academics, academic institutions and entire businesses are predicated upon the data and knowledge yielded by the Apollo Programme - nine manned missions to the moon and 6 landings. Yet a random, insignificant, attention seeking gullible conspiracy believer on the comments section of You Tube claims to know better. Does this deter you? Of course it doesn't. As opposed to exercising some humility, some introspection and self-awareness, you arrogantly simply bludgeon on regardless, fuelled by obscene illusory superiority and laughable personal incredulity. You think that you have exposed the lie? Then what in the name of f**k are you doing pissing about on the comments section of You Tube you complete buffoon? I am irrelevant to this exchange. Step outside of social media and your internet bubble and bring your findings into the real world and credible scrutiny and see how far you get. And don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you.
Now go and do something worthwhile and stop wasting bandwidth you ridiculous individual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Absolute nonsense.
Under freedom of information detailed accounts have been made public on the website of the Department of Energy, which has posted the 36-volume, official history of the Manhattan Project, which had been commissioned by General Leslie Groves in late 1944. Among the most intriguing set of documents is the volume about intelligence and security, which reveals:
"Since September 1943, investigations were conducted of more than 1,500 'loose talk' or leakage of information cases and corrective action was taken in more than 1,200 violations of procedures for handling classified material…. Complete security of information could be achieved only by following all leaks to their source."
A lot of informal sharing of information went on between British and American scientists and the Canadians and Belgians government was also privy. The Manhattan Project was a cross between an academic research project and a top secret military project. The scientists were apt to share ideas and results with other scientists without too much regard for security protocols. General Lesley R. Groves did his best to run the Manhattan Project with appropriate military security but with mixed success. Some Manhattan Project scientists had dubious backgrounds, with leftist sympathies all the way up to Communist Party membership, or even worse for America, were foreigners with leftist sympathies. Groves tried to freeze out British participation in the Manhattan Project, in spite of an agreement struck by FDR and Churchill. Groves was mostly successful in limiting information and British participation until 1943 when British complaints reached higher levels. Groves was forced to accept a British delegation at Los Alamos.
The Soviet Union was an ally, of course, but not as close as an ally as Britain. The USSR had spies in the scientific team at Los Alamos, in the engineering teams in OakRidge, and in the theoretical and atomic energy teams around America. Of the atomic spies, Klaus Fuchs, a German emigré physicist who came to the Manhattan Project by way of Britain and worked at Los Alamos did the most damage. He passed details of the gaseous diffusion method for uranium isotope separation, a detailed description of the Fat Man plutonium bomb design, details on the explosive lens in the Fat Man design, details on the neutron initiator of the Fat Man design, early discussions about the feasibility of a fusion bomb and a huge amount of data gleaned from the results of physical measurements of uranium and plutonium.
Theodore Hall an American physicist was privy to details of the Fat Man design and passed them to the Soviets.
George Koval passed on some details of the neutron initiator of the Fat Man bomb to the Soviets.
Alan Nunn May passed samples of uranium 235 and uranium 233 to the Soviets and may have passed some information on reactor design as well.
David Greenglass was a machinist working at Los Alamos and was recruited into the Rosenberg spy ring by his sister, Ethel Rosenberg. Greenglass worked in shop manufacturing the explosive lens for the Fat Man bomb and provided very rough sketches of them to the Soviets. Rudolf Abel was the Soviet master spy in America during the Cold War. He operated under the name of William Fischer. He entered the United States in 1948 and set up an effective ring of agents. His primary assignment was nuclear weapons. He worked with both the Cohens and the Rosenbergs.
None of the above were recruited by the Soviets but contacted Soviet intelligence agents through their own volition and because of their ideological convictions. The Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic bomb during World War II was among the most highly classified and tightly secured programs ever undertaken by the U.S. government. Nevertheless, it generated more than 1,500 leak investigations involving unauthorized disclosures of classified Project information.
There were sporadic inconsequential rumours that made it to the public but overall the public was kept in the dark, except once. Here is a link that describes a serious leak:
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-project-leaks/
Actually there was enough information available to the public prewar on how an atomic bomb would work that a science fiction writer earned a visit from the FBI after he published a short story in a science fiction magazine, 'Astounding Science Fiction', describing the bomb in 1944. The author had already figured figured out there was secret project taking place.
Meanwhile based upon your entirely false premise, chemtrail conspiracy believers would have us believe that the global aviation sector, its ancillaries, every governing body on the planet, every military power together with the entire fields of aerospace engineering, meteorology, atmospheric science and environmental monitoring worldwide have been collectively coerced, coopted and silenced by a single unified programme of international spraying. Meanwhile, they remain completely oblivious to the nonsense strewn across the internet that we can all access but only conspiracy believers are suitably intelligent or 'awake' to understand? - But "compartmentalisation".
Ok then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There's no such thing as Chemtrails they're called SRM Trails solar radiation management"
Incorrect. SRM is entirely hypothetical, with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening and has nothing to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and believers term 'chemtrails'.
"let's take this to a scientific level instead of a conspiracy level"
Yes, lets. Atmospheric science is my background, I'd be delighted to discuss it with you.
"let's look at it scientifically the patent say that spraying aerosol in the stratosphere will cool down the planet there are scientists working on this"
You don't need to look at a patent - patents are not proof of the existence of something, merely the registration of an idea, irrespective of how outlandish that may be. All this research is out in the open anyway - there's nothing secretive - that's how idiotic chemtrail believers that claim to understand it have heard about it, because profiteering fearmongering grifters such as Dane Wigington told them what to think. You are referring to a branch of SRM called SAI, which has not progressed beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. Harvard/Keutsch, who are the chief proponents of this have been waiting five years to have their SCoPEx project ethically approved - and as I understand, this has now been abandoned. This was to consist of a small steerable balloon, launched 20km into the stratosphere in order to release a few kilos of water (and possibly CaCO3, by which to evaluate perturbation. SAI is intended as a last ditch strategy to arrest global temperature rise when all other options have been exhausted. It will never become a reality, not simply due to the logistical challenges, the environmental unknowns and the opposition, but the sheer impossibility of international governance and the issues of legal liability.
"we see plane spraying Over Us in patterns they are spraying aerosols condensacion out of an engine of a plane disappears as fast as the plane is moving"
Does it? Explain why detailing the physical laws that determine this. I won't hold my breath, since you can't even spell 'condensation'.
"what you see lingering are metal sulfate"
Are you equally perplexed by the formation and duration of a cloud?
"Joe look at this scientifically look up speak up I tell you what why don't you debate Dane wigington on this on geoengineering watch you need to give the conspiracy people a good voice and Dane wigington has all his ducks in a row and will shut this guy down come on Joe don't be a p* have Dane wigington on your show"*
Say's that, said this - "let's take this to a scientific level".
Precisely the reason that you think a contrail can't persist is that you choose to allowthe likes of Dane Wigington to supplant for the education that you lack and turn to conspiracy theory as opposed to genuine scientific explanation. Wigington is just another online con artist that has monetised conspiracy theory and career fearmongering. These opportunistic charlatans detract from genuine environmental concerns and global problems.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я
Why do you people attempt to sound informed and authoritative about subjects that you demonstrably don't have the remotest idea about and then expect to be taken seriously? It's excruciatingly embarrassing to read.
"The rover does not fit into the lunar module, it is non-separable."
All three rovers used for the J class missions (Apollo 15, 16 and 17) were folded and stowed into quadrant 1 storage bay of the descent stage of the LM. There is ample footage and many photographs of these being loaded, the release procedure being practiced in mock ups on earth and of the actual deployment on the moon.
"The lunar module does not have correction nozzles after launch, in the video after takeoff it rotates a little and deviates from the course, without nozzle correction you will turn around and fall back."
What on earth are you talking about? The LM had four reaction control thruster quads. Google "Reaction Control System Lunar Module".
"No tanks of fuel, you need several tons of fuel to take off from the moon, for example, 2 tons of gasoline is 3 cubic meters in volume, do you see it on the lunar module? I do not see."
You think the LM used gasoline??? The ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2. You can see the location of the tanks in the schematics/technical specifications or cross-sctional diagram of the ascent stage. The moon has one sixth of the gravity of the earth and no atmospheric resistance. To lift off from its surface, the ascent stage simply needed to overcome that gravity. The force you exert on a surface due to gravity pulling you down is measured in Newtons (N) - this depends on the strength of gravity at a given location - in this case 0.17g. The ascent rocket expelled exhaust gases at Ve = 3.0 x 103 m/s. Its initial mass, including fuel, was 4800 kg. Do the mathematics. with no atmosphere, they could accelerate constantly, get up to speed very quickly and could reach orbit at very low altitude. That's a lot less fuel required. And 0.3g isn't small. In 100 sec, you would be over 600 mph. In 6-7 min you'd have reached orbital velocity. The LM Ascent stage weighed just about 1700 lb on the moon and had a 3500 lbf engine, so it had easily enough thrust.
"The US said they brought hundreds of kilograms of soil."
The Apollo 17 mission returned the highest: 741 individual rock and soil samples totaling 110.5 kilograms. What's your point?
"They tell us that they brought a non-separable rover there (large mass) and then brought soil from the moon. This is nonsense for idiots."
Well let's see. In over half a century entire branches of science such as physics and geology, related specialist fields including aerospace engineering worldwide, 76 other Space Agencies, independent nations, Nobel Prize winning physicists and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists all accept the authenticity of the moon landings. Meanwhile, you, a random insignificant scientifically illiterate conspiracy believer posting nonsensical arguments from personal incredulity over the comments section of a video entertainment platform doesn't. To whom to afford credence? Tough one that.
Quick tip - it's not a bad idea to learn, at the very least, even some very basic facts about something before you brand it as fake and others infinitely more accomplished and intelligent that yourself as 'idiots' - don't you think? Of course you don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonsensicaltimes780
Thanks for your reply.
"funny. I don't remember it happening in the 90's or try he 2000's."
I do. Which is precisely why contrary to your beliefs and flawed anecdotal recollections, persistent contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"So did the add something to the fuel to allow the water to stay in vapor form?"
Water vapour is an invisible gas. Contrails are condensed water vapour.
"They should not be able to maintain that shape for hour. 8ts water correct? Guess the the Sun doesn't evaporate only certain planes."
You're going to have an awkward time explaining a cirrus could then.
Contrails do not evaporate - they sublimate back into water vapour but are unable to do so in conditions of high Rhi or supersaturation.
"Patents are very hard to find unless you know the number. It takes hardly any effort to see that we have researched the technology, used it in foreign countries and domestically."
What technology?
"If the mixture of the fuel is different, why not mention that. The engines haven't changed."
Actually, yes they have. Modern high bypass turbofan engines are far more efficient than their turbojet predecessors and have a higher contrail factor.
"Our atmosphere has become thinner so there will be less density as well."
What??????
"It's not a crazy idea. We are about release a interface to use our thoughts to communicate with computers. But we couldn't add salts to the air to aid in blocking sunlight? It's been a talking point for over a decade now."_*
Absolutely not, there is currently a large volume of research into this, but Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is purely hypothetical and would likely deploy similar sulphates to those volcanic aerosols that it seeks to emulate.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
@nonsensicaltimes780
No, it's the basic physics of cloud formation - and to reiterate, a contrail does not evaporate, it sublimates, back into water vapour which is an invisible gas. And even so, how can a vapour as you claim evaporate?
To clarify again, contrails are condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals. The fact that they can expand, increase in mass and merge has been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation. Seriously, if you don't know any of this, then genuinely, why are you commenting?
In 'Flight to Arras' the legendary French aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's widely available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallises the watery vapour in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favourable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is five decades old:
'Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget' published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970)
Here's another one from 48 years ago. This is an actual in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
Measurements in the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persistent Contrail,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
The science is explained for you here...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/4/1520-0469_2000_057_0464_ottoci_2.0.co_2.xml
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kyplummer3657
"So you think that since you’re calling Geo engineering technology that only possess knowledge of that you’re I know youll love this Wikedpedia link and you can make fun of it all you want"
Why would I make fun of it? Did you actually read this? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is simply one branch of geoengineering and as a purely hypothetical concept existing solely in the province of research proposal and computer modelling. Since it is intended to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and must also utilise planetary circulation systems it must there for be deployed in equatorial locations due to the BDC and meridional cells in the tropics. For these injections to remain in the atmosphere and not be disrupted by the troposphere this means an altitude of 20km, double that of the trails that you are observing. To clarify again, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of the latter
So, given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and for that reason there is not aircraft in existence with the capability to loft the requisite materials (of which there is no agreement upon) to the designated altitudes (65,000 - 75,000ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"I’m not going do research for you dude"
At what point did you ever presume that I would want you to? As we have amply established, you don't even know the meaning of the word.
"I’ve already agreed in the first video you’re trying to make something out of nothing bc you think it makes you have a sense of humor or something"
Incorrect. I challenged your erroneous and ill informed comment which to remind you was this...
"There has been some evidence and admission of this taking place"
- Referring to a video featuring misidentified contrails. Oh, hang on...
"I already agreed with you the conspiracy is based on miss identification but I said it does happen"
What "does happen". All that you have provided is the usual false equivalence.
"so are you denying that it does or not because you’ve never answered"
What does? I have made my position abundantly clear. If you wish to term such activities such as research into SRM or cloud seeding operations as 'chemtrails' then more fool you. To reiterate, we are discussing misidentified contrails.
"why don’t you post your amazing credentials since you’re out here trying to save the Internet."
I'm not "trying" to do anything of the sort - simply correcting you on your misconceptions, that's all. Hardly a challenging undertaking.
"Why don’t you explain some of these advanced technologies that only you can understand. They spray the shit from planes don’t they? Just not commercial airliners correct?"
What technologies are you referring to? - what 'shit' are you referring to? Who precisely are "they"?
"Contrails have been Understood for many years long before you figured them out all on your own."
As I explained to you on the other thread. Contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, filmed, photographed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and the best part of 80 years. I am irrelevant. The science has a voice of its own and speaks for itself. Why don't you listen?
So your "samples from many different sources" - what are you referring to? Present one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I thought you were smarter than this and had more common sense & critical thinking skills."
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
"Literally many people from the military have exposed it. It hasn’t been kept a secret."
Name just one.
"Dozens of NASA’s scientists have died under suspicious deaths for reasons. Over 80 of them over a short period of time around the Apollo 11 & other missions."
Such as?
"You should know better. You still believe they went to the moon with NO proof and more proof it didn’t happen."
The scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the Apollo moon landings that you are clearly completely ignorant of is incontrovertible, manifest, demonstrable and has a voice of its own. None of this is a question of "belief".
"Not to mention they landed in 2024 and knew better not to try to fake video & images again so they didn’t even take pics or videos with the ability in technology today that could easily debunk it again if they tried."
What on Earth are you referring to? IM?
"My daughter in the Air Force wouldn’t say a word, but informed us she had a major secret she can’t wait to tell us and told us she would tell us something when she was no longer in her top security military position bound by secrecy. When she left the military years later it was the first thing out of her mouth and she said thousands of people do know this, but also bound by secrecy and terrified consequences. Those who have told are called crazy. You should know this by now."
Anecdotal horseshit.
"why didn’t NASA in 2024 take a single photo or video?"
Again, you appear to be referring to IM.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and NASA gave NONE!"
Hilarious that you are unwittingly parroting Carl Sagan's rewording of Laplace, whilst also being completely oblivious that he was referring to you and your ilk.
"Wake up please."
Never ceased to amuse that those that insist on still regurgitating this cringeworthy cliché are the ones that slept through science classes.
"Clearly you have not researched the utter ridiculousness that expose the landings."
Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sigh. This again. Really? It strikes me that your supposed 'chemtrails' are whatever you want them to be.
You are referring to ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security". Why? Because chemtrail conspiracy theorists appropriated the footage and stuck the word 'chemtrails' in the title and you are clearly too gullible and dim to question it.
Had you have actually listened to the speech you'd understand that Brennan was discussing future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan wasn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of potential the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can provide you with a transcription if you wish. Research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection has never been secretive or denied. It is in the interest of those conducting it to publicise their work in order to generate funding and support and it's the reason you know about it in the first place (albeit through dumb chemtrail conspiracy videos). How precisely do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied?
SAI is a hypothetical concept which has yet to progress beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. It will never become a reality because in addition to the environmental unknowns, international governance would be an impossibility. It also has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that dim witted scientific illiterates term 'chemtrails'. It would need to be conducted at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and wouldn't leave a trail in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulsansonetti7410
"nobody that watches it still thinks we put men on the moon"
You are incorrect - anyone with a modicum of objective appraisal and even the most limited critical faculty could immediately see through this garbage, but the reason for your misconception is due to that fact that 99% of people that waste their time on this nonsense are either conspiracy believers looking for confirmation bias and reinforcement, such as yourself, or those with zero knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo programme - again, such as yourself.
"The idea is actually quite absurd"
Your personal incredulity has no bearing upon reality.
"But thanks for your thorough, logical and factual rebuttal"
So you took umbrage to the fact that I merely emulated your own asinine comment which to remind you was this....
"America went to the moon ?
Hahaha hahaha hahaha"
It's ok for you to troll this video, but don't you people absolutely hate it when you get a taste of your own medicine?
I have watched it - several times. Like I said, assuming that you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam. Clearly you lack the will or the capability to independently verify what you are told. You only have to look at the fact that it's made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
"Grow a brain"
Said the online conspiracy believer.
"or consume a phallus"
Like you did sucking up to a fraud like Mazzucco?
1
-
1
-
@skyejacques
"Someone I met did freedom of information requests from hospitals days after he would record the chem trails in sky. The respiratory admissions numbers increased considerably to make a pattern."
Are you seriously unable to see the multiple logical fallacies present in this statement?
"Also, they don't want us to have sunlight. Here in London. Always grey. When it's sunny, they spray."
Overcast in the UK? Surely not.
So when it's clear and clouds over you naturally conclude that "they" are spraying. Contrails are frequently a precursor of an incoming front. As such, they are the consequence of such conditions not the cause - together with the clouds that follow.
"When all airplanes were grounded during the first so called saving measure of people getting the flu, these planes still were active daily in South London, spraying."
But "all airplanes" were not grounded. Cargo, freight and to a lesser extent PAX services were still being flown - and what do you mean, "the flu" - omicron may have mutated into something similar, but Alpha was a completely novel and dangerous respiratory vial infection of the lung, from which there was no protection globally.
"People were so programmed, no one looked up at the sky in the park I was. No one."
You shouldn't be so supercilious. Perhaps they actually understand what an aircraft contrail is and that they have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. Not everyone gullibly and uncritically accommodates junk online pseudoscience and conspiracy theory simply becasue they have an internet connection. Irony being, you think those that don't are "programmed".
"People don't look up."
You'll find that the entire fields of meteorology, atmospheric science and aviation science do precisely that - as do I. My field is ground based remote sensing, so not only can I tell you what you are looking at, I can show you how to measure it too.
"Just like that Illuminati movie that's mocking us."
The people that are taking the piss are the opportunistic and cynical perpetrators of this nonsense that profit out of the impressionable, the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SebSosa
You are simply seeing contrails - all of this is routinely explained by basic meteorological science and the fact that chemtrails are a physical and mathematical impossibility. Think about the weight of trails - particularly those that stretch from horizon to horizon and the millions of lbs of material contained in them versus the MTOW of the aircraft producing them. Then ask yourself what chemical when sprayed can expand and increase in mass in the same way as condensed atmospheric water vapour?
You are referring to the ex Director of the CIA John Brennan as a guest voluntary speaker at the Council on Foreign Nations (a thinktank). His theme was 'Transitional Threats to Global Security'. This has been dishonestly appropriated and titled by chemtrail conspiracy theorists who have posted a series of videos claiming that the speech relates to 'chemtrails'. Brennan is actually discussing future issues that may result in global instability. As part of this, her refers to research into a branch of geoengineering called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is entirely hypothetical and has nothing to do with 'weather modification'. This would aim to arrest global temperatures by replicating the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to the impossibility of international policy and governance, there are also the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SAI in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about the implications of anti-ageing technologies.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the potential misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can refer you to a full transcription of Brennan's speech if you wish. Two more things, SAI has never been secretive - so how precisely do you admit to something that isn't denied? Secondly, SAI has nothing to do with contrails you are seeing and would need to be conducted at double the altitude. It wouldn't result in a visible trail either.
The Dimming? You just referred me to an internet conspiracy movie made by the main perpetrator of the chemtrail hoax Dane Wigington. It's replete with lies, scientific inaccuracy, deception and false equivalence. Why not just objectively learn about aviation and the meteorology/ atmospheric science instead of relying on opportunistic frauds such as Wigington?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DoctorSess
"the U.S. has already confirmed stratospheric aerosol programs being conducted for the past three decades."
Source?
No it hasn't confirmed anything of the sort - and why are you changing the subject? SAI is a hypothetical branch of Solar Radiation Management. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers misidentify as 'chemtrails'. SAI has yet to graduate beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. There is a small scale trail planned called SCoPeX, but this has been repeatedly postponed for the last three years due to ethical approval. It plans to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere, release a few litres of water and possibly on subsequent flights several kilos of CaCO3 to evaluate perturbation and reflectivity. SAI will never be conducted - not simply due to the environmental unknowns or logistical challenges, but owing to the impossibilities of international governance and legal complexities/ramifications.
“Chemtrails” is misinformation. They aren’t spraying chemicals they are spraying metal particulate in the stratosphere. The public doesn’t seem to be aware of just how rapidly the climate is collapsing. It’s a last ditch effort."
There is no agreement over what materials would best achieve the objective of replicating the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Were it ever to be practiced, which it won't - it is likely that sulphates would be employed, but as I said, CaCO3 also has captured the interest of researchers.
Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
@DoctorSess
Thanks for your prompt reply.
No they didn't. To reiterate, SAI has never graduated beyond laboratory research and computer modelling. Actually, there was the SPICE project some years ago, which I think from memory employed a very modest field trial - again involving a balloon, but this was promptly cancelled due to a lack of funding.
It isn't 'old news' at all. SAI is not practiced, is entirely hypothetical and like I said, will never become a reality due to the sheer impossibility of international governance.
Regarding links, some pages still do depending upon spam filter settings, but generally this one does not. No problem. Find this supposed confirmation and then give me the keywords and the date and you can refer me to it.
I'll ask you again. Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... what precisely is your point?
1
-
@DoctorSess
"You’re obviously not as familiar or educated as you believe you are. They’ve been injecting sulphates into the stratosphere for years. CIA director John Brennan confirmed it in his address to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2016."
This again...really?
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it the ridiculous misleading chemtrail conspiracy videos that deceptively appropriated the footage and added the title 'chemtrails' to it. The former Director of the CIA John Brennan delivered a voluntary speech to the COFN, (a thinktank) entitled 'Transnational Threats to Global Security' in which he discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An proposed SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and as I explained, has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or 'confirming; that it is in progress at all, on the contrary, he is warning about the future implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan confirms that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection "has been injecting sulphates for years", (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can direct you to a full transcription of his speech if you wish. You'll find that you can't bluff me that easily mate. Go ahead - please quote the relevant passage.
"Department of Defense reports confirmed it in documents obtained by Mark Rendon through the FOI act in 2017. Now civilian entities are following suit."
Again, precise passage and reference please as requested. You seem to think that simply saying something over the internet makes it true. Now substantiate it.
"Bill Gates and Harvard university have the SCOPEX project that started in 2019 which utilizes CaCO3 (calcium carbonate). You’re in denial."
Seriously - do you have serious comprehension difficulties? That would explain much. One of the first things that I directed you to in my replies was SCoPEx and the possible deployment of a few kilos of CaCO3. Look back at my replies and look it up now. You'll find it under the Keutsch/Harvard group who spearhead global research into the proposal. The intention is to progress the research into a small scale trial using a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere to evaluate perturbation and reflectivity. It has consistently been postponed due to ethical approval. It doesn't use CaCO3 at all - it proposes the use of it and following the release of small amounts of water, subsequent flights may release a few kilos for this purpose. I've already explained this to you. All you have to do is look at the page which tells you that SAI has not progressed beyond laboratory research and computer modelling. Also, Bill Gates has nothing to do with the research beyond providing initial funding and lending vocal support. Genuinely, what's wrong with you?
"Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is no longer theoretical, it’s been implemented for some time."
No it hasn't. As I said, it would help if you actually read the sources that you are quoting. Perhaps start with SCoPEx.
"SCoPEx is a scientific experiment to advance understanding of stratospheric aerosols that could be relevant to solar geoengineering. It aims to improve the fidelity of simulations (computer models) of solar geoengineering by providing modelers with experimental results vital to addressing specific science questions. Such simulations are the primary tool for estimating the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering, but current limitations may make the simulations look too good."
"In the future, if a science flight is approved by the independent Advisory Committee, we plan to release calcium carbonate, a common mineral dust. We may also release other materials such as sulfates in response to evolving scientific interests."
"It’s efficacy is still up for debate as are it’s impacts on the environment and fauna. The conspiracy theorists were (half) right."
Again, precisely as I explained, and it is impossible to gain approval until these are fully evaluated - however, the major insurmountable challenge is the legal implications and international governance which is why it will never be employed.
Half right about what??? You still haven't answered my question. Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
Now please provide the precise quote and reference in which John Brennan 'confirms that "they’ve been injecting sulphates into the stratosphere for years"; the extract from the Department of Defence Reports you are referring to and your clam that SCoPEx has been utilising CaCO3 since 2019. SCoPEx is a planned small scale trail which has yet to take place.
In your own time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the SLS essentially being the Shuttle’s 'first stage', with a 2nd stage and capsule on top, instead of a Shuttle strapped to it. In other words, all the stuff that went wrong being used to get back to the moon!"
The core stage of the SLS is entirely new and designed by Boeing - interestingly at the same repurposed plant that assembled the S-IC. Yes, it employs the RS-25 engines and SRBs, but the former are the most tested and reliable rockets on the planet, whilst the latter are significantly upgraded. Not sure what you meant by 'went wrong'? The RS-25s were workhorses of the programme and performed very highly. The SRB failure was caused by the decision to flout advice from Morton Thiokol and as you said, under heavy pressure from Congress, for NASA to launch Challenger in spite of the very low temperatures. The SLS is designed to be a heavy lift capability to reach low earth orbit. Getting back to the moon is the responsibility of the ICPS which performs TLI and a J2-S engine derived from Apollo performs the orbital insertion burns and TLE.
The inherent problem with the shuttle was the prone position that the orbiter sat at during launch meaning that it was vulnerable to debris strikes such as the ET insulation foam that doomed Columbia.
The lack of an escape system was also concerning and the initial ejection seats (disabled after STS-4 and removed by STS-61-C) only had a very brief window of operation during launch and descent and too heavy to equip for an crew of five in the flight deck whilst obviously being impossible for those seated in the mid deck. Although the Shuttle never performed any of the in-flight abort modes beyond ATO (STS-51-F), John Young said that the one thing that kept him awake at night was the slim prospect of performing RTLS successfully.
Yes, I agree entirely that SRBs are worrying, but mainly because once lit, they can't be shut down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This again? Seriously, how many times? Don Petit never said anything of the sort you complete clown.
Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase - "destroyed". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those that parrot their nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of it's commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes, far cheaper and without the risk. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?...over and over and over again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Oh really pal, than why does flu season happen at the same time ever year?"
It doesn't. That would depend upon geographical location. In the USA, the Northern Hemisphere is generally defined as October to May, in the Southern Hemisphere, May to October. The peaks may be at any period within this. Influenza is a viral respiratory illness. A virus is a microscopic infectious agent that invades the cells of your body and makes you sick. Research in guinea pigs has shown that the aerosol transmission of the virus is enhanced when the air is cold and dry, even its name, “influenza” may be a reference to its original Italian name, influenza di freddo, meaning “influence of the cold”. A common misconception is that the flu is caused by cold temperatures. However, the influenza virus is necessary to have the flu, so cold temperatures can only be a contributing factor. There is strong evidence that the lack of sunlight or the different lifestyles people lead in winter months are the primary contributing factors. During the winter, people spend more time indoors with the windows sealed, so they are more likely to breathe the same air as someone who has the flu and thus contract the virus. Days are shorter during the winter, and lack of sunlight leads to low levels of vitamin D and melatonin, both of which require sunlight for their generation. This compromises our immune systems, which in turn decreases ability to fight the virus.
"You're just ad crooked as the government lol. Trying to cover their asses."
This is a discussion about aircraft contrails. If you wish to contend that those long white lines that you don't understand in the wake of commercial aircraft six to eight miles above your head that have been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight are responsible for spreading the influenza virus, then do by all means present your evidence. Just the one epidemiological longitudinal study that demonstrates causality would be a great place to start.
"Trust me when I say......I do know too much. :)"
The unintentional irony at this point is off the scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@80sbeginner
"I'm only talking about Newton's second law."
No you aren't. You're simply regurgitating what some online grifter told you to think in the deluded belief that junk online conspiracy theory substitutes and supplants for the education that eluded you in life. And thanks, but I'll stick to what nature, and entire branch of evidence based science and Newton himself has to say about that as opposed to listening to a very dim and impressionable individual trying to sound clever on the comments section of You Tube - if it's all the same to you.
"you got an answer"
No I didn't, you avoided it like the clap because that's what you goons always do.
"I don't need to talk about anything else to disprove the heliocentric model."
Let me help you there, because you're terribly confused. What you actually need to do, (as opposed to gorging on a junk diet of crap conspiracy channels that tell you what to say over social media or internet comments sections), is, in the first instance, undertake a doctoral thesis. Heads up - you'll soon discover that you're not going to gain much in the way of approbation, credence and progress in academic circles by relying upon the likes of David Weiss, William Guzmann and Nathan Oakley as your references, you will need to gain your own credibility generating your own literature and corpus of work. So, you are going to need to produce your own methodology, ontology, data and novel outputs yourself. While you're doing that, publish some papers in Q1 scientific journals, raise your academic profile, generate favourable peer review, present your work as a keynote speaker at conferences and concentrate on increasing your H-index. Defending your work through your ineluctable logic, adherence to the scientific method, integrity, rigour and reproducibility and mathematical axioms will then allow you to leverage your research and in so doing falsify Newton's second law of motion/F - ma, thereby overturning tens of thousands of experiments and the data yielded, and with it, the entire branch of science known as physics and in the process, toppling the very edifice of evidence based scientific knowledge that would then need to be rebuilt from scratch. And as I said - don't forget to claim your Nobel Prize.
Alternatively, you can continue to preen and posture on the internet, deluding yourself that your hopeless trolling has any meaning or impact on the real world or that a subscription to MarkKSargant makes you sound informed and clever in the walled garden that you cower in.
"you have trouble focusing on the topic of the discussion."
I am irrelevant to your contention. Like I said, go out there and prove physics wrong. Regarding the topic of discussion, the changes that a force can exert on a body is validated by Newton's quantitative description, and yes this is measurable is demonstrated by nature - as opposed to some feeble minded tool with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it properly.
Now, in your own words, and without resorting to clowns like Nathan Oakley, explain how plate tectonics work on a flat Earth in addition to the magnetosphere. When you've done that account for the observed geodesic which is the foundation of global navigation.
1
-
@80sbeginner
"I researched the subject of Newton's second law by myself, without anyone's help."
Of course you did, clever lad. Now forgive me if I defer to observable nature, an entire branch of science called physics and Netwon himself over a gullible conspiracy believer and jumped up egotistical nobody on the comments section of a video entertainment platform - the village idiot that found a voice through an internet connection that they don't know how to use responsibly.
"I haven't seen anyone in the flat earth movement talking about this issue. I'm the only one talking exclusively about this topic."
"The flat earth community". And through taking that seriously, you yourself expect to be taken seriously? These people are grifters. None of them believe the nonsense they spout. They are simply opportunistic con artists harvesting gullibility and stupidity for profit and their own gain - and you are their target market.
In which case, to return to my original question, why are you frittering your time away posting useless comments on You Tube? If you maintain that a force can't be measured or that f=ma is incorrect, then get yourself off your lazy arse, go out there, take on the world, publish and defend your findings, falsify Isaac Newton and in the process subvert and demolish the entire edifice and centuries of of scientific understanding. What are you waiting for?
"you are a liar, your response is complete garbage."
To reiterate, the unintentional irony is as hilarious as it is staggering.
And to also clarify for you again, simply saying something over the internet accounts for f**k all. You need to demonstrate why.
1
-
@80sbeginner
"the right question is - why are you wasting your precious time on me?"
As I explained, I find you and your ilk hilarious. Don't underestimate your comic value, unintentional as it is. As I also explained, since you are the one that is making the claims, not me, I am irrelevant to this exchange. Don't you have an entire branch of science to challenge?
"if all I write is bullshit, then no one will pay attention to me, right?"
Correct - you're beginning to get it now. Which is why you are completely ignored accounting for nothing in the real world, have achieved nothing of worth in your miserable life and are forced to compensate through trolling comments sections consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiracy theory which feeds your illusory superiority, massages your ego and makes you feel special. I find that hilarious.
"it's a fact that my comments cause globist trolls/paid shills/professional liars to respond to me non-stop."
That's the second time that you've managed to misspell 'globalist'. Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
"I must be doing a good job"
Of making a complete tit our of yourself on the internet? That's the first thing that you've said that is correct.
"I'll keep up this good work. I'll continue to tell the truth in many videos similar to this one. I do everything for free, no one should pay me for this, the truth is very important to me and I will tell it all the time."
Get you! Brave lad. And rational people will continue to lampoon you. Next step, like I said, at some stage, grow some nads, stop pissing about ineptly trolling the comments section of You Tube, publish your mathematical data, falsify Newton and revolutionise centuries of evidence based science and our understanding of nature. What are you so afraid of?
"you will continue to type your arrogant comments and that's fine."
Is unintentional irony a national sport where you come from?
"I'm not excited about you at all."
Frankly, I'm immensely gratified to hear it. And to reiterate again, I am irrelevant to this exchange and your ludicrous claims, just as you are irrelevant to the real world. You think otherwise? Go our there, prove Newton wrong and undermine an entire branch of science called physics in the process. What's the problem?
While you're at it, reconcile plate tectonics and the magnetosphere with your flat Earth model and account for why the geodesic is fundamental to global navigation.
Off you go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@80sbeginner
"I don't have to answer any of your questions. I didn't have to answer you in my previous comment either."
No you don't have to answer my questions but your inability, incapability and unwillingness says it all. If you wish to suggest that Isaac Newton was incorrect or that tectonic plates don't exist then you need to demonstrate why, otherwise your claims are utterly worthless.
There is no debate about the shape of the world."
Correct, there is no debate about the shape of the world.
"you don't have one proof that you live on a spinning ball and you never will."
The evidence that the world is a spherical and revolves on its axis is manifest and ineluctable. As I suggested, you think otherwise - get your lazy trolling arse out of your armchair, off You Tube and overturn science. What are you so scared of? I am irrelevant to this exchange.
"you mistakenly think that you are running the show here in this thread that I created."
Get you! What you actually did was post a series of asinine parroted comments, troll that you are. Unfortunately for you, the You Tube comments section has a reply feature and don't you people simply loath that? The only thing that you have created here is an opportunity for your own humiliation - and I will continue to laugh at your expense.
"you have no proof that force is equal to mass times acceleration and you never will have such proof."
Again, to reiterate, I am irrelevant. Newton an entire branch of science called physics in addition to observable nature proves you wrong. What's stopping you falsifying this instead of poncing about on the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
"you are wasting your time responding to me obsessively."
You are wasting your time trolling obsessively. Don't you have papers to publish? Conferences to attend? A Nobel Prize to claim or are you content ineptly re-writing your childish alternative lyrics to Madonna songs instead?
"surely you have some hobbies, go and enjoy your hobbies that's good advice from me."
Said the online troll and gullible conspiracy believer.
You claim that the Earth is flat. How do you account for known plate margins, seismicity, volcanicity and continental drift? How you reconcile plate tectonics and the magnetosphere with your flat Earth model and explain why the geodesic is fundamental to global navigation? Why aren't you out there proving this in addition to falsifying Isaac Newton instead of wasting your time posting bollocks on the comments section of a video entertainment platform? Why are you making claims that you are unable to defend or substantiate?
1
-
@80sbeginner
"it's funny you call me a troll"
You are the very definition of one as your posts and behaviour on this video are testament to.
"the content of my channel shows that I can't be a troll. the amount of people following my channel shows that I can't be a troll."
That has absolutely zero bearing on your decision to act like one.
"the content of your channel and of hundreds of globist trolls like you that I have come across, shows what you know, which is basically nothing."
That'll be the third time that you've misspelt 'globalist'. Looks like you're also having great difficulty understanding privacy settings that a child could comprehend.
To reiterate, I am irrelevant. You are the one making the claims. Knowledge is not defined by whatever crap you choose to deposit on a You Tube channel, neither is the real world. So why are you squandering your time on a video entertainment platform when you could be out there falsifying science? You have yet to answer this question. Instead of your worthless channel, could you refer me to your publications?
"in the world of lies you live in, you can invent fake equations and say they are true, without providing a single proof."
On the contrary - in the real world science is evidence based and those equations that you don't understand are axiomatic.
Why are you so terrified of it?
"everything is opposite with you, everything is opposite from the truth."
Again, no use saying it - demonstrate how. If you are unable to do so, your statements are worthless. You claim that the Earth is flat. How do you account for known plate margins, seismicity, volcanicity and continental drift? How you reconcile plate tectonics and the magnetosphere with your flat Earth model and explain why the geodesic is fundamental to global navigation? Why aren't you out there proving this in addition to falsifying Isaac Newton instead of wasting your time posting bollocks on the comments section of a video entertainment platform? Why are you making claims that you are unable to defend or substantiate?
"keep quoting me."
Absolutely troll. I am relishing your humiliation. It's akin to a tortuous slow death. You should do the honourable thing and put yourself out of your misery.
1
-
@80sbeginner
That's six times now that you have failed to spell globalist correctly. This is so easy.
Isaac Newton understood that the force acting on an object is equal to the mass of an object times its acceleration. This means the more mass an object has, the more force you need to accelerate it. And the greater the force, the greater the object's acceleration. This is observable in nature. And you are incorrect again - he was able to measure force and the experiment devised to do so is detailed in the Scholium to Axioms and the Principa. Why don't you know this? Also for equations to be accepted, they must be axiomatic.
I'll ask you again - if you wish to "convince" people, then why are you cowering on You Tube wasting your time comically and ineptly rewriting the lyrics to Madonna songs? If you believe that you are able to falsify Newton's second law of motion, why haven't you done it? Why haven't you published your mathematics overturning this and claimed your Nobel Prize? In so doing toppling the entire edifice, the very pillars of science and the "most horrible lie in human history" will come crashing down. Quick tip though - might be an idea to learn to spell "globalist" before you do.
And you have yet to answer my other questions. If tectonic plates don't exist, then how do you explain seismicity, volcanicity, the Mid Atlantic ridge, continental drift? How does your flat earth account for the magnetosphere or the geodesic which is fundamental to navigation?
Go ahead then. If you can't address these simple questions then how are you going to defeat "the...freemasons!!! (insert dramatic music) and Satan's emissaries?
And your point about "fantasy" was?
1
-
@80sbeginner
"no, he didn't understand it, he invented this garbage."
Incorrect. Newton's laws are observable, demonstrable and reproducible.
"it's a lie."
The Principia and the Scholium to Axioms? Go ahead and demonstrate it then instead of pissing about on You Tube writing shit alternative lyrics to Madonna songs like the child you are.
"Isaac Newton never measured 'force'."
Yes he did, and the full details of the experimentation demonstrates how. He measured acceleration as well, and we can do both today which fully validates his findings.
"there is no such thing as 'force', no such variable that is independent."
Er, ok, you need to understand at some stage that simply saying so on the internet accounts for nothing. Again, go out there and prove this.
"to know 'force' you must know both the object's mass and the object's 'acceleration'"
He was able to extrapolate both - again, just as we can today.
"mass times 'acceleration' is not 'force', mass times 'acceleration' is a meaningless result, and any intellectually honest person can easily understand this."
So, acceleration and force are different things; the former, a rate of change of velocity, the latter, a strength of an interaction on the other hand. Both are quantifiable and the way we calibrate our force measurements involves knowing about accelerations of known masses. This is basic high school material that any intellectually honest individual can comprehend. Unfortunately, you are neither intellectual or honest, you are nothing more than a gullible fool, indoctrinated by multiple You Tube channels of complete horseshit that harvest utter stupidity and those that naively the nonsensical content supplants and compensates for the education that eluded them and make them sound informed and clever.
"all you have are just words in a book written in Latin hundreds of years ago."
Nope, we have mathematics which has a voice of its own. The Principia is one of the most important works in the history of science. You maintain otherwise, stop being a useless clown on You Tube and go out there and falsify it.
"you don't have any proof and you never will."
Incorrect again - Newton's laws are supported by not only mathematics, but reality and observable nature in addition to an entire branch of science called physics. Personally, I'll take that over a hopeless troll and a clueless conspiracy addled cretin that thinks their You Tube channel makes them credible in life and compensates for their insignificant existence and lack of achievement.
You have avoided my questions yet again. If you believe that you are able to falsify Newton's second law of motion, why haven't you done it? Why haven't you published your mathematics overturning this and claimed your Nobel Prize? In so doing, toppling the entire edifice, the very pillars of science and as a consequence the "most horrible lie in human history" will come crashing down. Just a hunch, but you're going to need slightly more than some ineptly adapted lyrics to 'Papa Don't Preach'.
Also, if tectonic plates don't exist, then how do you explain seismicity, volcanicity, the Mid Atlantic ridge, continental drift? How does your flat earth account for the magnetosphere or the geodesic which is fundamental to navigation?
Go ahead.
1
-
@80sbeginner
"Today there is no measuring device that works according to Newton's second law."
Yes so you keep saying. Doesn't alter the fact that indeed there is - it's called a force metre - the clue is in the name.
"*All you have are words, you have no proof."*
Do you have a black belt seventh dan in unintentional irony?
To reiterate, I am irrelevant. You are contesting known evidence based empirical science, mathematical axioms and observable nature. To reiterate, I'll go with that if it's all the same to you as opposed to a stream of drivel from a ludicrous dumb conspiracy believer, completely divorced from reality and seeking refuge from the real world by inhabiting and cowering within someone else's fantasies.
"I'm starting to wonder if you're a professional liar who knows the truth that we don't live on a spinning ball, but you're putting on some ridiculous show here with all these quotes."
I'm merely quoting your idiocy and your own words - so in that respect, yes, it is as you correctly say, a ridiculous show.
You have avoided my questions yet again. If you believe that you are able to falsify Newton's second law of motion, why haven't you done it? Why haven't you published your mathematics overturning this and claimed your Nobel Prize? In so doing, toppling the entire edifice, the very pillars of science and as a consequence the "most horrible lie in human history" will come crashing down. Just a hunch, but you're going to need slightly more than some ineptly adapted lyrics to 'Papa Don't Preach'.
Also, if tectonic plates don't exist, then how do you explain seismicity, volcanicity, the Mid Atlantic ridge, continental drift? How does your flat earth account for the magnetosphere or the geodesic which is fundamental to navigation? What are you so scared of?
All you have is words and no proof - but even those fail you when you are asked a straight question.
1
-
1
-
@80sbeginner
_"you said the word CALCULATED. to calculate IS NOT to measure. to measure something, means, it's a variable in itself that can be measured,
Spectacularly wrong. The measurement of force is derived by a simple calculation once we have obtained the values of mass and acceleration. Are you really this dim or are you simply a Poe?
"it's not a variable that is calculated using an imaginary and invented equation."
So at what stage are you gong to point that out to an entire branch of physics that have failed to notice this genius?
"in the pseudo-science you admire so much, you accept the word "calculate" as if it were real physics."
A calculation is simply to determine the amount or quantity of something.
"the rate of change of velocity with respect to time". in other words, "final velocity minus initial velocity, divided by time." why?"
So that we can establish the rate of change in velocity.
"your intellectual dishonesty is insane."
And as I have shown, you are neither intellectual or dishonest. You are simply a very silly man with an internet connection that doesn't know how to use it responsibly.
"our topic of conversation is force equal to mass times acceleration, as described in Isaac Newton's 1687 book."
Nope. To remind you, your original OP was the following.
"no one has ever been to the moon. no one has ever been in space. we don't live on a spinning ball. the heliocentric model is rubbish."
I have repeatedly asked you to explain your flat earth model through a series of questions that you don't know how to answer.
"the gravitation constant was calculated only in 1798 by Henry Cavendish, in an equation DERIVED FROM Newton's second law."
Newton's second law states that the net external force acting on an object is responsible for the acceleration of the object. If air resistance is negligible, the net external force on a falling object is only the gravitational force (i.e., the weight of the object). The first direct measurement of gravitational attraction between two bodies in the laboratory was indeed performed in 1798, Cavendish. He determined a value for G implicitly, using a torsion balance. Again, why aren't you out there falsifying all this?
(Incidentally, your caps lock key is intermittently malfunctioning).
"I have already proved to you that Newton's second law equation is rubbish"
Simply parroting a flat earth video over an internet comments section is not 'proof'. To reiterate again, I am irrelevant to this exchange. Why aren't you out there overturning centuries of evidence based established science as opposed to making a complete tit out of yourself on You Tube? We both know the answer to that one.
"but you ,of course, like all globist trolls and professional liars, simply ignore my proof and continue with your nonsense."
The only thing of note that you've managed in this entire thread is to misspell 'globalist' seven times now. And you wonder why I enjoy bating you so much.
"you are talking to me about what happened more than a century after the invention of the rubbish equation."
We can also talk about what has happened three hundred and thirty years later. Or the fact that as the bedrock of classical physics Newton's laws of motion have yet to be falsified. What are you waiting for?
"that's right, the same rubbish equation F=ma. the same rubbish equation that was already ready for further pseudo-scientific use by the cult of sun worshippers, the cult of liars, the cult of crooks."
Then what are you doing childishly, hopelessly and ineptly re-writing the lyrics to "Papa Don't Preach'? Step out of your internet bubble and take them all on. Go ahead then. You haven't even got the courage to answer my questions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SymbolismDude
"Actually there is technically weather control. Check out Jeremy Clarksons video on the cloud/rain maker they use in the uk."
What on earth are you talking about? You are referring to a misleading appropriated video which in the first couple of seconds show the test-firing of an RS-25, an engine that was used on the Space Shuttle and will be used to power NASA’s next big rocket, the Space Launch System. The latter part of the clip is from a 2001 BBC television series called “Speed,” hosted by Clarkson. In the footage, Clarkson attends the test-firing of an RS-68. As liquid fuelled hydrogen and oxygen are being released during the RS-68 commercial engine test, it forms a cloud. Clarkson then says in the video that in about an hour “someone in Mississippi is going to get wet.” The video then shows Clarkson in the rain.
“NASA is playing god,” Clarkson says. “It’s making its own weather.”
But NASA never intended to create rain. The engines run on liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants, which create a steam cloud when mixed together in the combustion chamber and ignited. When the steam cloud cools off, it turns into water and can create rain depending on the temperature and humidity at the time of the test. It's nothing more than a consequence of the test fire. Simple science.
"And just mechanically speaking, I’m just starting to get into jet engines but I know car engines and that’s coolant rather than water he’s talking about and that’s evaporates a lot quicker and it’s less dense than water so the water should evaporate."
Kid, a bit of amiable advice - stop trying to sound clever, it doesn't become you.
"And consuming aluminum causes Alzheimer’s which would be a good way to stupify people and control them. This guy just sounds like someone working for the government to keep conspiracies a conspiracy, which by definition means “a concealed secret”
No causal link between aluminium and Alzheimer's has ever been discovered. What the hell does aluminium have to do with a rocket test firing stand in Mississippi?
"Btw with the aluminum in air argument, you do realize in every snowflake and in a drop of rain, there’s a spec of dirt, by you’re argument dirt shouldn’t be able to float up there either, but it does. Scientifically saying it is completely possible for aluminum to be up there"
What argument? They are fully aware about airborne dust and hygroscopic nuclei. At no stage have they suggested anything to the contrary. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daryllect6659
"You just keep telling yourself that."
The irony, was it intentional?
Mate, I am irrelevant to this exchange, and actually, so is whatever NASA has to say about it...why is it that you utter goons are unable to comprehend that? It's nothing to do with what I "think", the scientific, technical, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings that you are wholly ignorant of is manifest, incontrovertible and has a voice of its own. Nothing to do with me.
Quick tip. If you wish to brand something as fake, you'll find it's prudent to at the very least have a very basic understanding and knowledge about it before you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s cheaper, simpler, easier to install and they don’t need the main feature of 5G, which is to provide support for much larger numbers of client devices does not apply. Companies want 5G is because they can deliver more data to more customers, faster. Every single cellular increment, from 1G to 5G was an improvement on the carrier’s ability to carry data to customers. They want to host more customers, deliver more data, and go faster.
Astronauts don’t need that on the moon, and we aren’t planning to move enough people to warrant a 5G network anytime soon. Its also expensive and requires more infrastructure. Also, because a 5G tower operates on a higher-frequency band, higher frequencies require more power and travel less distance.
1
-
"Before his death, Armstrong allegedly admitted, never landing on the moon."
"Allegedly admitted" - meaning a Tik Tok meme told you so.
"So did Kubrick, relating to direct it!"
No he didn't. Wait, you surely can't be that stupid that you fell for a social media excerpt from T Patrick Murray's ludicrous 'Shooting Stanley Kubrick' featuring an appallingly cast Tom Mayk, that doesn't even remotely look or sound anything like him? Admit it. You did didn't you.
"And why, did the astronuts never admit burden"
What does this even mean?
"passing Allen's Belt, while some orbiting around at 800 km above the Earth, seeing it as serious threat!"
It's the 'Van Allen Belts' - in the plural since there are two of them, with a third that is transitory. You couldn't even get that right. Let's face it, the only reason that you mention it is because dumb online conspiracy theory told you what to think. The alpha and beta charged particles in the belts are no hazard to a craft and its occupants travelling at high velocity in a short space of time through their sparsest regions.
Why are you making arrogant and ill-informed statements about subjects that you clearly have zero understanding and knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Last time you checked? You mean the last crap conspiracy theory video you watched or junk social media meme that told you what to think? A studio is it? Where? Hollywood? or was it Shepperton or Pinewood perhaps? But wait, what of Area 51 Nevada? Hang on, wasn't it supposed to be the Arizona desert? Death Valley? or surely Devon Island Canada? No, no, surely it was Cannon AFB New Mexico? You goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends on which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively fool an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mrscottyboy111
"Look up CIA's John Brennan he explained that chemtrails are real and they are the governments attempt to slow global warming"
Yeah, when you say 'look up', do you mean gullibly find a dishonestly titled You Tube chemtrails conspiracy video which has appropriated his 2016 address to the COFN, or do you mean actually refer to what he really said? I prefer the latter, so let's do that shall we?
Firstly, contrary to your claim, Brennan doesn't even mention 'chemtrails' or 'explain' anything of the sort. To clarify, this is the ex-Director of the CIA in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transnational Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance and the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM/SAI in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti-ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is underway, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "explains that chemtrails are real" or that SAI is currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI has very little to do with "the government" bar some hearings in Senate involving impact statements of geoengineering technologies and what would be one of the major challenges associated with any SAI programme, international policy and governance.
To clarify, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, is a purely hypothetical proposal which would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There isn't even agreement upon the materials that would best serve this purpose but it would likely be sulphates themselves. Furthermore, in the highly unlikely event that it would ever be deployed, it would need to be conducted at 20km in altitude - double that of the contrails that you are observing.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have you ever thought to question precisely why it is in Odysee? (although I think it can be found on You Tube also).
If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
It was made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's ludicrous and dishonest claims?
1
-
@schrapnellcotton3413
"There are lots of logical fallacies and yours here would be under ad hominem."
Actually, no. Everything in my response is independently verifiable including Mazzucco's propensity for fraud and deceit. Read my post again. What would you like to contest?
"Check out videos on logical fallacies for reference."
I don't need to. I am fully aware of them and if you are so au fait with the latter then why to you choose to ignore the fact that Mazzucco's 'American Moon' is replete with them? I can list them for you if it helps, because evidently, you didn't spot them for yourself.
"Not addressing the issue in the statement or theory or argument but attacking the person. To clarify and be more succinct, my point of view is that American Moon is a good documentary for the outlining of some of the concerns some disbelievers have on the moon landing. That is my comment. Please tell me WHY you do not agree with it and we can go from there."
It does not outline "the concerns that some believers have on the moon landing" - it promotes them from an entirely biased and one sided approach. There is no objectivity, no balance whatsoever. Like Sibrel, Mazzucco absolutely knows this, because that is his target market. Conspiracy believers, with zero prior knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme, seeking instant gratification in the form of confirmation bias and reinforcement. Moreover, these claims are either deceptive, historically incorrect/disingenuous or based upon fundamentally flawed science. Furthermore, it's simply the same material that has been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again and debunked ad nauseum.
Perhaps you should select your singular and most compelling persuasive best example of one of the "concerns that some believers have on the moon documentary" and I'll demonstrate why this is so flawed...and we can go from there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Incorrect, you are referring to bauxite and aluminium is refined using the Bayer process. And yes, aluminium is the most common metal on the planet and the third most abundant element. It has many pathways into nature and the environment.
The patents that you refer to have different purposes and many are unadopted. Also, a patent is not proof of the existence of something, merely the registration of an idea, irrespective of how outlandish that may be. I've seen these claims of 'chemtrail' patents and they range from crop spraying apparatus, smoke generators to exhaust atomisers - nothing whatsoever to do with the misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy theorists and believers term as 'chemtrails'. Strikes me that your 'chemtrails' are whatever you want them to be.
Cheemtrails do not exist. They are simply persistent contrails. Contrails can be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or they may not necessarily form at all. Whether they do, and their length, expanse and duration is a function of the interrelationship between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iranoutofusernameideas7438
"Your response proved my original point."
What point? You didn't even make one.
"Those who defend the official story cannot ask question or think originally"
Said the online conspiracy believer.
And what 'original story'? Apollo isn't defined by a single official narrative as you goons seem to suppose, it is supported by scientific, independent and third party evidence that is incontrovertible.
"hence your comment is a parrot of my words."
Nope, I simply summarised what you said and responded to it whilst also pointing out that amusingly, for all your illusory superiority, your inability to spell 'substantial'.
"That is all your side is capable of doing, parroting what was said previously."
Wrong again, to reiterate, I am summarising your posts in a reply,
"Parrots like you don't ask questions, they repeat"
Again, amusingly ironic coming from an online conspiracy believer.
"I put that fool who responded in his place."
Did you? How so?
"I know you lot have a hard time and can't go outside unless the government gives you permission to do so."
How?
"No need to project your circumstances onto me."
Get you! Take it to the man. What's the next junk conspiracy video on cue in your playlist? That should tell 'em!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@5-Minutegeography
"I need no fancy letters next to my name to understand things."
No one is suggesting that you do, but defer to those branches of science that do and perhaps actually learn about it. Moreover, from your posts it's quite clear firstly, what sources you are repeating this nonsense from, and secondly, that contrary to your illusory superiority and deluded self-assured beliefs, you really don't 'understand things'.
"Why not learn that questioning the official narrative is actually helpful for your cognitive faculties? Looks like you're the one who needs humility here."
What 'official narrative' would that be? You think that NASA has managed to collectively corrupt and coerce and coopt entire branches of objective science? We are discussing known science here - you actually regard that as an 'official narrative'? this is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms which are therefore by nature demonstrable and have a voice of their own. If you wish to falsify this, then instead of badly parroting junk conspiracy theory which only demonstrates your limited 'cognitive faculties', then by all means go ahead. I am irrelevant to this exchange. I am simply referring you to the actual science that you are clearly woefully ignorant of.
"Anyway, there's no evidence astronauts can stand on the moon (past the belts) and suffer no incredible damage from radiation."
Nice false negative there. You claim to 'understand' but then humiliate yourself by making another ridiculous and meaningless statement based upon your limited preconceptions. No use saying it - now explain why. What precisely you mean by 'incredible damage' and specifically, what 'radiation' are you referring to? Detail the reasons why and qualify and substantiate your claims with evidence based science and measurement as opposed to arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.
1
-
@5-Minutegeography
Your comment is shadow banned - I will summarise here:
"The official narrative that USA has made it to the moon. You need to stop calling every idea that contradicts your government-fed knowledge a 'conspiracy theory.'"
To clarify again. This is not 'my knowledge' - this is accepted fact corroborated by ineluctable and independent scientific evidence. Nothing to do with any 'government', nothing to do with me - the physical laws that govern the science of Apollo that you are in contention with are axiomatic and therefore have a voice of their own. These cannot be subverted or corrupted.
"No, NASA has not managed to corrupt the WHOLE objective science of space, but they do have the power to fake a moon landing in order to spread propaganda against the USSR."
And no one noticed. Not one branch of science, not one contractor, not one of the 77 space agencies, not one astrophysicist, geologists, aerospace engineer - simply a bunch of self-appointed armchair conspiracy believers over the comments section of a video entertainment platform that claim to know better through sheer arrogance and deluded illusory superiority. The USSR tracked every Apollo mission to the moon. Luna 15 was a desperate attempt to beat Apollo 11 to the lunar surface and return a sample. It crashed into a mountain due to an error in the descent trajectory. The Kremlin acknowledged the failure and congratulated NASA on the success of Apollo 11.
"The Apollo missions were plagued by inefficiency from the get go."
Every mission suffered from and was plagued with problems and technical hitches - for Apollo 13, the crew were extremely fortunate to return to earth alive. To many at NASA, this was a greater triumph than placing man on the moon.
"The damage from the solar radiation which the Van Allen Belts protect the Earth from."
It is the magnetosphere that protects the earth - the Van Allen Belts are just one part of this.
"Also, NO ONE can take any picture on the moon without those pictures quality being severely compromised by said radiation."
Again, no use saying it, explain why.
"You don't trust science, you trust government-controlled science."
Once more - because you are desperately struggling here - known objective science is not answerable to any 'government' and it cannot be influenced or compromised. It is the ultimate arbiter and it demands evidence. As such, it is completely in support of the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings.
To return to your previous post, you claimed this.
"Anyway, there's no evidence astronauts can stand on the moon (past the belts) and suffer no incredible damage from radiation."
There are a plethora of measurements, academic publications, research findings and data into the radiation levels on the moon. The validity of the landings is not in question and is not doubted by any related specialist field or branch of science. 50 years later, you claim to know better. What "incredible damage" and specifically what "radiation" are you referring to. Present your data, cite the measurements and substantiate your claims.
1
-
@5-Minutegeography
Genuinely, I'm curious. Why are you doing this to yourself? Is this how you interact with people in the real world - if at all? You clearly have zero actual knowledge of the Apollo programme, nothing in the way of scientific understanding and are under the deluded belief that parroting junk online conspiracy theory over internet comment sections makes you sound authoritative, informed and clever. Comments such as:
"I have bad news for you, there's overwhelming evidence the moon landing was faked: 1- Those moon rocks turned out to be petrified wood"; "Even if they were rocks from the moon they could be rocks that fell on Earth from the moon because of asteroid collisions that happened on the moon"; or, "Dude, did you know temperature reaches +150F on the moon during the day and -150F at night? NO CAMERA can work in these extreme temperatures especially cameras from the 1960s."
All you are achieving is showcasing your complete ignorance. And yet still you continue. You seem to think that simply stating something based upon your preconceptions makes it true.
"Basic scientific evidence says there shouldn't be fading of sunlight in the corners of pictures taken allegedly on the moon."
What? What the hell are you talking about? Examples?
"Bill Kaysing, an engineer who worked on the lunar modules spoke out against it and was accused of the same accusations you're accusing me."
Kaysing never worked on the Lunar Modules. Absolutely false. He had a degree in English literature and worked briefly for Rocketdyne as a service engineer - a role title that was a complete misnomer and basically involved sweeping the floor and assisting the trained personnel by passing them tools and making them coffee. He was promoted to a librarian and copywriter and left under acrimonious circumstances prior to the Apollo programme. Bill Kaysing was the Godfather and originator of the Apollo conspiracies and his ludicrous allegations and claims although routinely dismissed and debunked are still naively regurgitated by people like you. You may as well be referencing Alex Jones.
"Books were written on the subject debunking it including NASA Mooned America, and We Never Went to The Moon."
The latter is Kaysing again. Yes. Many more books have been written on ancient aliens, bigfoot, flat earth and the Loch Ness Monster. They are complete horseshit too. What's your point? Why don't you learn the actual science and technology surrounding Apollo instead on relying on individuals with as much idea about the latter as you?
"Also, not everyone involved in the preparation for the alleged landing has to know it was fake, only the higher ups knew."
I would like you to read that back, then read it again, and then again. Then actually exercise even a modicum of introspection and self-appraisal. Do you even actually believe this yourself? Are you aware how utterly absurd this statement is? I'm genuinely of the opinion at this stage that you are simply trolling. No one could actually be this dumb.
"The USSR didn't expose the fakery of it because of political considerations."
The USSR? Political considerations? What?
All of your claims have been systematically addressed and debunked and yet like any conspiracy theorist, you simply ignore the evidence and replies and just plough on regardless with more recycled nonsense.
To return to this. To remind you, this is what you said:
"Anyway, there's no evidence astronauts can stand on the moon (past the belts) and suffer no incredible damage from radiation."
There are a huge volume of studies, measurements, academic publications, research findings and data into the radiation levels on the moon. The validity of the landings is not in question and is not doubted by any related specialist field or branch of science. 50 years later, you claim to know better. What "incredible damage" and specifically what "radiation" are you referring to. Present your data, cite the measurements and substantiate your claims - only, you keep forgetting. Go ahead then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's Fahrenheit - you can't even get that right. Actually, 280 F (138 C) - which may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not necessarily the temperature of any object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter. The temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Objects will slowly approach this from emission and absorbtion of radiation.
All the Apollo missions to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. Bear in mind here that the lunar day is just under 700 hours long. In addition to this, the angle of insolation ensured that the sunlight was not too strong.
There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the albedo on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts. The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further and the moon has no atmosphere. The normal kind of thermal transfer we see on Earth requires matter for the heat to transfer to. With no air, heat has no immediate way to escape a body. and so in respect of convection - the most efficient process of heat transfer - there is no medium for this to take place.
Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb.
All very basic thermodynamics. Why are you humiliating yourself by posting utter crap about subjects you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickdalton2424
"so do you know where the moon they landed on was?"
Yes of course. Cannon AFB New Mexico? No, hang on, definitely Area 51 Nevada. Or actually, instead of Groom Lake, wasn't it supposed to be the Utah or Arizona deserts? No, without doubt Death Valley. No wait, a Hollywood studio. Hold it, it was without doubt Shepperton or was it Pinewood UK? No, no, Elstree, that was it...or perhaps Twickenham. Like I said, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some converted hangar/desert film set/sound stage (delete as applicable), to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
"Do you what country the mars rover footage was filmed in?"
Devon Island Canada...must be true, a crap conspiracy video as dumb as you are told me so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deanhall9292
"In another comment u said "Utter Nonsense". I listed them all out."
No you didn't - you simply parroted a combination of pseudoscience, out of context technologies that you clearly don't understand and meaningless word salad. If you really think that you are privy to some higher level arcane knowledge, qualified in aerospace engineering and meteorological science, then try voicing this junk off the internet and into the real world. Tell them that the University of You Tube sent you.
"Metabunk comments are gone...i told ya.(deleted...so whats your aim there?)"
Let's see then. Once again, what was the specific thread and what was your user name? I'll take a look.
"Where is that SBX-1 ?.......or is that 'utter nonsense' too?"
The Se Based X Band Radar - what about it?
"Why were OBIGGS retro-fitted?"
Inerting systems? As a safety measure inaugurated by the FAA to reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapours on the ground and in the air through following the disasters of TWA Flight 800, Thai Airways International Flight 414 and Philippine Airlines Flight 143.
"Why do airport fuel tankers have 2 fillup hoses?"
Dual fills vastly lessen refuelling time and reduce turnaround.
"They have denied Chemtrails, now they are trying to "Justify" as Cloud seeding, or as a solar shield for global warming."
The chemtrail hoax was predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails. Neither cloud seeding or proposals into SRM involve trails, commercial jet aircraft, or the altitudes at which you are observing these trails. Dare I ask, who precisely are "they"
"ROT. It is magnifying the solar radiation....and is a fake ionosphere for X-band microwaves."
What????...See? Off you go again. Fake ionosphere? X band microwaves??? - Microwaves are all X band designation.
I can't decide whether you people are simply very sad, highly amusing - or both.
1
-
@deanhall9292
"wheres your truth? "How to Debunk?"
a speed dial to Metabunk or Chris White & Heiser? (Creationist?...Skeptic?)"
Known science is axiomatic, has a voice of its own and speaks for itself.
"No lad, this is MY theory, and why u heard it first."
Then you should sue, because the conspiracy perpetrators that you are blatantly parroting got there first.
"As simple counters , adding a fuel 'additive' into the CWT , to hide its intro into commercial air traffic, is not ludicrous, and have explained how."
No you haven't.
"Yes, 2 lines...one Avgas/Jet fuel/Kero ......standard jet fuel. But the other 'line', has TMA as an additive."
And you have established this how?
"that DOW chemplant explosion in Mass., was TMA."
And you believe that it is being sprayed out of the rear of commercial aircraft?
As you say Trimethyl aluminum is a pyrophoric chemical. Not only would it lunch a jet engine in seconds if you are actually attempting to suggest (as appears to be the case) that the spreading trails are a result of this "additive" you need to explain quite how it can not only persist and expand in the same way as condensed atmospheric water vapour in the form of a visible white cloud, but remain undetected to environmental monitoring, remote sensing and atmospheric science the world over.
"Because planes land-take off on the wing tanks, and switch to Centre at alt/cruise ht"
Utter rubbish. The conditions during takeoff require high fuel pressure. The center tank has 2 pumps, while each wing tank has 2 pumps. If a center tank pump fails, it will be 1 pump supplying 2 engines, compared to 2 pumps for each engine (or 1 for each in a rare double pump failure—one in each wing). If a pump fails, there is no automatic command that can be sent to the sequence valves to change the sequence, or to engage the cross-feed valves. Usually the centre pumps overpower the wing pumps, but what is omitted from that explanation is that there are sequence valves. If one centre pump fails, the pressure may remain high enough to keep the valves closed on the good side, but not high enough to supply two engines during high demand. Also note there is no suction (gravity) feeding from the center tank.
Regarding cruise, if the centre tank is required then the fuel will be consumed first to extend the duration of wing bend relief.
"......its why the pilots are oblivious, and we dont see it low or at airports, that white smoke from the 'burnt' TMA."
Pilots are oblivious to their fuel management? You sure about that? You don't see white trails at airports because contrails require very cold conditions to form - high relative humidity in respect to ice and ice supersaturation to persist and spread.
"Fine. U believe the 'official' story, of CWT tanks, and dont doubt many tank leaks-sparks-overheats have happened...but 17 accidents since 1959......shows how the jet age 60s,70s,80s, was very safe travel....til the mid to late 90s.....when 'chemtrailing ' started."
You mean when Art Bell and William Thomas first misidentified persistent contrails?
"@USAAF.....Weather as a Force Multiplier. Owning the weather by 2025"
??? Have you at any stage bothered to read this? Students of the Air University. As an assignment, the Air Force chief of staff asked the study’s authors to “examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future." the paper’s introduction clearly specifies that it does not reflect official government policy, and that the weather modification and control scenarios described within it are “fictional representations of future situations/scenarios,”
"To answer your other question.....not only do the chemtrail TMA particles help steer cloud fronts,heat cold cells etc, via X-band (Haarp,SBX-1)....
but those ground penetrating 'microwaves' can heat artesian wells causing steam, the pressure triggers the earthquake."
Explain how.
"It was the Haarp scientist that wanted the oilrig"
What HAARP scientist? Do you actually understand what HAARP is?
"Its why i brought up the Iranian News on TV and Papers, had the cooked dolpins washed up on the beach......cooked underwater?"
Link please.
"Yes lad, over the horizon missile detection is all satellites, even Star wars lasers to disable. It should be on a fast moving "Radar/Command" vessel to BE movable."
The concept is not speed, the purpose is deployment.
"Enjoy it cooking the west coast....or steering Hurricanes in the Gulf..."
Explain how X band radar can "steer hurricanes".
"Radar weather images (spirals,rings,wedges,)......not shown on MSM weather reports now. It was showing the effects of Haarp on the TMA in the chemtrailed clouds!
and that is more physical,TV recorded evidence, of why and how,
this TMA and Chemtrails is a ionosphere to magnify these X-band microwaves...."
Utter, total fantasy. Complete drivel.
"u can parrot the official version..."
The only parrot here is you.
"I have no agenda but to provide a logical,rational,and evidence provided theory as to what they are up to by Chemtrailing......."
The unintentional irony at this point is off the scale.
"most 'nutbags' think the Alumina particles are to poison us. I have stated another reason.....to magnify X-band microwaves (Haarp,SBX-1, and 5G wi-fi tech)
hence my man made 'ionosphere'......to simplify."
Do you actually understand what the ionosphere is and why it is so called?
"and using the sun (solar microwaves) to cook us, likes kids cooking ants....its magnified the Sun's rays."
The peak of the sun's rays is in the visible light rang of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Question for you. You can't blag or bullshit science - why are you attempting to do so?
1
-
@deanhall9292
"i used science and rational expalnations to explain my theory......"
Science and rational explanations???? Like I said, the unintentional irony metre is off the scale here. Let's see about that.
You think that the entire commercial airline industry is covertly spraying trimethyl aluminum as an additive to jet fuel which is separately and secretly independently fuelled into the centre tanks. This then creates an artificial ionosphere in the troposphere which acts like a magnifying glass to capture microwaves from the sun, and guided by HAARP and a mobile floating X Band radar at the behest of a 'HAARP scientist" this can be deployed for the purposes of everything from frying dolphins in the Strait of Hormuz to steering hurricanes to boiling water in artesian wells to create seismic events in Iran. Sounds reasonable then.
."with the very science you keep screaming "Utter Nonsense". "
Do you actually understand what HAARP is designed to do and capable of in the real world? the electromagnetic spectrum? what the ionosphere actually is? how X band really radar works? the functioning of jet engines and the pump configuration between centre and wing tanks? the actual mass density and weight of the trails that you are seeing? RHi, dew point, adiabatic lapse rates and supersaturation? No, of course you don't. You're simply a very silly man with an internet connection.
Once again, explain precisely how your supposed trimethyl aluminum chemtrails are magnified by X band microwaves, HAARP and 5G? Detail the physical process.
"Why do you keep defending the govt narrative on this?.........The 'scientist expert' is paid by the govt u dolt !!"
I haven't referred to any "government" - and what "scientist expert"? I am referring to known science which is reproducible, demonstrable and axiomatic and so has a voice of its own and speaks for itself. Why are you trying to blag this when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about?
"whats your real reason 4 defending govt?"
I am, as are my responses to you, entirely apolitical. Established science doesn't do politics.
"What comPELLs u to label me a nutbag theorist"
The fact that you are a nutbag theorist may well have much to do with it.
"will your life fall apart if jesus = a myth, and your govt has lied to you?"
As an apolitical agnostic - not in the slightest.
1
-
@deanhall9292
"Apolitical means u dont care who, u trust the govt elected, whatever their views."
No, apolitical in this case means that I have no political affiliation and express no agenda. As I explained, my responses to you are apolitical - science does not do politics.
"Agnostic ~ a 'fence sitter". You dont know what side the grass is greener on."
Again, incorrect. Purely that nothing is known or can be known about a deity.
"u dont know what to believe , so play it safe and balance on the border in the middle."
I do not enter into this. Known science is not about "belief".
"That doesnt make u 'normal and me a nutbag' because i dont agree with u"
Again, I am not the issue. You are choosing to "disagree" with the axioms of evidence based science which is demonstrable, ineluctable and has a voice of its own.
"and ur govt aligned take."
What "government aligned take"" would that be?
"I am grounded and rational"
If you say so.
"not floating up in the clouds on some contrail fence with Jesus still an option and saviour. .....agnostic lol"
Who mentioned "Jesus"? I am a disbeliever - since the metaphysical can neither be proven nor disproven and I certainly don't subscribe to any deity. Again, I am of no bearing to this exchange, the evidence that I have requested and the outlandish unsubstantiated claims that you have made.
"agnostic also = Cognitive Dissonance. The confusion in ones brain when two thought beliefs oppose each other."
I have no thoughts or beliefs that oppose each other - your understanding of Festinger is as flawed as your comprehension of the electromagnetic spectrum, atmospheric chemistry, and aerospace engineering.
"the only thing that supports your adamant govt science take.....is they pay ya."
Again, what "government science take" would that be? My replies are apolitical in that science does not do politics - it does not do God either, and neither do I.
"Nice try trying to ridicule by attacking my credibility ..."
You have no credibility based upon the posts that you have made and the wild, frankly ludicrous assertions that you make. Any "ridicule" is entirely of your own making.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We know the precise selenic co ordinates of all six moon landings. There is no telescope in existence that can resolve the landing sites. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. To explain why understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide Apollo landers at the six landing sites.
However, the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the landing sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knickyak7268
"no he wasn’t you could hear him blowing as he said that inside his helmet that doesn’t make sense ether!"
Why are you pretending to ask a question when you have already made up your mind? Why are you people so contrarian? Even if you think that this was staged, there would still be a discrepancy given he is wearing a helmet, so clearly there is an explanation. Provide me with a precise time stamp and I will willingly explain the context to you.
"Not saying we never went"
It certainly doesn't sound like that.
"but alot was fake"
If the moon landings were real, then why would it need to be?
"like Nixon call which has minimum 1.3 delay there 1.3 back 2.6 seconds between Speakers And it was without delay"
This again? Seriously? - and yes, there was a delay. The communication signal speed is the same as the speed of light. The moon is 384,400 km away. The speed of light is 299,792 km/s. This means, even considering additional time delays through relays and equipment that would equate to a fraction over 1.25 seconds. However, this was only in one direction. Since the recording of the conversation took place on Earth, and Nixon was also on Earth, as soon as the astronaut’s voice is heard, Nixon can and does answer immediately and we hear it immediately and without delay. The time delay is only apparent when Nixon finishes a sentence… we don’t hear a reply from the astronauts for about 2.5 seconds… about 1.25 seconds for Nixon’s voice to get to the moon, and another 1.25 second for the astronauts reply to return to the Earth. There are also edited versions of the exchange on some documentaries that have removed this lag. Why is it even necessary to explain this again?
1
-
1
-
"According to researchers (Kaplan & Maxwell, 1994; Skubisz, 2010), anecdotal evidence is a valid type of qualitative evidence that can be collected by qualitative research methods that convert the anecdotal experiences into data for research analysis purposes."
Of course it is - who suggested otherwise? Have you actually bothered to read either papers? Let's take a look at the first.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259893812_A_Classification_of_Qualitative_Research_Methods
Er, yeah...this is a discussion about a range of qualitative (and quantitative) research paradigms particularly from an ontological and epistemological perspective. Summoning the work of Morse (1994), they acknowledge the value of “mixing reports (anecdotes), experiences, different situations to describe a sample or a combination of behaviours and reactions” in terms of epistemological value to the researcher. Much of the domain of their research is into interpretive methodology for the behaviourist. Amongst their conclusions are that qualitative researchers should try to identify personal biases in the research results and analyse them and if they can’t balance these biases, they should be clarified for the users.
Such enquiry is of particular value to the behaviourist, phenomenologist or ethnographer seeking explanations of belief systems and social constructs through the examination of values and bias.
https://www.scirp.org/(S(czeh2tfqyw2orz553k1w0r45))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1266504
Interpretive research can help us to understand human thought, perception and action in social and organisational contexts. Of course anecdotal evidence is crucial to such research - and from the perspective of Verstehen or Gestalt based philosophy for example - integral.
"So far, studies have not yet been conducted to collect and convert existing abundant anecdotal evidence on chemtrails into data for research analysis purposes."
Ask yourself why that might be the case? Why chemtrails are purely the province of subjective conspiracy theory as opposed to academia.
What's your point? There are no such studies that employ purely anecdotal testimony to prove the existence of the Sasquatch, or UFOs, of unicorns and fairies, yet plenty into the origins and derivation of the popular mythology or folklore underpinning such beliefs utilising the qualitative means that you speak of.
"So, while there is a huge volume of analytical data on contrails, there is also a huge volume of anecdotal evidence on chemtrails, awaiting legitimate research collection, conversion to data, and subsequent analysis."
In the purported twenty or so years that this alleged spraying has been in progress, not one comparable in-situ spectrographic analysis of your chemtrails exists at source, in spite of the sophistication and ubiquity of environmental monitoring/remote sensing.
Conveniently then, you are suggesting academic studies based solely on the anecdotal which is not what Kaplan and Maxwell advocate. (I am unable to find the Skubisz paper, do feel free to furnish me with a link and I'll take a look.)
So because a small community of online conspiracy theorists subscribe to a baseless hoax, then we should afford credence to their anecdotal testimony? I, along with billions of people in the informed and rational world are also witnessing the same phenomena and yet don't 'believe' in chemtrails. Approximately 110million people (over a third of the American populace) entertain the notion of creationism - that doesn't make it a reality. An objective researcher would be more interested in why and how this belief system has increased in prevalence - the existence of God, or the verification of intelligent design is unfalsifiable. Simply because someone says something on the internet, irrespective of how many that may be, it doesn't make it true. We inhabit a post truth era replete with cognitive bias and preconception. The research paper that you mentioned is concerned with methods to evaluate the meaning and construction of belief.
The chemtrail hoax was predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails and the fallacious belief that condensed atmospheric water vapour must dissipate within arbitrary time limits based upon this assumption (usually within seconds to minutes). Cursory examination of this comments section will reveal many such lay anecdotal observations based upon this claim which we can, due to known axiomatic, physical laws of the atmosphere immediately falsify and dismiss. (If you wish to contest otherwiswe then I would be happy to provide ineluctable proof). It doesn't matter what people think or wish to believe, if the initial premise which informs that opinion is incorrect, therefore the observation is worthless.
Whereas anecdotal evidence is sometimes the starting point of legitimate scientific investigation, it is all too often the ending point and every point of a pseudoscientific investigation. In the world of pseudoscience, an anecdote is the equivalent of a peer-reviewed, double-blind, repeatable scientific experiment with consistent results. Personal anecdotes are often the primary ammunition of those who deny science and in isolation are of no value to evidence. Anytime that someone uses an anecdote to argue that X causes Y, they are committing a logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is worth noting, that you can use the order of events to make a legitimate argument if you are making a probabilistic argument, and if a causal relationship has already been established. However, Using personal anecdotes as evidence of causation is logically invalid, and the rules of logic tell us that any argument that contains a logical fallacy is unreliable and must be rejected.
No one has collated your "huge volume of anecdotal evidence" on chemtrails because it is fundamentally flawed, based upon a false premise and moreover, would not withstand the independent objective scrutiny of the scientific method. If individuals are alleging that the white plumes that they are witnessing behind aircraft are anything other than contrails as a consequence of largely commercial air traffic cruising in the tropopause or lower stratosphere, then the burden of proof is incumbent upon them to provide empirical quantitative measurement to substantiate that claim. This is why Kaplan and Maxwell argue that although qualitative inductive reasoning is one legitimate line of research (which may incorporate the anecdotal), qualitative research and logical positivism need not be discrete. Your argument is based upon the perceived legitimacy of the product of an echochamber - nothing more. Unless proper reproducible scientific testing has demonstrated that X causes Y, you cannot conclude that there is a causal relationship between the two. Precisely why the perpetrators of this hoax rely upon solely the anecdotal, the realm of the internet bubble of cherry picking/self-referencing confirmation bias and run a mile from genuine scientific examination.
1
-
@neverlostforwords
Thank you for your civil reply this time.
"I cannot accept your word, your insistence, your argument, as proof, because what you have to say is not the published findings of legitimate, double blind peer reviewed, research."
What specifically are you referring to in the absence of your position/proposition? Chemtrails are unfalsifiable. However if one is to contend that contrails cannot persevere, must dissipate within "seconds to minutes" and do not ever spread expand aggregate and form clouds which is the central premise of the chemtrails hoax then you are incorrect.
The burden of truth is incumbent upon those making the claim - the onus does not lie with myself or science to disprove what does not exist, however in this case, mathematics provides proof of impossibility.
"I am not claiming to have "proof' of chemtrails."
How convenient.
"Clearly, I have made my own observations, however they are far from 'proof' of chemtrails, but form a very tiny part of the large (in my view, significant) body of anecdotal evidence to which I so often refer."
Which is? Could you provide some examples in addition to your own testimony. What "in your view" is the most compelling anecdotal evidence in support of the existence of chemtrails?
"That body of evidence should be analysed. So why has it not yet been analysed?"
Because, as I have repeatedly explained it is based upon a false premise involving the misidentification of contrails.
"The key reason it has not yet been analysed is that researchers do not believe that the body of anecdotal evidence is significant and, until/unless they do, nothing will be done. So my challenge, and the challenge for others who would like research (based partly on the anecdotal evidence) to be conducted, is to raise awareness of the significance of the anecdotal evidence."
What precisely is the significance of this anecdotal evidence then? Why do you regard it as legitimate and meriting academic investigation? Could you provide an example?
"I also understand that anecdotal evidence is not strong enough evidence on its own."
Indeed.
My background is remote sensing although I obtained a post graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology almost two decades ago. I understand how to derive measurement of the atmosphere and how routine an endeavour it would be, were a programme of spraying underway on the scale that chemtrail believers attest to be the case, to obtain unequivocal analytical data. Instead of conducting studies into the veracity and credibility of these claims why not simply measure these alleged trails at source? Why is it that those that contend that chemtrails are a reality not seizing this initiative? Are you saying that a "qualified, experienced, committed research team" comprised of advocates of the chemtrails conspiracy theory cannot themselves "design a rigorous and feasible project"? The answer to this question is quite simply that there are no such qualified or credible scientists that give credence to this fraud and the required level of such expertise simply precludes acceptance of such preposterous claims. Those capable already understand what they are looking at. One such methodology might involve Lidar measurements yielding in-flight determination of the location and spatial extent of the "chemtrails", and also to report extinction values to correlate with calculations derived from the microphysical data of contrails. A shortwave spectrometer will detect the "chemtrails" whilst UK Met the NAME III model can be used as a tool for modelling the dispersion of the "chemtrail". Direct active sampling can be conducted at source whilst passive sampling over time may be utilised for the longitudinal data.
"Lastly, here is the ref you requested"
Thank you, I will enjoy reading it.
1
-
@neverlostforwords
"I was simply stating that I cannot accept your word or argument that there are no chemtrails, only contrails. I would be more likely to recognise the published results of rigorous research, double blind peer reviewed."
Into something that doesn't exist? Why do you think that no one has published any results? If this spraying was real there would be a wealth of data and in view of the sophistication, ubiquity and availability of worldwide atmospheric monitoring it would be impossible to conceal.
"The dissipation claim may be made in some anecdotal comments and videos, but that does not mean that it is "the central premise" of the chemtrail argument."
What is then? Every chemtrail believer without exception that I encounter I have requested a methodology to allow differentiation between the two in addition to
providing statistics as to the reliability and error margins of the method. On the rare occasions that I elicit a response I am simply told that condensation dissipates within seconds to minutes and contrails don't persist, expand and spread into clouds.
"Only a rigorous analysis of (chemtrail) anecdotal comments, video narratives, etc can enable identification of a set of key differences between perceived chemtrails and contrails."
And what would that accomplish other than a collection of wholly subjective sources misidentifying contrails?
"I have yet to see that mathematics published as a result of rigorous research.The mathematical proof, if published, would form but a small part of the body of research on the (minimally researched to date) chemtrail subject but would nevertheless be valuable."
I'm referring not only to the applied mathematics underpinning the calculation of the contrail factor in the form of binomial equations but also the mathematical impossibility of a persistent horizon to horizon chemtrail.
"No, I can't do that, as it would be an injustice to the many videos and comments, and personal observations that I cannot instantly recall."
So this anecdotal evidence that you regard as being so compelling - you can't recall any of it?
"That is why a systematic research approach, reviewing accumulated anecdotal evidence, is required."
Why?
"My beliefs have been formed over several years and are based on my own observations and others' videos, observations, comments, etc."
Entirely subjective then. Known, established science is not about belief.
"It would trivialise the body of anecdotal evidence to select any examples, which would immediately be seized upon by you as the only evidence, or the key evidence, and discussed as such."
In other words, it is the only 'evidence' and is routinely debunked.
"As shown on many videos and in many comments, and as observed by me over the past two years or so, there is a vast amount of repetition of patterns linking aircraft movements, trails, cloudiness, cloud coverage of sun and weather movements more generally."
And how then have you removed the possibility that this is caused by condensed atmospheric water vapour? Also, "coverage of the sun" is relative to the position of the observer.
"The sheer quantity of such anecdotal evidence from diverse sources and locations around the globe, is significant, in my opinion."
Again, science is not about opinion. In spite of your use of the term "globe", are you also swayed by similar emergence of flat earth beliefs and does this afford legitimacy to UFO sightings, paranormal activity and folklore
"When experts do emerge, such as Herndon, they are immediately and systematically discredited."
J Marvin Herndon an expert????? He is discredited due to the fact that his work is demonstrably unscientific and fraudulent not through some conspiratorial witchhunt.
"I have seen this kind of treatment of people who refuse to toe the party line in the workplace, many times."
What legitimacy do you assign to any of Herndon's studies? Please feel free to provide and example. This one perhaps?
http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/JGEESI_42/2017/Jan/Herndon912016JGEESI30834.pdf
...In which he claims that "Contrails rapidly become invisible by evaporation whereas particulate trails spread out to sometimes briefly form artificial cirrus-like clouds before further spreading to form a white haze in the sky." Well there you go, that didn't take long.
An "expert" you say. You do realise that the above study of supposed chemtrail residue is actually bird shit?
Here's the comment and conclusion...
http://www.journalrepository.org/media/journals/JGEESI_42/2017/Apr/Scafetta932017JGEESI32479.pdf
"Further, credible researchers in the field would be risking their reputations and employment by researching a "conspiracy theory", particularly chemtrails."
You again fail to appreciate that given the global level of atmospheric monitoring this would be impossible to conceal.
"I would anticipate use of such an approach would be considered by the research team in any research project - which, sadly, remains but a pipe dream."
A pipe dream because there is no basis or substance to any claims that the trails people are seeing are anything other than condensed atmospheric water vapour caused by commercial air traffic.
Good to talk to you again.
1
-
@neverlostforwords
"This is hardly a recognised research method for increasing understanding of key differences between contrails and perceived chemtrails"
Agree, but as I said that is precisely what the chemtrail hoax is predicated upon, the notion that contrails can only last seconds to minutes.
"As mentioned in my previous reply, we cannot anticipate the results and findings of a future research project."
Oh I think you'll find we can.
"We haven’t yet seen rigorous research conducted that identifies the patterns of chemtrails, so until then, there is nothing to prove mathematically.
"
Of course you haven't, because your "chemtrails" are nothing more than persistent contrails - and there are a myriad of studies into the science behind these supported by applied mathematics. Those that contend otherwise have had two decades of this supposed spraying to prove otherwise and present hard analytical data. As I have repeatedly said, despite the availability and sophistication of atmospheric monitoring...to date no one has. I wonder why. Moreover, a persistent 100 mile long chemtrail is a physical impossibility. I have invited you to do the maths. Your hoax debunks itself.
"I can’t recall all of it, not “I can’t recall any of it”. You original request of me to provide compelling evidence is not possible as it is the accumulated anecdotal evidence that is compelling – not any single video, comment or personal observation. "
And as I said, this is entirely based upon the misidentification of contrails and natural meteorological phenomena. If you contend otherwise I am inviting you to state why.
"The accumulated anecdotal evidence is valuable, not a single anecdote. Data sets are valuable for research purposes – not a single piece of information (datum). I would not make a case based on one piece of information.
"
And once again, what do you think that this accumulated anecdotal evidence would be based upon?
"That is why I am proposing a rigorous research study.
"
Into something that doesn't exist? Ask yourself again why it is that in twenty years the perpetrators of this hoax, sorry, these beliefs, have not commissioned an independent investigation.
"I haven’t eliminated that possibility. That possibility is something that could result from a rigorous research study. I would be heartened if that was the result."
It is the result - and there is a wealth of data to prove it.
"A research project is always initiated by someone with an opinion about something.
"
Research begins with a hypothesis or a proposal. Data is collected in accordance to a defined methodology which is then analysed and tested and if the results are reproducible and vindicated a conclusion may be made. The initial hypothesis is then either accepted through demonstration, or rejected. The "opinion" you speak of is often in the form of an observation but frequently based upon evidence and the need to substantiate the latter. Since chemtrails are demonstrably misidentified contrails any claim of their existence can be immediately refuted unless equivalent analytical data is provided to the contrary.
"I find that his bio (on his nuclearplanet website) qualifies him as an expert in relevant physics-related fields. You find otherwise."
His "bio" on his own website? Herndon is neither an atmospheric chemist nor a meteorologist.
"Yes, of course others have tried to discredit him, just as they discredit all people who hold relevant positions or qualifications, who argue that chemtrails exist.
"
????? He attempted to pass off bird droppings as evidence of chemtrails. It has nothing to do with his qualifications, simply the fraudulent publications that he has made which are unscientific and grossly flawed in their methodology. Not only is he completely unable to coherently defend his research but he has demonstrated zero in the way of intellectual honesty and moreover a breach of professional ethics and integrity.
All people who hold relevant positions or qualifications who argue that chemtrails exist? Who precisely are you referring to?
"While it is true that published research on chemtrails is virtually non-existent, there is an enormous amount of ongoing research into the chemical composition and sources of aerosols in the atmosphere in various situations and locales around the globe, such as:
Xiao et al (2018) Chemical Composition and Sources of Marine Aerosol over the Western North Pacific Ocean in Winter, Atmosphere, 9(8). "
What's your point? The paper you have cited concerns heterogeneous reactions of a marine atmosphere. However, this is precisely what I have been imploring you to understand...and yet in spite of such sophistication of atmospheric monitoring the world over, not one credible detection of your chemtrails has ever been made.
"Atmospheric science could benefit from a study of perceived chemtrails via an analysis of anecdotal evidence of perceived chemtrails, that may provide interesting insights."
No it really couldn't.
That is like saying that astronomy could benefit from a study of astrology via the analysis of anecdotal evidence of horoscopes that may provide interesting insights.
Seriously, the rational world and the field of atmospheric science is completely indifferent to your online hoax.
1
-
1
-
"Hell no, if they couldn't land on earth in a controlled environment"
Couldn't land what?
"where as the moon is uncontrollable/no gravity, but landed perfect the 1st time on the moon"
You actually think that the moon has zero gravity? Jeez.
"how much fuel ⛽ you needed to get there and back"
The Saturn V tanks were indeed huge. Once TLI/Holman Transfer is initiated, you need to perform two burns to enter orbit around the moon, whilst the LM had its own separate fuel supply. Following rendezvous, you then perform a burn to escape the moon's gravitational sphere of influence and the Earth does the rest.
"besides that there is a radiation band around the earth that is miles thick, you would have to go the speed of light to get through the radiation bands, or travel around the earth 🌎 to build up the speed to get through"
What? Seriously, why are you doing this to yourself?
You are referring to the Van Allen Belts which are toroidal, so easily traversed in the short time and rapid velocity that Apollo took to pass through their sparsest regions. Charged particle radiation is comparatively easy to shield against.
"the flag picture which look like its flapping in tbe wind,but they told us there is no wind"
The flag only moves when it is touched or disturbed by outgassing from PLSS or the LM. It remains in motion in a vacuum due to the conservation of momentum.
"and the picture with the astronaut shadow behind him, problem is that the sun is behind him 😅 your shadow should be in front of you"
There is no such picture.
"bottom line is no HUMAN BEING HAS BEEN 2 THE MOON"
Nope, the bottom line is that you demonstrably haven't the remotest idea about a subject but you declare it to be fake anyway and you have access to the internet but you don't know how to use it properly or responsibly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jussee85
"Science is full of shit these days."
And yet here you are attempting to comment about...science, without deferring to it. And here you are using a device that lets you instantly share this claim with people all over the world. You live in a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness and off the spoils of the scientific method, which not only furnishes you with technological advancement but offers explanations for natural world and the phenomena that you observe around you.
And meanwhile online conspiracy theory that you resort to is entirely honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Ok then.
To reiterate, and to clarify, nothing to do with 'shit', HAARP is an HF pump and facility trained on the ionosphere for research purposes. It has nothing to do with the jet stream in the stratosphere or the weather in the troposphere. Cloud seeding is not sufficiently practiced on anything near the scale to have any impact on global weather. It works by teasing rainfall out of existing cloud masses that are conducive to precipitation.
1
-
@jussee85
"John 3:16"
John 5
Ilya Sandra Perlingieri? Seriously? This again? You posted a link to a conference at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover during which five people sat in a room, presumably some of the organising panel out of sympathy, listening to an individual with a History of Art degree and supposedly and 'environmental writer' who was clearly booked as a filler and in error, spout conspiratorial nonsense about her deranged chemtrail beliefs. It's astonishing that thirteen years later this complete embarrassment has not been removed from their channel.
"When air is full of metal particals it can manipulate via antennas. Even water itself can manipulate by elektromagnetic force. You can test that just take a airballoon rub it in your hair to make it positive charge and you can put that balloon close to the running tap water. That flowing water will be magnetic to that balloon."
Please don't take offence to this, but there are occasions, even in the comments section of You Tube that someone floats a notion so ludicrous, or submits something that is so transcendently stupid that one is perplexed by the sheer variety of overwhelming valid counterpoints that simultaneously present themselves. In such times you find yourself left to suffocate in the overwhelming paralysis of indecisive bewilderment, like a rabbit caught in a car's headlight, which suffers for its immobility when any action would be preferable to none.
Your statically charged balloon aside - to reiterate, HAARP is an array of high frequency radio transmitters powered by two diesel generators trained upon the ionosphere. And no, the air is not "full of metal particles" (note the spelling). Assuming hypothetically that it was - what do you think it would do to the jet engines on the aircraft that are supposedly putting them there? Moreover, you are actually prepared to believe that atmospheric science, environmental monitoring and remote sensing initiatives the world over remain oblivious to these supposed particles?
You actually couldn't make this up - except someone did, and astonishingly people still fall for it.
Why don't you actually learn about atmospheric science, meteorology and aviation instead of naively entertaining internet and social media junk about subjects you clearly have zero understanding of?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elliottdennis2014
Incorrect - what I stated is 100% correct, which was simply that contrary to the claim - aluminium does indeed "come from the earth naturally". You are referring to aluminium production, the bayer process the principal industrial means of refining bauxite to produce aluminium from mined bauxite.
Although Al is the most abundant metallic element in the Earth's crust, it is highly insoluble and generally unavailable to participate in biogeochemical reactions. However, under highly acidic or alkaline conditions, or in the presence of complexing ligands, elevated concentrations may be mobilised to the aquatic environment. In fact, natural processes account for most of the redistribution of aluminium in the environment. Whilst as I explained, acidic precipitation mobilises aluminium from natural sources, direct anthropogenic releases of aluminium compounds associated with industrial processes will also occur mainly to air. Certain uses also lead to the presence of aluminium in drinking water and foodstuffs. Worldwide, the largest source of airborne mineral dust is the Sahara Desert, which produces up to 200 million tons per year. The second largest source is the Gobi Desert of China. These mineral dusts are composed mainly of silicon and aluminium oxides.
I guarantee that the OP is likely referring to the fallacious claims of scientifically illiterate chemtrail conspiracy theorists that aluminium is 'bonded 'and therefore cannot be found naturally in its elemental form in nature - yet is detected in soil and water tests. What they fail to comprehend is the fact that any sample submitted, which invariably has been collected through flawed and incorrect methodology will be tested by analytical laboratories using ICP-MS. I'm sure that you will be able to comment on precisely why this is significant?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unclephilly2127
"Geo-engineering deniers suffer from cognitive dissonance more than most any other group"
Even online conspiracy theorists?
Who's denying geoengineering? - read my initial response to you. Why the strawman fallacy? Why are you changing the subject again? Oh wait...
“Chemtrails” (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection) is the primary delivery system for geo-engineering, so it’s not “changing the subject”, it is the subject."
No it isn't. To clarify, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. The association fallacy with geoengineering is through charlatans and perpetrators of the latter such as Dane Wigington in a lame attempt to add legitimacy to his claims.
"Perhaps the transcripts of the 111th Congress, discusses specifically SAI, would be a good read for you."
You mean the 2010 House of Representatives Hearing on Science and Technology? The one that tells you that SAI is purely a hypothetical proposal? What about it? I suggest that you read it yourself and refer back to my initial reply to you.
"Or Harvard professor and top geoengineer David Keith would make you see more clearly."
Perhaps visit the Harvard website (Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Programme), click on the 'Geoengineering' tab then once again refer to my initial response to you. Alternatively google 'Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory: The Keith Group', see what he has to say about it, then get back to me.
"Or maybe the 100+ patents of aircraft aerosol delivery systems."
Yep - what about them? Do you understand what an aerosol actually is? Do by all means select your best example of a patent relating to your alleged 'chemtrails'. I will then explain the actual intended purpose to you. Just the patent number will suffice. Also, do appreciate that a patent is not proof of the existence or worth of something, it is merely the registration of an idea, no matter how outlandish that may be. Precisely why you can find patents for teleportation devices or time travel.
"Or maybe Operation Popeye that was used during the Vietnam war."
Yeah, cloud seeding. Why are you changing the subject again? Strikes me your 'chemtrails' are whatever you want them to be.
"Or the worldwide conferences discussing SAI. (chemtrails)."
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is not chemtrails which are simply misidentified aircraft contrails - you can keep saying it, but don't expect to be taken seriously in the real world outside of your online echo-chamber. Of course there are conferences discussing SRM proposals. None of this is secretive.
"Or perhaps the publication from The Defense Technical Information Center- using weather as a force multiplier- owning the weather by 2025 - Maxwell AFB"
This again? Seriously? You mean 'Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025'? What you are referring to is a College project, an assignment written in the future abstract sense. Perhaps you missed to disclaimer clearly states the following: "The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government."
"But I’m sure you’ll just dismiss all of those and anything else on the topic that is a matter of open record."
I've heard and seen it all over and over and over and over again. I absolutely guarantee that I know infinitely more about the origins, the background, the claims, the false equivalence/association fallacy and the perpetrators of this dumb hoax than yourself. What's next? the ludicrous Kristen Meghan?
"Also, I have working in and around military and civilian aircraft since the 1990s"
Of course you have - isn't the internet a wonderful thing?
"so i’m pretty sure i know what a contrail is and what a contrail isn’t"
Nothing like an appeal to your own authority. Odd then that you failed to respond to my question. Actually, I have two.
1/ Why should a contrail dissipate within minutes? Please detail the physical laws that determine this.
2/ Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
@unclephilly2127
So like any conspiracy believer - having addressed and debunked all of your claims, you completely ignore my reply.
"The skies are being spayed as part of geo-engineering operations"
No they aren't. SAI is entirely hypothetical. Do you actually bother reading your own sources? Also, if you actually understood what SAI proposes then you'd know that it aims to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols and so would need to be conducted at a minimum of 65,000ft in altitude. There are already naturally produced and heterogeneously formed sulphates in the Junge Layer. SAI would similarly be completely invisible to a ground based observer and would certainly not result in a trail.
I suggest that you look into a small scale trail called SCoPEx on behalf of the Keutsch/Harvard research initiative. This plans to send a steerable balloon 20 kms into the stratosphere to release a few kilos of water and possibly calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation. That's the point, SAI hasn't even reached the stages of field trails yet - nor have the materials been determined. The SCoPEx project has been five years now awaiting ethical approval. SAI will never become a reality. As the Congress hearing that you referred to states, there are many environmental unknowns and dangers. Aside from the cost, logistics and objections, SAI will never be conducted due to the impossibility of international governance.
"whether you , or Joe Rogan, or Neil DeFraud Tyson or Bill Nye the science guy wish to acknowledge it or not."
Did you actually read what David Keith has to say about it? It was your suggestion after all. I suggest that you google 'Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory: The Keith Group'
"Yes, I’m sure you also deny that cloud seeding ever happened."
What do you mean 'ever happened'? and why are you changing the subject again? Cloud seeding programmes are practiced all over the world. In addition to large state sponsored schemes such as in the UAE and China there are private enterprises advertising their services and contracts online. So what? Aerial deployment of cloud seeding typically employs a few kilos of silver iodide through burning flares retrofitted to light aircraft at low altitude. What does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails in the stratosphere?
"open your eyes. look up."
As explained, those are the same aircraft contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
You also completely ignored my questions. In case you missed them, here they are again -
1/ Could you explain why contrails must "dissipate in minutes" the physical laws that determine this and why these don't apply to a cirrus cloud?
2/ Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I again ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
@fabriciooliveira3720
"we know government lie and there is some nasty stuff they do"
Of course all governments lie. Should we trust our government? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check.They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our governments is always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity. Simply because a government has lied or conspired it does not then follows that 9/11 (or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice or devising) must be true. A syllogistic fallacy.
"some conspiracies are created and propagated by the same people that did the 911, whomever they are. like the flat earth and chemtrails for example, and those people who are skeptical of everything fall easy for this"
Yes indeed they do - but you are illustrating that yourself in ascribing sinister intent to their origins and inception. Chemtrails for example are simply misidentified contrails and the hoax originated with an article written by William Thomas in the mid nineties and popularised by the junk radio shows of Art Bell on Coast to Coast FM. Conspiracy theory burgeoned with internet access and became lucrative. The motivation is profit and the target market the gullible and impressionable who buy into the illusion of empowerment and knowledge that somehow others aren't privy too.
"if people realize that the moonlandings were made in a hollywood studio, and the URSS never contested it besides all the intelligence of KGB, that would mean the cold war was a PSYOP to control the masses, the deep state house of cards would colapse."
And you can't get much further down the rabbit hole than this comment. Just to take your Hollywood Studio comment, aside from the fact that it would need to be fairly impressive to recreate the lunar landscape alongside 1/6th gravity and a vacuum, what about Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Groom Lake Nevada? Death Valley? The Arizona Desert? Shepperton Studios, Surrey UK? You can't even get your stories straight, because that's precisely all they are and it depends which online conspiracy theory that you subscribe to. Incidentally, I think you meant the USSR.
1
-
"NASA faked the entire thing."
Nine times, six landings and inexplicably, one failure and near catastrophe - and no one noticed. Having managed to fool entire branches of science, specialist fields worldwide such as aerospace engineering, independent nations, the best investigative journalists on the planet and each of the 76 other space agencies for over 50 years, they didn't reckon upon random conspiracy believers on the comments section of a video entertainment platform over half a century later. Nothing gets past you.
"The moon is IN Earths atmosphere."
Technically yes. But the "outermost atmosphere" that you are referring to is so sparse as to almost be non existent. We a talking 02 atoms per cc on the lunar surface. It was 'recently discovered' due to that fact and based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth (the geocorona), reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet - much further than previously thought. One of the spacecraft instruments, SWAN, used its sensitive sensors to trace the hydrogen signature and precisely detect how far the very outskirts of the geocorona are. These observations that hadn't been attempted before, could be done only at certain times of the year, when the Earth and its geocorona came into view for SWAN. This is what science does - pushes the frontiers of our knowledge and continually makes discoveries. What's your point?
"The moon rocks are fake. They are not from the moon."
Said no geologist, petrologist, mineralogist or independent analytical laboratory ever - but again, you know best.
"I have many arguments."
- From ignorance and incredulity. Do you have anything informed or original to say instead instead of consuming and regurgitating dumb online conspiracy theory about subjects you clearly have absolutely zero knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UKFANINJAPAN
"what was dishonest about Kelly Smith video where he states, speaking on the Van Allen belts, we will have to solve this? It should be solved."
The titles of the videos that appropriated the footage and as I said the quote mining removing the statement from its full context.
Orion utilises onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts and it is designed for missions of longer distance and duration. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation resistant. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. In 2014, shortly after the video, Orion was deliberately sent into the more intense inner belt to test these.
"And it’s interesting they are sending unnamed to ensure humans can survive it. Haven’t they already?"
The 2014 mission was a test-flight of a new capsule. It is customary for these to be unmanned. If you are referring the the recent flight of Artemis 1 the sole purpose was not to measure radiation. Again this was a test flight. The mannequin was wearing the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. These are fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration. Engineers will compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion will provide data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluates the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, as explained, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 is 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reached an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. The mannequin was testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincides with peak solar activity which is a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
*_"It’s all a hoax. But I know a good number of people believe as you do.
You mean entire branches of science such as astrophysics and specialist fields of expertise from orbital mechanics to aerospace engineering the world over?
Incidentally, known science is not a question of "belief".
"I’m just just not one of them.."
Correct, you have elected instead to be duped by online conspiracy theory.
1
-
@UKFANINJAPAN
"yeah, I think you are being duped.2
Said the online conspiracy believer.
"And duped by Nazi no less"
What 'Nazis' would those be?
"I don’t really care about the sensitive on board systems."
Of course you couldn't. Because firstly, that's what Kelly Smith was actually referring to, and secondly, it doesn't fit in with the conspiratorial narrative that you consume and regurgitate.
"Humans can’t survive it and they certainly couldn’t in the late 60’s-70’s."
Because...reasons.
"I could detail every reason why I think is total nonsense but it doesn’t really matter."
Correct. Junk online conspiracy theory has no bearing upon the real world.
What you could do though is qualify your claim that "humans can't survive" the VABs. Nobody who insists on repeating this falsity has ever presented any evidence to show that the flights to the Moon would have resulted in dangerous radiation doses for the astronauts involved. They are happy to hypocritically accept NASA's word that the radiation belts exist, but not the actual science behind them. You insist that manned transit of the VABs is impossible, although you are unable to substantiate your statement. Moreover, this is contrary to the existing data and measurement gathered, an entire branch of science called astrophysics, known radiobiology and the work of James Van Allen himself. Yet somehow, you claim to know better?
"You believe what you will, as will I."
Known science is not a question of 'belief' - yours or mine (and at no stage have I mentioned the latter).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidmichaels8934
"Yassa,really you are becoming tiresome"
Said the online conspiracy believer trolling this video.
"I repeat that I did not delete my original comment,why should I?"
I have no idea - only you know that. Why did you?
"I stand by what I said that chem trails are for real,ok?"
Incorrect, they are simply a nonsensical hoax originating in the 1990s that is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails that have been observed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight.
"If you disagree ok,you will never believe what I said,that's ok as well!"
Known science is not about opinion or belief. As I explained, I am irrelevant. My original response to you is based upon independently verifiable facts pertaining to aviation and meteorological science which is precisely what you are choosing to dispute.
"So let's move on,right?"
By all means, be my guest. Off you go then. After you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lcocum
No. SRM is entirely hypothetical and has not graduated beyond research and mathematical modelling.
However, let's assume for the sake of argument that SAI had progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed, - you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
In order to achieve SAI, such a strategy would be conducted in the stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and stratospheric boundaries - the regions in which the contrails that you are observing and under discussion in this video occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
Additionally, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing contrails can actually trap heat which is precisely the opposite effect that the proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaymuzikelsensacional
"no sir this video might be 5 years old but it wasn't in the top of algorithms when searching for chemtrails truth like it was 4 years ago"
Chemtrails were a popular conspiracy theory throughout the last decade.
"now all those videos are gone,,,explain that,?"
But they haven't. That is completely false. You can still find this nonsense past and present and as I explained within seconds on Google. It may be, that it's finally waning in popularity.
"Ur argument didn't explain why the censoring of those videos that was exposing the truth"
Sigh. No censoring has taken place. Many platforms have come under fire for nurturing and encouraging conspiracy theory because it was lucrative, attracting interest and therefore selling advertising. Once habits form, information sharing is automatically activated by cues on the platform without users considering critical response outcomes, such as spreading misinformation. This type of behavior has been rewarded in the past by algorithms that prioritise engagement when selecting which posts users see in their news feed, and by the structure and design of the sites themselves. You Tube came under immense pressure over this and fearing brand damage has been forced to curtail the visibility of conspiratorial content. It's all still there, and none of this, contrary to your belief has at any point 'exposed any truth'.
"yes those "conspiracies" where out by the 90s but it wasn't until 6 to 7 years ago when it took massive popularity like flat earth and the illuminati in Hollywood and government, this videos are popping out now debunking because is called damage control"
Nope, brand damage control - and the platforms have been suffering for it. As you concede, this is driven by trends. Chemtrails were very frequently searched for - not so much now. Although part of the product line for junk online conspiracy theory websites and You Tube accounts, the singular dedicated ones are becoming fewer and the main protagonists such as charlatans like Dane Wigington, increasingly marginalised.
Why do people subscribe to this? - Lack of education, critical thinking skills and an abundance of circumstances that facilitate fallacious and self serving lines of thought - in addition to a refusal to ascribe major events to natural or chaotic circumstances. Conspiracy theory is a business, it sells empty useless product to the deceived mind. As usual it's about money under the false pretence of enlightenment.
I live in perhaps a forlorn or overly optimistic hope that we have reached, or at least are approaching “peak bullshit”, when younger generations, who have grown up with the internet, can see through the twisted morass of nonsense they encounter online, having been inoculated against it through early exposure.
1
-
Oh Jeez, this again? Seriously, how many times? Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology.
Then you obviously haven't watched the entire hour and 23 minutes of footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions. Whilst at it, find footage and images of them beaming after recovery in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rookshire
"just a bit of the conversation. Cloud seeding is what they are calling it. Its something like chemical trails."
No one terms cloud seeding as "chemtrails" - only gullible conspiracy believers looking to justify their hoax through false equivalence. There are no rain bearing clouds to seed up in the stratosphere where the trails you are observing are formed which is why it is conducted by light aircraft, typically between altitudes of 2,000 - 6,500 ft. Moreover, cloud seeding does not result in long lasting visible trails - in fact it does not leave a trail at all. Combine that with the fact that an average run will burn only a few grams of silver iodide, the 'chem' aspect is pretty negligible too,
"I think those 20 thousand vials that went missing found their way into chemical trails. I could be wrong because this is just a theory."
Well no shit.
What 200 vials are you talking about? And what effect do you think that they would have had released from an aircraft in the lower stratosphere? Like I said, SARS-CoV-19 was impossible to contain due to international travel and social mixing.
"I know that the virus has about a 6% comunicablity rate or so I heard, If its true. Then it doesn't seem possible for it to spread that quickly on its own"
Not possible for a contagious virus to spread quickly on its own? What are you talking about "6% communicability"? You need to understand the R number. Actually take some time to read some scientific literature on the subject of viral spread and reproducibility instead of relying on internet hearsay and anecdotal nonsense.
"The timing of this pandemic seems really fishy too."
Why?
"Chim trials seems to be a way to spread it. I've looked into what can it seems probable."
No you clearly haven't. Learn basic immunology, virology and epidemiology. As I said, it's hard to conceive a more inefficient way to transmit a virus that spraying it out of the rear of a jet aircraft at 35,000ft.
"The fact that important data about how it got out should be another example of fishy behavior! Its things like this that make most people say . Humm! Something shady is going on."
What "important data got out"? Again, what the hell are you talking about?
"Kinda like a girl or boyfriend might at strange because they are cheating. They delete messages that sorta stuff. Its feels the same way with the virus and plenty of other things!"
Solely because you clearly haven't got the first idea about what you are talking about and are clearly completely scientifically illiterate. Genuine question - how old are you? This reads like the meandering and erratic thought process of a twelve year old with learning difficulties. No offence meant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@krispoli22
What? "stretch the ionosphere out into space to change the jet streams"?? Is this actually serious?
Yeah, you're clearly consuming a conspiratorial 'sushi' of online false equivalence and association fallacy contrived and perpetuated by the perpetrators of this nonsense and in so doing have just regurgitated that response.
Firstly HAARP is the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project owned by the University of Alaska, an HF pump, which has absolutely nothing to do with the weather and is used as an ionospheric research tool. Find out what it actually consists of and is designed to do/capable of, instead of relying on junk circulated by crackpot conspiracy theorists.
Secondly, once again, the chemtrail conspiracy theory is based upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. To reiterate the ionosphere has nothing to do with our weather. Chemtrail conspiracy theorists rant on about 'aluminium oxide and barium' purely because fifteen years ago, they were identified as possible materials to deploy by those spearheading research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which most scientifically illiterate chemtrail believers now comically assume to be those white trials in the wake of jet aircraft. SAI is entirely hypothetical and were it ever to be employed in a bid to arrest global temperature increase (which is won't, due to amongst other things, the impossibility of international governance.) would likely involve sulphates or CaCO3.
"Nano size!? - another term chemtrail believers seem to like to mindlessly bat about. That being the case, how do they form trails?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, in addition to attaches, advisors, consultants and military personnel and trainers. At the same time, Russian proxies were indiscriminately killing in East Ukraine under the guise of separatists. It was a Russian Buk missile that downed MH17. Once the Ukrainian government is toppled, this then comes down to his ambitions beyond Ukraine. The catastrophic escalation will come from encroachment into the Baltic, because once the government in Kiev is overthrown - all eyes will be due north...and that's NATO soil.
Without their NATO membership, gained in 2004, the Baltic nations would be in the so called grey zone whereby Putin might well have be immediately eyeing them as a potential next meal - after devouring Moldova and Belarus. In Russia’s eyes, a grey zone does not mean neutrality between East and West; it means Kremlin rule.
While Europe and the eyes of the world were focused on Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine, the Russian leader has silently annexed Belarus. Lukashenko has always been completely dependent on Putin for his political survival. That new Russian military presence in Belarus isolates Lithuania and the two other Baltic states from the rest of Western Europe. The Baltic states fear encirclement., Strategically only the Suwalki Gap, which is a mere 60 mile frontier with Poland, gives Lithuania an outlet to other NATO member states, a stretch that could be easily cut off by Russian troops in the event of conflict.
Chillingly, on the Belarusian border with Lithuania is a reminder...a memorial to seven unarmed Lithuanian border guards who were cold bloodedly shot in the head, executed by Soviet special forces in1991, as Moscow tried to crush Lithuanian efforts to protect their newly liberated borders. Russian troops are now deployed on that very border and Lithuanian's do not believe that they will withdraw once the occupation of Ukraine is complete. Precisely why Lithuanians have been expressing their fears to the rest of the world that in Putin's crusade to restore Russia's 'greatness' is no longer a 'grey' area.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterMaddison2483
"contrails' are real, and so are 'chemtrails"
Splendid, then you could become the first to define both your precise qualitative and quantitative methodology to allow the differentiation between a contrail and a chemtrail and provide statistics as to the reliability and error margins of your method. Your alternative is to admit that you have no such methodology.
"Well, it's been proven as FACT that chemtrails are REAL"
Engaging caps lock and saying 'fact' doesn't make it true.
"as people who are involved in them have come forwards and admitted in doing it."
Really? Who? Come forward about what precisely?
"Also, not all 'conspiracy theorists' believe in the same thing, as I don't believe in this 'flat earth' shit. And, FYI, 'conspiracy theorists; have been proven right and are now also called 'truthers'.
So are flat earthers. What's your point? Actually, they all sanctimoniously brand themselves as "truthers" - nothing could be further from it.
"I bet, now that I've said that, I get a shit load of people flaming me."
Then don't say it?
You didn't answer the question. What in particular are you challenging in respect of the content of this video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SAI - happening since 1940? No it hasn't.
Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilitse the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
The $20 million launch of the recent Harvard Research programme is a drop in the ocean. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to understand the economic, environmental and practical challenges of geoengineering. The systematic dominance of physical science and engineering perspectives in geoengineering research encourages a neglect of social and environmental impacts. This negligence is characteristic of an approach that addresses symptoms but aims to leave the underlying conditions that spawned the problem in place. Yet the socio-political and socio-economic implications of large-scale technological schemes to “fix” the climate are profound: under existing global power relations, geoengineering is bound to be exploited for corporate and strategic interest.
Computer simulations have predicted other possible impacts of geoengineering schemes on the natural world. Injecting aerosols in the stratosphere could suppress rainfall and potentially interfere with monsoon patterns. Carbon farm monocultures could conceivably destroy natural ecosystems at a massive scale. Given that natural processes and systems are complex, non-linear, and in some measure chaotic and unpredictable, the overwhelming majority of effects that will ripple through our global ecosystems might only become apparent after geoengineering technologies are actually deployed.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
@on-ye7ir
"you seem extremely misinformed"
https://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://izenmeme.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/i_meter5.gif&key=e8afe5c7f0f6f609f441e3f3a5a92d9cdf393094dde3927c39e0a43b0ec88fa6
"look up once in a while,"
Well I have alpine climbed since childhood, obtained a post graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two decades ago, subsequently specialising in ground based remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength - (so I can not only tell you what you are looking at - but how to measure it) - and have more than a passing interest in astronomy - what's your point and what in particular about my reply to you do you wish to challenge?
"its not rocket science."
...it's meteorological science - and you clearly know the square root of jack shit about either.
"I thought Armenians are considered a highly intelligent race"
Armenian?
"https://youtu.be/AClt8BgXPpQ"
Er, yeah, that'll be a link to another baseless you tube video about the chemtrails conspiracy posted by believers in the chemtrails conspiracy theory, featuring confirmation bias and deceptive, misleading and dishonestly appropriated footage pushing the chemtrails conspiracy theory, by perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory as supposed evidence of the chemtrails conspiracy theory.?!? Genius.
Other than the fact your shit conspiracy video told you what to parrot, why do you think that SAI has been conducted since the 1940s and why it would have anything whatsoever to do with a contrail in either appearance, nature or deployment?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Let’s talk about SAI. Stratospheric aerosol injections."
Nope, that would be Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.
"This is what the CIA wants to do, with 10 billion dollars"
Source?
"Tax payer dollars of course, and they plan to drop the chemicals or chemtrails into the sky to combatant climate change and pollution."
SAI has nothing to do with pollution.
"This isn’t a conspiracy this is out in the open and they have held press conferences on the matter."
The CIA? Could you refer me to one? Surely, you can't be referring to a 2016 video of John Brennan's voluntary address to the COFN in which he identified transnational threats to global security and that conspiracy theorists have dishonestly appropriated and posted as a chemtrails video?
"Now you half brain dead, mutilated (circumcised) poisoned (injected) people, (don’t feel bad I’m injured too) tell me, do you think it is a good idea to combat pollution, with more chemical pollution?"
It isn't designed to combat pollution. Why do you keep saying that?
"And do you think that they actually want to combat climate change with these chemicals?"
That's the general idea yes. It will never come to fruition though.
"The CIA director has already been pushing for this."
No he hasn't, that is entirely false. As explained, the former Director of the CIA John Brennan spoke about the potential dangers of this - the complete opposite of advocating its use.
"Now you tell me. If they haven’t already done it without our permission, why are they trying to do it with our permission and even worse OUR hard earned money."
Please allow me to explain. SAI has nothing whatsoever to do with the CIA. It is a branch of geoengineering called Solar Radiation Management. With the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening, this is entirely hypothetical. SAI, would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols ad that heterogeneously produced in the Junge Layer. The main impetus behind this research is the Keutsch/Keith group at Harvard. This has not progressed beyond mathematical modelling and research proposals. They received a huge set back recently having waited years to gain ethical approval for their SCoPEx project which never came. This intended to launch a steerable balloon 20km into the stratosphere and release a few kilos or water (and possibly calcium carbonate) to test perturbation.
SAI will never become a reality - not simply due to environmental unknowns, opposition and logistics, but due to the sheer impossibility of international governance and the ramifications of legal liability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedudewashere1987
"Type in solar radiation management and look at the Wikipedia definition."
I have no need to. I'm already very familiar with the proposals.
"Then, look up the patent for Stratospheric Aerosal Injections."
What? Patents are not proof of the existence of something. Incidentally, the correct spelling is 'aerosol.'
SAI would aim to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. "Metal particulates"???? As I said, there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - yup, that's right, chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to utilise the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"Then watch Peter Brennan former director of the CIA explain a multi billion dollar proposal to start spraying."
Oh Christ, you're embarrassingly bad at this aren't you. If you insist on parroting things off shite online conspiracy videos, at least get the names right. You are referring to the ex-Director of the CIA 'John' Brennan and his appearance as a guest speaker at the Council for Foreign Nations in which his chosen theme was transitional threats to global security.
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
During his address Brennan discussed future issues that may result in worldwide instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could create international conflict and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to identify a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political, Environmental Sociological and Technological framework. He explored research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan states that SAI is about to commence. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
"Then research the difference between a contrail that needs specific conditions to even be visible and which dissipates in a short time"
My background is meteorology and climate science. Please for the benefit of anyone reading this explain why a contrail must "dissipate in a short time" supported by the physical laws that determine this, and providing citations and scientific substantiation to verify your claim. Good..luck...with...that.
"and an Aerosal injection which eventually blankets the sky with a hazy layer."
As I explained, SAI would be imperceptible to the ground based observer. Coincidentally - condensed atmospheric water vapour tends to do exactly that...well no shit.
"Couple those factors with using your own lying eyes and you'll see that these aren't contrails."
My background is ground-based passive remote sensing in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength). Not only do I understand what I'm looking at, but I can tell you precisely how to measure it too.
And you in-situ analytical data of your supposed chemtrails at source?
Why do you imbeciles feel the need to comment on issues that you clearly have no understanding of whatsoever - purely because you have access to the internet but clearly have no clue how to use it?
1
-
@thedudewashere1987
"because imbeciles like you never question the narrative."
Coming from a gullible buffoon that has allowed the internet to convince him that a cloud is a conspiracy theory. And your point about "Paul" Brennan?
"You're pretty good at copying and pasting. I'll give you that."
Squawked the online conspiracy parrot.
All my own words, all addressing your confused regurgitated nonsense. Feel free to refute it.
"Don't mind the evidence that this is something that has been planned for a while"
What "evidence" would that be? You mean research proposals into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which have never been in the slightest bit secretive or out of the public domain?
"And all of the sudden, we have "contrails" or condensation that doesn't dissipate."
Persistent contrails have been occurring for almost a century. Why should contrails immediately dissipate? I asked you to support this contention...you have failed. Condensation "that doesn't dissipate"??? Are you equally as perturbed about fog. mist or a cloud?
"The point is, those are aerosol injections, not contrails."
As I painstakingly explained SAI is designated for double the altitude of the contrails that you are misidentifying. In addition to this, the objective is to reproduce the effects of volcanic aerosols and would be imperceptible to ground based observation - far less resemble the large white plumes in the wake of a commercial airliners that have been documented, studied and understood since the advent of the jet era.
"Even if I produced a few typos, it doesn't make me wrong."
Say hello to "Paul" Brennan.
"The whole point of this interview was about how absurd the idea of chemtrails are. Well, the government sure doesn't think so."
I assure you that they do. Which "government" in particular are you referring to?
"I'm done arguing because I know you will write, excuse me, copy and paste a bunch of articles trying to debunk chemtrails."
I have no need to whilst there are imbeciles such as yourself parroting this nonsense. You've done a comprehensive job ridiculing your own conspiracy theory yourself.
"While your at it..."
Learn to understand the difference in application between a possessive pronoun and a contraction?
"...why don't you go argue with somebody about whether or not we are being bombarded by radio emissions from cell towers."
Because the subject under discussion here is contrails. What do research proposals into SAI have to do with the latter?
"Nothing is being sprayed"
Correct. The only correct thing you have typed in this entire exchange. Even a fucked clock tells the right time twice a day.
Why do you people do this to yourselves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Which you obviously didn't. False equivalence yet again.
Bill Gates is doing nothing of the sort . Gates leant vocal support and some funding to an area of geoengineering research called Solar Radiation Management - more specifically, Harvard's research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. This is entirely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond publications and computer modelling. Moreover, Bill Gates has nothing at all to do with this in practice. Finally, even in the highly unlikely event that SAI were ever to be employed, it would bear no relationship whatsoever to the misidentified aircraft contrails discussed in this video that have been observed, measured and studied for the best part of a century and since the early advent of high altitude powered flight. - and what do you mean "pigments"? There is no agreement upon which material would best replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, which is why the SCoPEx project is looking to evaluate perturbation, reflectivity and dispersion using a small balloon launched to an altitude of 20kms and initially a few kilos of water, followed by calcium carbonate.
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"This is bull, Harvard uni admit to strasospheric aerosol spraying"
Sigh. That's "Stratospheric Aerosol Injection" and Harvard don't "admit" to anything of the sort. Research into SAI has never been secretive. It is very much in the interest of those involved in research into any form of Solar Radiation Management to publicise their work to generate funding and support. How precisely do you "admit" to something that isn't denied? Furthermore, SAI is purely hypothetical and has not progressed beyond publication of proposals and mathematical modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance, the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles in addition to the environmental unknowns, mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used.
"aluminium, berillium and strontium"
Absolute nonsense. What on earth are you talking about. Also, I think you mean beryllium.
SAI would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. Regarding Calcium Carbonate, early research suggests that it has near-ideal optical properties, meaning that for a given amount of reflected sunlight it would absorb far less radiation than sulfate aerosols, causing significantly less stratospheric heating. It is also non-toxic and earth abundant. However, it does not have the stratospheric reactivity of sulphate.
In 2019 year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it looks like...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails or the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"HOW FUCKING PATHETIC ...HOW ABOUT I LOOKED UP AT THE SKY AND SAW THE AIRPLANES SPRAYING WHITE LINES THAT WENT COMPLETELY ACROSS THE SKY"
You mean the same contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation?
"AND NOW THERE ARE X PATTERN AND V PATTERNS"
Amazing to think that commercial air traffic actually originates from, and travels to, a range of different destinations on the planet, using multiple headings, altitudes and bearings. Did you know that they can actually change course during this too? V patterns? You got some footage of this?
"SO I RESEARCHED THIS CAREFULLY FOR 10 YEARS"
What could possibly go wrong?
"AND FOUND OUT THEY WERE DOING CHEMTRAILS BACK IN THE 50S ...OPERATION POPEYE IS AN ADMITTED CHEMTRAIL OPERATION THAT HAPPENED IN VIETNAM ....."
No, it was a cloud seeding programme which has nothing to do with long lasting white trails in the wake of jet powered aircraft at six times the altitude .
"BUT THIS WEIRDO JOE ROGAN , THE SHILL OF ALL SHILLS , THINKS WE ARE STUPID ...."
What could possibly give him that impression?
"ONE DAY , THE GOVT WILL ADMIT TO CHEMTRAILS BECAUSE ALL OF US WILL EVENTUALLY SEE THESE TOXIC SPRAYINGS ...THEN WHAT JOE ? WILL YOU APOLOGIZE FOR BEING THE SHILL THAT YOU ARE ??"
You are seriously attempting to suggest that a small community of special people in the internet are the only ones that have noticed white trails in the sky accompanying high flying aircraft...a phenomena known, recognised and understood since the early inception of powered flight?
Might want to get that jammed caps lock on your keyboard looked at.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-dt3rz2lz7q
"I've never considered myself to be significant in any way, shape or form. Never
Your comments indicate the opposite.
"I will however point out that, a comments section invites one's opinions and reactions."
And I am inclined to agree. However know science is about neither.
"Dumb, implies unwilling or even unable to speak, hardly an accurate description of me."
Simply one definition. It also means to be lacking in intelligence.
"In the free world l am entitled to my opinion which l gave"
You are indeed. Simply because you are at liberty to express that on the internet however does not make it a valid one. Quick tip, it helps if you actually know some very basic details about subjects that you wish to declare as being fake. Not one conspiracy believer that I have ever encountered has ever grasped that notion.
"you however, chose to play cryptic mind games and a desire to win an argument, on this entertainment platform."
Nope, I gave you an example of context, pointed out that contrary to your belief, truth is not subjective and responded to a series of banal statements subsequent to that.
"You have clearly been seeking favourable attention from the other commenters."
And how have you established that?
"Why did you responded directly to me in the first place?"
Because that's the general idea of a comments section, hence the feature marked 'reply'. And as you yourself mentioned, I am at complete liberty to do so.
"There are many other comments, from many others here, that reflect my view exactly."
From equally deluded Dunning Kruger afflicted individuals, that similarly flock to these videos in the mistaken belief that parroting online conspiracy theory makes them sound informed and clever and feel special. Fortunately, there are those that challenge this hubris.
"Maybe keep your personal opinions about others intelligence to yourself"
Maybe keep your dumb conspiracy theory to yourself - or if you insist upon trolling videos such as these, don't respond with surprise and indignation when someone challenges your asinine claims.
"and use this video entertainment platform to express relevantly and factually your opinion, so that others actually understand why YOU, believe Man walked on the Moon."
Know science is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned mine.
"Oh and Yassassin, l don't believe he walked on the Moon, but l do believe there's a Man in it. Pardon my mirth."
You already said that too - do you have the retention of a Goldfish and the repertoire of a parrot?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No problem whatsoever - are you genuinely interested in answers though? And why do you think that they would have fried? Who told you that? I'm going to assume that you at least know that radiation comes in different types and intensities. Incidentally, they are belts, since there are two, with a third that is transitory.
The belts consist of diffuse toroidal volumes around the Earth's equator within which radiation levels are elevated by the planet's magnetic field trapping charged particles from the sun. The inner torus is populated by energetic protons which they passed through in mere minutes and against which the hull of the CM was an effective shield. (The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2). The craft took an hour and a half to traverse the more extensive outer torus but this region has mainly low energy electrons and so was less of a concern to mission planners. Also the inclination of the trajectory being in the plane of the Moon's orbit avoided the strongest regions of the belts near the equator.
When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
To intercept the orbit of the moon a spacecraft needs to fire its engine for a predetermined period of time. This burn adds energy to the orbit and in a process called the Hohmann transfer, propels the spaceship farther from Earth, changing its orbit from a circular orbit to an elliptical one. So during Trans Lunar Injection, the Van Allen belts were no threat to astronauts passing through them at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Early probes enabled the calculation, whilst Apollo dosimeters confirmed, that astronaut exposure from belt passage was roughly the same as a chest x-ray. Exposure for the entire trip to the moon was equivalent to from one to three mammograms, or half the annual exposure of residents of Denver CO. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 620 mi to 7,500 mi) above the Earth. As I mentioned VAB are toroidal and trace the shape of the earth's magnetic field, so you need to think of the actual trajectory in terms of the three-dimensional transit. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts at high velocity and in a short space of time. They spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the inner region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. Also, alpha and beta particles are comparatively easy to shield against. You can block the former with a piece of paper.
Finally, known science is not about "belief". It has a voice of its own and is demonstrable.
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Its called Geo Engineering and its real."
And what precisely do you mean by "geoengineering"? It is a very broad term divided into two branches you see; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involves such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors.
I'll wager, (given the desperate attempts by the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory to conflate geoengineering with this online hoax), that you are referring Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
"But 30 years ago these trails used to disappear in srconds. Those are contrails"
The appearance or duration of a contrail is entirely dependent upon the the prevailing atmospheric conditions. Thirty seconds? Now explain why summoning known physical meteorological laws and citations to support your answer. When you've done that, explain why the same arbitrary time scale doesn't apply to a cirrus cloud.
"These are different. They linger for hours and spread out, eventually it cretes a haze.
In much the same way that condensed atmospheric water vapour does? How coincidental.
"Please just look up Geo Engineering. Its the "offical (sic) term"
Except that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the contrails that you are seeing - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well let's see. That'll be entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise such as aerospace engineering and rocketry worldwide, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists, Nobel Prize winning physicists over 10,000 private sector investments, organisations and initiatives, and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet. In short, domains, disciplines and individuals far cleverer and more informed than an insignificant, random, gullible Dunning Kruger afflicted believer in dumb online conspiracy theory with zero knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
And no, known science and technology is not a question of 'belief' that would be the the junk conspiracy theory that is subscribed to by weak minded buffoons with an IQ less than 100 and allow online con artists and grifters to tell them what to think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juniortee3283
Rosalind Peterson??? Again???
Rosalind Peterson isn't a 'Senator,' she was a crops loss claims adjustment adjuster – a sort of agricultural insurance agent.The main video that she features in which is still tirelessly flogged by chemtrail believers over a decade later is not as it dishonestly claims Peterson addressing the UN either. This was simply a conference on Climate Change organised by the UN, not an actual UN sitting. The session she addressed was titled "Coping With Climate Change: Best Land Use Practice"Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defence Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC is just her. It's just the name of her personal website. Her presentation only discusses geoengineering – again in the future tense, and focuses more on existing weather modification (cloud seeding), sounding rockets in the ionosphere, and the effects of normal persistent contrails which she clearly has no scientific understanding of. At 4:58 she mentions persistent jet contrails, stressing her belief that they are affecting photosysnthesis by reducing sunlight. She mentions ‘persistent jet contrails’ - due to her background her chief concern is how they potentially affect agriculture, by reducing sunlight, and trapping heat. Five years later Peterson had explicitly distanced herself from her unintentional association the chemtrails hoax. “We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything” Rosalind Peterson 2015.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@White Wolf
Certainly - and I appreciate the apology, although like I say, I am impervious to it.
A contrail is simply a form of artificially induced cirrus. The governing factors are temperature, humidity and pressure. A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is very cold. If you burn a hydrocarbon fuel the the two chief products will obviously be H20 and C02. Do so in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, if the conditions permit, then this water vapour present in the aircraft exhaust as a gas will condense out. In cases of high Relative Humidity in respect to ice then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can spread, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
Now reconsider those supposed chemtrail aircraft interiors that you were dishonestly mislead about. How could they possibly collectively have the necessary capacity to deposit a single horizon to horizon trail and what chemical can expand and grow in mass other than condensed atmospheric water vapour? When viewed as a ground based observer it looks like this, (taken from the pages of a 75 year old meteorology textbook)..
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
The science of contrail cirrus is explained here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0469%282000%29057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
This is also very informative...
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/6229/2009/acp-9-6229-2009.pdf
I genuinely hope this helps.
1
-
@White Wolf
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then there is SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely hypothetical - the exception being ground based albedo modification.
So to reiterate, the reason that you may term Stratospheric Aerosol Injection as "chemtrails" owes solely to the perpetrators of this hoax intentionally conflating the two and due to confirmation bias, chemtrail believers are simply too ignorant about the subject to recognise their intentional false equivalence / association fallacy or objectively critically appraise the claims.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - which Harvard's David Keith is the main proponent of would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. As I mentioned. the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. Chemtrail believers parrot "aluminium, barium, strontium' and yet there is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. This year an experiment was scheduled that never took place involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing water to be followed by mere kilograms of calcium carbonate to subsequently measure dispersion and perturbation. This is your SAI and this is what it currently looks like...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
However, let's humour you and the video that you link that you posted and assume for the sake of argument that SAI had progressed beyond the hypothetical and was actually being deployed. What you fail to appreciate is that you wouldn't see it at all - far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft or a cirrus cloud. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). In order to achieve this, such a strategy would be conducted in the mid-stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere the regions in which the contrails that you are observing and under discussion in this video occur. There is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000ft). Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
Additionally, and highly ironically, through radiative forcing contrails can actually trap heat which is precisely the opposite effect that the proponents of SAI wish to engineer.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video there really is no further need to discuss it.
1
-
@White Wolf
"Look.. How come we never seen all this stuff before the 1990s then? Why did they suddenly appear out of nowhere? I've spoken to numerous people on this matter and they all concur with me that you never used to see these long thick trails years ago..."
Absolutely incorrect. Persistent contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight and the best part of a century. Do you actually read my replies? Again, allow me to refer you to an image from a 75 year old meteorology text book...
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
In Flight to Arras the legendary aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote about his high-altitude reconnaissance plane leaving contrails that would expand "covering the countryside". This was an account published in 1942 about a reconnaissance flight in 1940. It's still available in paperback.
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/flightto.htm
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitudes trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)
the following paper is almost five decades old.
"Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0937%3AAOOCEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet." Kuhn (1970).
Here's another one from 47 years ago. This is an in-situ study of the growth of a persistent contrail derived from optical array spectrometry:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I quote directly:
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favourable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails." Knollenberg (1972)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SGTACESGTACESGTACE
To clarify, and remind you - this is what you said:
"Bill gates is tryin to dim the sun by flyin planes and dumping chems to reflect the light back and lower the earth temp. Hes been workin on it for 20 years."
This is absolutely incorrect. Yes, he has been a strong advocate and has donated to the Harvard initiative, but he has nothing whatsoever to do with the research per se.
"And yes for 20 years he has been pushing it."
You now need to substantiate that. Go ahead. The idea of SAI wasn't even conceived back then.
"in all the years he has conducted a experiment or prototype time will tell i guess."
SAI hasn't graduated beyond mathematical modelling nor has it reached the stages of small scale trial. There is not even agreement upon which materials would best serve to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. And to reiterate, Bill Gates has nothing to do with SAI in practice should it even get that far.
"they wouldn't hesitate to experiment on the people"
What would be the purpose of that?
"I guess it depends how far along in research they are but hypothetical after all that time i doubt. But as i said we shall see."
I can assure you that it is. SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. It would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. Currently there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft). It also faces many environmental unknowns in addition to insurmountable challenges in respect of global governance and transnational relations.
However, let's assume for the sake of argument that SAI had progressed beyond research proposal and computer simulation and was actually being deployed - you wouldn't see it at all, far less, resembling a long white trail in the wake of a large commercial aircraft. There are number of reasons for this. The purpose of SAI is to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
In order to achieve SAI, such a strategy would be conducted in the stratosphere, (hence the name), not in the tropopause and lower stratosphere regions in which the contrails that you are observing and under discussion in this video occur. As I said, there is currently no aircraft in existence that could loft the requisite payloads to the required altitudes. Moreover, such a programme would be likely equatorial in its location to utilise the Brewer Dobson upper atmospheric circulation patterns; or in polar regions where the required altitude would be lower.
There was however an experiment designated for 2019 which never took place. This was to involve a small steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere releasing several kilos of water and possible in later tests the same negligible quantities of calcium carbonate to evaluate dispersion and perturbation. This is called SCoPEx and here is the current status of SAI as it stands...
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JJ-kz7sm
"actually you do make claim to science and fact, for that you are responsible."
As I said, I am irrelevant. Known science is ineluctable and axiomatic, thereby, as I explained, speaks for itself.
"Next concept we discuss is time. It's relative. My time for now has expired. I don't have time to spend all afternoon arguing with a closed off person."
As I said, I am irrelevant. Your dispute lies with physical laws, not me.
"Repeatedly I say I don't prescribe but you just ignore that."
Actually, you said this..
"This is a 30 year old theory and it's plausible"
And I disagree, that's all.
As I said, this is a 30 year old conspiracy theory - and a particularly dumb one at that - originating in the misidentification of persistent contrails.
"_"If you look back I made no claim, simply asked a question framed with "if"_*
Incorrect. You said it was plausible. I disagree. The burden of proof is therefore incumbent upon you to demonstrate why. The onus does not lie with me to establish a negative.
"I will revisit this some other time to see if your holding up or if you jumped."
You are at liberty to 'revisit' it whenever you want. It's a comments section.
"Take care and make sure to wear 2-3 facemasks."
One N95 respirator is quite sufficient to filter out the most of the particle matter I was referring to.
1
-
1
-
@JJ-kz7sm
"you do realize that by claiming you are irrelevant you disqualified yourself."
Disqualified myself from what precisely? As I said, the atmospheric chemistry and physical laws that govern contrail formation are independently verifiable, nothing to do with me.
"So why, just because you said it, does it become fact?"
Just because I said what precisely? To reiterate, known science is axiomatic and thereby has a voice of its own.
"You say I have a burden of proof for asking questions and pointing out plausible circumstances."
You haven't and you didn't though. You made a series of ill-informed statements before concluding that the chemtrail hoax was "plausible".
"That same burden exists on you for making your claims here."
The only claim that I have made is that the chemtrail conspiracy nonsenses is predicated upon with the misidentification of persistent contrails - which is correct. If you wish to suggest that the trails you are seeing are anything other than the product of condensed atmospheric water vapour then the onus is upon you to present your data and provide evidence. Particularly when you brand this nonsense as "plausible". The onus does not lie with me to establish a negative. Again, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Russel's teapot.
"I do hope you enjoy your troll life but would guess you don't enjoy much?"
As the one posting irrational claims, ill-informed nonsense and assumptions and ad-hominem abuse, then the troll would be none other than yourself. I simply questioned your logic about particulate matter, corrected you on your claims about jet fuel and addressed every point you made with verifiable science...and how you people hate that. You in return responded with indignation and logical fallacy before pronouncing that chemtrails are plausible, failing to understand burden of proof, then said you were going, only to return with another undignified emotional outburst and series of non-sequiturs. By definition, that makes the troll none other than yourself, another very simple concept that you are evidently incapable of comprehending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No - the Apollo moon landings were all fraught with danger and plagued by technical issues which is why no one claimed anything of the sort.
I'm assuming you mean the covid vaccinations? Actually, they prevented 14·4 million 95% credible interval deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8 2021. Of these, 0.053% had an adverse reaction. In the EU alone, those that suffered a fatal reaction to vaccination represents 0.52% of the 2,169,191that died of coronavirus.
Death has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered. This includes cases of anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction that can occur after any kind of vaccination. To put this into perspective, there are 120 deaths per million from road accidents per year on all those "safe and effective" highways in the USA. Presumably, you don't drive or allow yourself to be driven then?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lizardfirefighter110
"I am flattered that you spent so much time trying to debunk me."
Don't be. It took a maximum of about five minutes to type my reply to you. I'm not "trying" to do anything - your dumb conspiracy theory debunks itself. Nothing to do with me.
"I know what I saw and it is different than what I saw as a kid."
But you don't know what you saw by virtue of the fact that you claim that they are chemtrails. The persistent spreading contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. These are simply more prevalent today due to the huge unregulated expansion of commercial aviation and routes flown.
"You have to ask why is there even a discussion on this topic. Why are there witness with degrees in science walking my path?"
Such as? Would you like me to also explain the logical fallacy that is appeal to authority?
"Why do people talk about Geo-engineering?"
Because it is a very broad subject. GGR (or negative emissions technology) involves such practices as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), whilst carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation and ocean fertilisation are all highly topical. The Solar Radiation Management which you appear to be alluding to encompasses research initiatives such as Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This, with the exception of ground based albedo modification, entirely hypothetical consisting or research proposal and mathematical modelling. What's your point? Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about - as your posts are ample testimony to.
"I know what I see"
Yes, so you keep saying. Your personal incredulity and repeated insistence has no bearing upon reality - and if you think that geoengineering would in anyway remotely resemble a contrail, then you demonstrably don't. Why dion't you actually read up on the subject instead of letting internet conspiracy theorists tell you what to think?
"and it’s not contrails running through a dynamic atmosphere"
What?
"I know my blue sky turns white by mid afternoon after seeing white streaks from horizon to horizon against a blue sky in the morning."
Did you read the paper that I provided you with? Of course you didn't. Your explanation can be found through a basic grasp of meteorological science as opposed to a junk You Tube chemtrails conspiracy video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Nono technology is 100% real"
Nono technology?
"and they have been accused of testing it via airplanes by many credible people."
Such as? And who precisely are "they"?
"Elizabeth May, tge leader if the Green Party in Canada can straighten you out on what is happening in the world of geoengineering"
What does geoengineering have to do with persistent contrails which have been observed, documented, recorded and studied since the early advent of aviation or the chemtrail hoax which is predicated upon the misidentification of the latter?
Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification. SAI aims to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate this - indeed, this year an experiment involving a steerable balloon launched 20 kms into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert and mere kilograms of calcium carbonate - yes, chalk - will take place to measure dispersion and perturbation. Here's the current status of SAI -
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Geoengineering is a largely hypothetical theoretical series of proposals which have nothing to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory bar the attempts of its perpetrators to conflate the two to afford credence to their ludicrous claims.
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
"I hope illegal geoengineering dust makes its way into your lungs. You obviously want to ignore it as crazy. Asshole"
Illegal geoengineering dust????? ...calcium carbonate?
You really don't understand this do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johntate5050
"How many times do your government have to lie to you"
Because the dumb online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly defer to is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees... they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic fallacy.
The Apollo moon landings are governed by known science and supported by scientific, independent and third party evidence which is irrefutable.
"before you wake up?"
Ever a source of amusement that the dullards that insist on still parroting this tired and cringeworthy conspiratorial cliché are the ones that slept through science classes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two words, Massimo Mazzucco.
If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
Small wonder then that it was made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artistry and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ffs - not this again. It's the same thing over and over and over and over again with you goons.
Find the original video, 'Orion: Trial By Fire' from 2014 and place it in its intended context. Engineer Kelly Smith said that the challenges of the space radiation environment had to be solved for the new design - the Orion capsule before a crew can be sent into this region of space. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. The computers were responsible for a relatively small aspect of the operation of the spacecraft; a lot of tasks were performed manually. In contrast, modern spacecraft like Orion are controlled by very high-density computing, and single event upsets (SEUs) can cause major problems. The challenge to be solved for Orion was therefore a completely different one to that solved by the Apollo design. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the Apollo era pre-written core rope memory is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. In the same year (2014), Orion was sent into the densest region of the belts and performed flawlessly, and last year on a test flight to the moon and back (Artemis 1).
Why do you people gullibly rely on junk online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think? Why are you incapable of ascertaining this for yourself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ed La Valle
Actually, he said nothing of the sort....
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
During his address as a voluntary speaker to the Council on Foreign Relations, Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if it were to be implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider and evaluate a range of technological initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan is discussing Solar Radiation Management in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a political, socio-economic and technological framework - research proposals and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even explores anti-ageing technologies.
Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "already said they use ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOL INJECTION to spray ALUMINUM PARTICLES in the atmosphere" (or "talks about chemtrails" as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), or that SAI is currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles that Brennan referred to mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. Aluminium???? There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilise the Brewer-Dobson patterns.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"They pulled off this chicanery with very few people being "in on it"."
Absolute nonsense. The Apollo Programme had no such compartmentalisation and is the most detailed and documented engineering projects of such scale and complexity in history involving 400,000 personnel and a nexus of 20,000 external contractors. It was completely transparent - which is why it was effortlessly infiltrated by the Soviets. The culture of openness and communication that was engendered was intrinsic to its success. This not only involved vertical and horizontal integration, but information flows to a myriad of external contractors, partners and stakeholder each of which, including the internal personnel needed to know what the other were doing and see the big picture. People were free to come and go, NASA hired and fired like any other organisation, whilst throughout, they were encouraged to embrace this ethos of communication and interact and talk to one another. For over half a century entire branches of science, specialist disciplines and fields of expertise worldwide have forensically scrutinised every mission profile, every schematic, specification down to sensors, rivets, nuts, bolts, switches and circuit breakers and the history and technology of the Programme has been exhaustively examined through thousands of books, journal publications/academic papers, technical authorships and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet.
"According to your "friend" Bart Sibrel"
An ex-cab driving stalker, convicted felon, proven liar and fraud, former TV advertisement maker turned conspiracy theorist that managed to get himself ostracised from the entire industry, with a gargantuan chip on his shoulder and absolutely zero in the way of relevant expertise whatseover - righto then!
"I believe that you, being as smart and intelligent as you are, will eventually see the truth, and then change your mind"
Coming from a gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory that has allowed himself to be hoodwinked by grifters like Sibrel.
1
-
1
-
What on earth are you talking about? Research into geoengineering has always been fully transparent and in the public domain. And what are you referring to? Geoengineering is a very broad term divided into two branches; GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. This is almost entirely in the province of research proposals, the exception being ground based albedo modification.
The chemtrail hoax is based upon misidentified contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and over eighty years. It originated in the US (where else?) during 1990s largely through the junk late night radio shows of Art Bell on commercial radio station Coast to Coast AM that churns out all manner of conspiratorial sensationalism to harvest stupidity, boost ratings and therefore advertising revenue. Internet availability, rampant growth in populism/ant-science and the 'post-truth' era have caused online conspiracy theory to burgeon and become very lucrative for some. The perpetrators of this hoax have intentionally used false equivalence in a feeble attempt to add legitimacy to their ludicrous claims - chemtrail believers and self-appointed armchair experts that have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about meteorology, atmospheric science and aviation and so are unable to recognise such association fallacy simply uncritically lap it up and regurgitate it over the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FFE-js2zp
There is no link, and if you attempt to post one it will likely be shadow banned.
Lunar samples have not been "all lost" that is an outright lie, and NASA have never said that they lost data pertaining to radiation measurements from Apollo. They never declared that "no radiation hazard existed" either. The quote you have posted from Popular Science details how they traversed the outer regions of the VABs. The trajectories that the Apollo missions flew threw the VABs posed no significant hazard to the astronauts, but beyond that and the protection of the earth's magnetosphere, radiation in space is always a hazard. Due to the enforced timing, the Apollo missions coincided with the height of a solar cycle, the periodic waxing and waning of activity that occurs every 11 years. Given that solar flares and solar energetic particle events are more common during times of heightened solar activity it was a huge gamble and they were very lucky.
The new craft, Orion utilises onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more sophisticated and vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts and it is designed for missions of longer distance and duration. The Apollo Guidance Computer used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation resistant. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. Artemis 1 will sent it out to a apogee of 40,000 miles beyond the moon, a record for a spacecraft rated to carry humans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HenryyHill
You only need to make the one post. Try consolidating your replies into one comment.
"Try to pour boiling water on ground in -20°C. Then we can talk how invisible it is."
The water will create steam - what's your point?
"or even better one. Look at the clouds, and then tell me vapour is invisible."
You have inadvertently and unintentionally proved my point. ASd I previously explained, clouds are formed from water vapour which is an invisible gas. Clouds are condensed water vapour in the form of water droplets or ice crystals. A contrail is nothing more than a cloud.
Allow me to explain this to you in very simple terms. The atmosphere contains water vapour. You can't see it because it is an invisible gas. The room you are sat in right now contains water vapour - we call this humidity.
Now understand that relative humidity is defined as the ratio of the current vapour pressure to the equilibrium vapour pressure. If the room you are in was hypothetically completely sealed, the relative humidity will eventually reach 100%. If the relative humidity is less than 100%, then water in liquid form will evaporate at a higher rate than vapour will condense. If there is some form of ventilation, as is the case in most houses, this means that a volume of liquid water will completely evaporate given enough time. If the relative humidity is above 100%, we speak of supersaturation which is the process that allows clouds to form, expand and increase in mass or aircraft contrails to spread across the sky. The rate of condensation will exceed the rate of evaporation - or more accurately in this case, sublimation, and water will start to condensate through coalescing onto condensation and hygroscopic nuclei. The relative humidity depends on the temperature as well as the absolute amount of water present in vapour form, since the equilibrium vapour pressure depends on the temperature.
Because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will snap freeze condense out as ice, forming a trail. The water vapour in the superheated exhaust is invisible hence the phase gap after the engines.
A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. The jet exhaust is merely the trigger event. Very basic meteorological science.
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincentvanwyk5522
"OK deal believer boy."
OK conspiracy believer boy.
"2030 we're on the moon. Save this space and by march 2030 I'll bet you £50 nobody goes anywhere."
Like I said - Bart Sibrel will insist that it was faked and that will be all it takes to satisfy you. Remember, "It was 1968 and filmed at the cannon Air force bass (sic)" 🤣
"Throwing money at something doesn't mean success."
No indeed it doesn't - and at what point did I suggest that it did? However if you have sporadic and trickle funding then a highly complex and very expensive project will take longer to come to fruition.
"Why not sell the moon landing and walking technology to China and right off some national debt??"
Is this serious?
"No, I'm right."
That settles it then.
You are an online conspiracy believer - of course you are 'right'.
"our favourite actors landed the lem module on a foreign surface on 1969 first attempt and then reconnected with the orbiter first attempt and then all survived."
As explained, orbital rendezvous was perfected during Gemini and practised by Apollo 9 and 10. Apollo 10 (Stafford and Cernan) flew within 47,500 feet of the lunar surface.
"Only people who died (murdered) were guss grissom and crew as their loyalty to faking and lying was dubious"
Grissom, Chaffee and White exposed nothing of the sort. Yet again, you haven't got the remotest clue what you are on about. Grissom criticised many aspects of the design of the Command Module in addition to the management of the programme. He wasn't alone. There were many, many critics and dissenters within the ranks at that time saying precisely the same thing. Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were killed during a ground test when a stray spark from damaged wiring ignited the pure oxygen environment in the capsule which was filled with combustible material. Because at that time the hatch was inward opening and the CM was pressurised, the ground crew was unable to get the astronauts out in time. This not only prompted fundamental design changes to the Command Module, but also a raft of safety measures and quality procedures without which it's generally accepted that Apollo 11 would never have landed on the moon before the end of the decade. If someone (you don't specify who) really wanted them dead, the Apollo fire would have been the absolute last choice of method - not least given the damage that it did to PR and the programme.
"2030? £50 bet??"
How will you then honour it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonaanon6808
Cloud seeding does not "make it rain", the intention is to introduce additional nucleate to existing cumulus/stratiform masses which are conducive to rainfall in order to prematurely induce precipitation. Cloud seeding does not create clouds and similarly, it cannot create rainfall, only stimulate it. As Rogan says, it is impossible to control the weather and make it rain over Santa Barbara on a whim. You cannot make it rain where there are no rain clouds already present. Also, the results of cloud seeding are highly erratic and unreliable and the very efficacy of the practice, highly questionable.
There is however footage of liquid fueled rocket test stands which have been appropriated by the perpetrators of the chemtrail hoax and branded as 'cloud making machines'. The plumes from these rocket motors are so vast that in conditions of high humidity which is frequently the case at the Stennis Test Facility in Mississippi for example, the combustion of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants of these materials creates large clouds of steam that exceed 6,000 °F. The steam rises after the engine test and cools, condensing out in the air, that can create rain in the vicinity.
1
-
@nonaanon6808
"that was during the Veitnam war"
???? Cloud seeding services are freely advertised by private organisations over the internet. Let me explain this to you, because you clearly haven't the first idea what you are commenting about.
Cloud seeding is dispersed via at least four methods; [1] Light aircraft. [2] Burn sticks containing silver iodide, placed in desirable spots on the ground. [3] Rockets (they are often also fired in order to prevent the formation of crop-damaging hail (some tea growers also use them, sometimes with radar-reflecting "needle" wire dipoles scattered through the silver iodide, to enable tracking of the release points; some hail rockets are at least partially reusable). [4] surplus AA (antiaircraft) guns, whose shells contain silver iodide instead of high explosive. The Chinese make extensive use of cloud-seeding AA guns. The shell fuses can be set to burst at any desired altitude within the guns' altitude capabilities.
As I explained, weather modification, the technical term for cloud seeding is a commercially advertised venture and is neither secretive or covert. In addition to this there are high profile state sponsored initiatives, the UAE and China being two examples - the latter deploying the practice during the Beijing Olympics closing ceremony. In spite of this, cloud seeding is not at all widespread.
"how far have they came since then"
Oh Jesus wept!!! HR 2977??? Are you serious? This is Dennis Kucinich's Space Preservation Act, which effectively ruined not only his bid to run as a presidential candidate but arguably his political career. Have you actually bothered to read this nonsense? Of course you haven't and neither did he.
Had he taken a look at the draft - which he had he nothing to do with writing - and perhaps not entrusted it to UFO enthusiasts Carol Rosin and Alfred Weber, he would have discovered that it contained all manner of fanciful conspiratorial nonsense from extraterrestrial technology to pyschotronic mind control weapons. So it really wasn't that surprising that they flung in "chemtrails" as well.
When this bullshit was discovered it was hastily redrafted and prompted Kucinich to say "“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.'” Ultimately it was never passed, because of its lack of substance and fizzled out under committee. it was a huge embarrassment for Rep. Kucinich, not because of any alleged "secret revelations", but because certain members of his staff acted without his direct consent. And what does any of this have to do with cloud seeding?
What's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justintrollope7544
"well water vapour isn't going to hang around in the atmosphere its water ! You don't need a PhD to work that one out"
No you don't - it's very basic science and you still couldn't get it right. Water vapour is a gas Over 99% of atmospheric water is in the form of vapour, rather than liquid water or ice. This is measured as humidity. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds. In the case of jet engines, if the conditions are conducive (the interrelationship between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure), then the water vapour present in the exhaust will condense out as ice. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not form at all - whether it does together with its length and duration is a function of the above. If the ambient air is saturated in respect to ice, then the contrail will not only persist, but will increase in mass and expand drawing 99% of the moisture from the atmosphere. The aircraft exhaust is merely a trigger event. Like I said, very elementary meteorological science - why are you attempting to sound authoritative about something that you clearly have no idea about whatsoever?
"as far as cloud seeding is concerned I've never been asked and certainly not seen it mentioned in any political party's manifesto have you , let a lone seen any programs on mainstream media obviously you have?"
Cloud seeding is not in the slightest bit secretive. The state sponsored schemes you refer to are extremely high profile and there are commercial organisations that freely sell their services online. What does cloud seeding have to do with the trails that you are seeing and misidentified by chemtrail believers?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Chemtrail Planes you CANNOT track on the live flight tracker apps and websites like you can with all commercial flights...."
So what's happened here is that in the inflated conspiratorial mindset you have seen some aircraft producing what you deem to be 'chemtrails' (remember there is no consistency between chemtrail believers about this), and they don't show up on a flight tracker. Which tracker do you use? Aircraft located visually in the sky, and planes found on such tracking software normally have a slight lag. Also, not all flights are required to transmit the ADS-B information
"They are TRULY up to something and it's not good at all."
Who precisely are "they"?
"Any idiot can pull up a chair on their front patio and watch these planes and what they are doing.... the trails do not dissipate but linger and formulate to cover the sun and leave a haze in the sky."
Right, so we have a rough description now. The persistent spreading contrails that you are seeing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. You can establish this for yourself. It's basic meteorological science. Are you also perplexed by the duration of a cloud?
Whether or not a trail will appear to "cover the sun" is entirely dependent upon your position on the ground relative to it.
"it's a BUNCH of tax payer funded CRAP and it should be STOPPED!"
Nope, it's atmospheric science. Combustion of a hydrocarbon fuel produces CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will snap freeze and condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high Rhi, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. In this case, the jet exhaust is merely the trigger.
A question for you to ponder next time you 'pull up a chair'. Have you any idea of the weight of material contained in these trails versus the capacity and the MTOW of the aircraft producing them? What chemical can mysteriously spread, expand and increase in mass just like, well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I can't research this s*** for you"
I wouldn't want you to...because you have zero in the way of the critical thought process and are absolutely bereft of objective understanding. Once more, research does not simply involve typing "chemtrails" into a search engine or YouTube..that's called confirmation bias.
"USAF Chemtrail acadamy manual Chemtrails: Chemistry 141 and 142, Fourth Edition CB (Applications and Concepts in Chemistry) by USAF Academy
ISBN: 0201306840
ISBM-13: 9780201306842 the academy is in Virginia"
Have you actually read this? It's a chemistry text book.
Sigh, are you people utterly incapable of finding anything new or original or that hasn't been aimlessly parroted thousands of times?
"no one's this stupid"
Let's see shall we?
"here now do your own damn research"
Righto....
The book is a lab manual for freshmen at the academy who take chemistry course # 131 as an ordinary part of graduation. All Air cadets are required to take basic chemistry as part of their curriculum. "100" level courses are for freshmen students. The lab manual contains nothing of relevance to the subject of aerial spraying, and the name is simply a play on the words contrails and chemistry. Why is it called "Chemtrails"? Because every first year cadet also has a small book to memorize aviation and USAF history and trivia from, called "Contrails". and it was simply a play on that. You can purchase these inexpensively.
https://shop.usafa.org/products/bookstore/contrails
And the manual that you are referring to is easily obtainable as a library resource, here's a source in Australia...
https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4068308/Holdings
This was found out by chemtrail believer Diane Harvey in 2001 quite simply because she could be bothered to read it - which you couldn't, but oddly it continues to be uncritically bandied about as part of chemtrails lore.
"I think I can solve this puzzle, which has a very mundane solution. "Chemtrails" is the happy-camper name of the official government/military chemist's bulletin. Last year I corresponded with a Dr. Donald Bird there, who was absolutely disgusted to discover what I was writing to him about. And I was in the end quite satisfied that he was genuinely annoyed to be associated with this topic, and that indeed the bulletin is exactly what he said it was. I read a couple: boring beyond belief and nothing to do with chemtrails."
That's one of your own chemtrail cohorts speaking and you can find her on the Chemtrail.central website.
1990: USAF whimsically calls their chemistry text book "Chemtrails" after the cadet handbook "Contrails", which has been around since the 1950s. 1999: Conspiracy theorists start using the term "chemtrails".
May I suggest that you also download and read the contents of the manual whereupon I'm hopeful that even you will also discover that it is simply a chemistry textbook - we can discuss the topics contained in more detail if you wish.
"no one's this stupid"
Are you sure about that?....
https://youtu.be/6ppEl0G6zLA
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@canadianmmaguy7511
*_"Chemtrails" are a description for abnormal persistent contrails.
It's a theory because people don't associate the aerosol spraying programs with SRM, cloud seeding, etc."_*
Incorrect - 'chemtrails' are a baseless hoax originally predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails - which are not as you claim 'abnormal' in the slightest.
"Geoengineering is the fact, chemtrails are the theory for the people who are not privy to geoengineering
"
Let's be honest here, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional manufactured false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense such as yourself are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about. Incidentally, cloud seeding has nothing whatsoever to do with geoengineering, and why do you think that even if it were to be employed, that SAI would even vaguely resemble a white trail in the wake of a commercial aircraft at half the designated altitude that it is designed to be employed?
If you think that you are 'privy' to geoengineering, then by all means let's discuss it. There's really no need to involve your antisemitic agenda or your programmed parroted obligatory 'shill' conspiratorial clichés/script, you are simply embarrassing yourself - learn to address the argument as opposed to attacking the individual.
So, to return to the point, what does geoengineering in any of its forms have to do with persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered flight and in excess of 85 years?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@canadianmmaguy7511
"excuse me, misrepresentation of contrails?
I thought a contrail was a visible form of ice that's formed from low temperatures and moisture at a high altitude. How can we misrepresent those?"
You tell me? Precisely my point. So why do you people insist on pointing to them as supposed evidence as your alleged 'geoengineered' chemtrails then?
"As the patents identify , airplanes inject aerosols, salts, and metals into the atmosphere for weather engineering."
Indeed some of them do - for a variety of purposes ranging from crop spraying, cloud seeding, smoke generation, and proposed methods of geoengineering. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the visible contrails that you are seeing however. Also, a patent is simply the registration of an idea, irrespective of how impractical or outright outlandish that may be. It is not proof of the existence of something. Currently SAI for example has progressed no further than paper based proposal and computer modelling and hasn't even reached the stages of small scale trial.
"That is the chemtrails "theory", the fact is the application of scientific terms"
Incorrect. As I keep pointing out to you, the chemtrails conspiracy theory is the belief that persistent contrails are evidence of an intentional programme of chemical spraying. However - out of desperation, it has rapidly come to mean whatever you want it to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tedx4263
Oh Jeez.. It's the same old thing parroted over and over and over and over again with you people. Seriously, how many times?
Speaking in 2015 two years prior to the approval of Project Artemis, Terry Virts was referring to the loss of the heavy lift capability which was abandoned in 1972 with the cancellation of Apollo. When he said, "right now we only can fly in Earth orbit, that’s the farthest that we can go", he was absolutely correct. He then went on to say, referring to the development of the SLS - "this new system that we’re building is gonna allow us to go beyond and hopefully take humans into the Solar System to explore". if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. However if you are a "feeble minded" believer in junk dumb online conspiracy theory and allow it to tell you what to think and are unable to see beyond its deceptive quote mining, you end up making a complete tit of yourself on comments sections such as these.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I wonder who is paying you."
Original then.
You mean I can get paid to laugh at you clowns? Where do I sign?
"This is done all the time in forums in order to suppress the truth."
What is? Someone challenging your rote learned pseudoscience and straplined conspiracy theory?
"Have you never seen chemtrails that zig-zagged around completely filling the sky?"
No - could you provide an example? I guarantee that you are referring to commercial air traffic which when the atmospheric conditions allow produces persistent contrails, in controlled three dimensional airspace comprising multiple routes and headings along tracks and corridors and a range of differing altitudes which when viewed from the perspective of a ground based observer appear as intersecting lines in the sky.
"Chemtrails do not dissipate quickly the way condensation from airliners does."
Why do you suppose that atmospheric condensation dissipates quickly - other than the fact that your online conspiracy sites and videos told you so? Provide a scientific explanation together with references to substantiate this
"They stay in the air spreading out until they fill the whole sky with a white haze."
You mean in the same way that condensed atmospheric water vapour does? - what a coincidence. Why could that be?
"If you would wake up and look you would occasionally see the chemtrail planes zigging around at a much lower altitude because they appear much larger."
Any footage? - this should be amusing.
"I've seen chemtrail planes and airliners in the sky simultaneously many times."
How precisely have you established this? Wonderful, perhaps you could be the first of your ilk to detail both your precise qualitative and quantitative methodology to allow the differentiation between a contrail and a chemtrail and provide statistics as to the reliability and error margins of your method. Your alternative is to admit that you have no such methodology. Off you go.
"The town of Mt. Shasta went to court to try and stop chemtrails because the levels of strontium, barium, and aluminum in the snow on the mountain are so high."
No it didn't. The main perpetrator of this online fraud, Dane Wigington comically submitted pond sludge to Basic Laboratories in Redding - of course aluminium the third most abundant element on the planet is going to be present in the results. Do you even understand ICP-MS?
"Strontium" you say? - Let's see the hard data then.
Court Case in Shasta? Can I see a full transcription of the hearing? Wigington did organise some of his 'con-horts' to attend a Shasta County meeting. You can find the hilarious results on the "Doctor's Pilots and Scientists tell the truth about chemtrails" You Tube video - except none of them are. Including the clown in the pilot fancy dress that similarly thinks that contrails only last a matter of minutes - or Iraja Sivadas, a local mathematics teacher who thinks that a contrail should be analogous to your breath on a cold day. If you like I can tell you who they all really are.
"NOAA has had a gag order place on them."
No they have nothing of the sort. Now I know you're simply parroting geoengineeringwatch. Unfortunately, yet again you have been duped by online conspiracy. You people simply recycle the same old tired nonsense and Wigington preys upon your ilk because you are so easy to fool. Sigh, ok, let's do this too if we must. The actual "gag orders" are a series of advisories relating to industrial disputes between agencies, their affiliate union and an organisation called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group supporting Public Employees. These "gagging orders" have nothing whatsoever to do with geo-Engineering but instead relate to the following release from PEER which alleges that the so called gagging orders are "illegal".
https://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/weather-service-employees-tethered-by-illegal-gag-orders.html
The Actual NWS "Gag Order" concerns collective bargaining.
https://www.peer.org/assets/docs/noaa/10_8%2015_Collective_Bargaining_gag.pdf
The NOAA "Gag Order" relates only to the "Operations and Workforce Analysis (OWA) project - purely to avoid early release of the workgroup's reports.
https://www.peer.org/assets/docs/noaa/10_8_15_Org_Workforce_Analysis_gag.pdf
Meanwhile, the grievance bargaining "gag order" only applies to the union, and not the employees. The NWSEO represent employees in grievance negotiations, and this stops the union from discussing details of settlements. It does not however prevent the employee from doing so.
https://www.peer.org/assets/docs/noaa/10_8_15_Grievance_Gag_Order.pdf
These "gag orders" are very limited in their powers and reach, and actually do not bar employees from talking about anything. They certainly don't pertain to the weather or geoengineering as Wigington would have his gullible acolytes such as yourself believe.
Why do you keep doing this to yourself?
"The evidence is all around you dude and all over the internet."
So just because you read it online on some crap website or watched it on a monetised conspiracy video - it must be true?
"The entire solar system has been heating up for years."
Oh Christ - not this one again. And again your data in support of this?
"When I was a boy the sun appeared as a warm yellow ball in a crystal blue sky"
I was in Arizona last month an it manifested itself in exactly the same way. Depends where you are. Over the last few months in the UK we have enjoyed wonderfully deep blue skies on the occasions that they are not obscured by contrails - and that is a function of the ambient atmospheric conditions at altitude. Rayleigh scattering is more efficient for shorter wavelengths. So, even though the Sun provides a full spectrum, blue is scattered more efficiently than the longer wavelengths of light. Thus blue is the dominant colour you see.
The colour of the sky is the same as it ever was and for most places on the Earth the same time of day because the sunlight is relatively constant and the atmosphere is relatively uniform in composition (nitrogen and oxygen). The exceptions are air pollution, high latitudes, and high altitudes. Air pollution and high latitudes have similar effects in that more attenuation of the light occurs as it travels through more atmosphere, and therefore colours change as you observe at twilight. Air pollution in particular is a highly variable source of scattering and absorption that gets quite extreme when there are high concentrations of particles. High latitudes change the geometry, similar to twilight. In contrast, high altitudes have less atmosphere, so if you go high enough (e.g. in a hot-air balloon) there just won't be much scattered light and it will get dark due to the lack of atmosphere. It is all relative to your point of observation. Your recollections are fallacious. The main difference you are observing it the infuriating increased incidence of persistent contrails.
The sun meanwhile, emits what appears as white light which combines the entire spectrum. Its colour may appear as yellow depending on the angle of light and observation again due to scattering. At sunset it can be orange or reddish the rays have to travel a larger part of the atmosphere because they are very close to the horizon. Therefore, light other than red is mostly scattered away. Most of the red light, which is the least scattered, enters our eyes.
Warming has been observed on several worlds in the solar system. Mars for example has similar Milankovitch tilts to the earth. Triton is believed to be due to changes in surface ice and Pluto attributed to volcanic activity and delayed warming from the close approach to the sun in 1989. The recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
The solar cycle is an eleven year period but the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent. Negligible.
"Some people think chemtrail planes are placing reflective metals in the atmosphere to block the increased radiation from the sun."
No - only those that perpetrate this hoax and their dim followers who mindlessly and uncritically accommodate the intentional conflation of SAI with the geoengineering hoax. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is only a proposal and in the unlikely event that it was ever deployed would be imperceptible to ground based observation, take place at double the altitude of the contrails that you are observing and be concentrated in equatorial or polar regions; the former to utilise the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns and the latter the lower altitude requirements. Why do you believe that SAI would even remotely resemble a white plume in the wake of a commercial aircraft?
"There is no point in arguing this further because you obviously have not done the research."
Another graduate from the university of You Tube that thinks that clickbait confimation bias, self-referencing conspiracy websites and home made videos constitute "research"
I obtained a post graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology and Climatology over two decades ago and my current specialised field is remote sensing. Will that do? - and yourself?
Some questions if you don't mind:
1/ Outline your quantitative methodology to allow differentiation between a contrail and a chemtrail.
2/ Identify one physical law that determines that condensed atmospheric water vapour can only last minutes. Then explain a cirrus cloud.
3/ Please provide the full transcription and details of your alleged Shasta Court Case.
4/ Present the hard data identifying strontium in samples obtained on Mount Shasta - or anywhere, together with the proven causal link to chemtrails.
Good...luck...with...that.
Go ahead.
1
-
1
-
@wrodrigues08 Said no aerospace engineer or particle physicist ever.
Absolute utter rubbish. Stop relying on junk conspiracy theory to substitute for science and tell you what to think.
The VABs are toroidal and vary in intensity. When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already had measurements and data indicating the composition of the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm). So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Moreover, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being 600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km, allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts. James Van Allen himself made the calculations that ensured that these trajectories allowed safe passage of the Apollo missions.
Even in the most intense part of the Van Allen belts, one would have to stay there six days to receive a lethal dose of 300Rads. By using trajectory and speed, the astronauts passed through in one hour receiving a measured dose of about 0.9Rads. Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. So, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 - 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. The highest total dose recorded at skin level was the crew of Apollo 14 at 1.14 rads (due to the path taken through a denser region of the VABs).
The Command Module's Inner Hull varied in thickness from 0.25 inches to 1.5 inches of aluminium alloy. The Outer Hull vairied from 0.5 inches to 2.5 inches in thickness of steel. Between the two hulls was a layer of fibrous thermal insulation. The VAB consists of a high population of low energy particles, easily stopped by the spacecraft's hull. Only the relatively low population high energy particles would penetrate the crew compartment, resulting in a low radiation dose for astronauts on Apollo translunar missions. Furthermore, charged alpha and beta particles can be shielded with a piece of paper.
Face it, the only reason that you've even heard about the VABs is through what you have consumed and regurgitated from online junk conspiracy theory as opposed to science.
Like all conspiracy believers, you haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roseparkerartist9657
Yes, SAI, what about it? Did you not watch your own video link or read the part in which it tells you that it is purely research based and simply an idea and potential response to global temperature rise? What's wrong with you people?
SAI is a hypothetical branch of Solar Radiation Management. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers misidentify as 'chemtrails' and is completely unrelated to cloud seeding. SAI has yet to graduate beyond research paper and mathematical modelling. The idea is to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols. There is a small scale trail planned by the main proponents of this strategy called SCoPeX, but this has been repeatedly postponed for the last five years due to ethical approval. It plans to launch a steerable balloon 20kms into the stratosphere, release a few litres of water and possibly on subsequent flights several kilos of CaCO3 to evaluate perturbation and reflectivity. SAI will never be conducted - not simply due to the environmental unknowns or logistical challenges, but owing to the impossibilities of international governance and legal complexities / ramifications. Because it would aim to use the Brewer Dobson circulation patterns for global dispersal, this raises huge issues for international law and security.
Let's be honest, you haven't got the remotest idea what you are talking about. You people would never have even heard of SAI were it not for the intentional association fallacy on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about in the name of the 'chemtrails' conspiracy theory.
Given that SAI does not exist beyond research proposal and computer modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video which is misidentified contrails... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@txmale5070
Of course you "don't care". Populist opinion over the internet cares not for correction... or fact. You are symptomatic of much that is at fault with the internet age. And no, you didn't "interpret it" that way at all - you simply allowed junk online conspiracy theorists to tell you what to think about a subject that you have zero understanding of whatsoever, and yet you feel the need to foist your "opinion" on others instead of having some humility and self-awareness.
You obviously haven't watched the entire footage from start to finish, rather appropriated excerpts from junk conspiracy videos and supposed documentaries that have omitted them laughing and joking. Sigh, yet another online armchair self-appointed authority in behavioural psychology.
Having undertaken a rigorous and exhausting programme of training consisting of six day weeks for six months, the mental and physical demands and intensity of the eight day mission, immediate quarantine for three weeks directly before - not to mention the prospect of an exhaustive and exhausting programme of P/R press conferences during a gruelling world tour consisting of 29 cities in 24 countries in 38 days...you really expect them to be bouncing off the walls with enthusiasm? Neil Armstrong in particular was a particularly introverted, private, shy and modest individual. A demonstrably brave test pilot and astronaut, but the thought of being paraded around the world must have filled him with dread. However,, characters such as Pete Conrad, Al Shepard, Charlie Duke, Eugene Cernan and Ron Evans all had far more ebullient personalities. Perhaps you should also watch the post mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and even the aborted Apollo 13 landing that your conspiracy theory never mentions. Whilst at it, find footage and images of the Apollo 11 crew beaming after recovery on the deck of the USS Hornet and in the Mobile Quarantine Trailer.
Frankly if that's all it takes to convince you, it's hardly surprising that people of your ilk are the target market for these conmen and frauds that perpetrate online conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
Punctuation - it's a thing.
To answer your questions.
"there's no pictures taken of Earth"
Demonstrably false. There are tens of thousands.
"how come there's one man that tells you they're all CGI"
How come there are millions of people that tell you the earth is flat? Why would you listen to him or them?
"but yet there was somebody left behind filming them leaving the Moon"
Or perhaps instead, it was simply Ed Fendell operating the remote control camera on the Lunar Rover in Houston through the LCRU - which he had been doing throughout the Apollo 17 mission - and you simply weren't aware of this.
"how did they make the phone call from the Moon to the Earth and called the president and talk live"
Radio. The first transmitters were built in 1887.
Apollo 11 did not "call the president". The call from the White House was set up in advance using the microwave link between Washington and Houston, then routed to the Deep Space Network, then via DSN station to the moon in view via S-band.
"and called the president and talk live no delaying signal or nothing straight from there to the president"
There was a delay. The communication signal speed is the same as the speed of light. The moon is 384,400 km away. The speed of light is 299,792 km/s. This means, even considering additional time delays through relays and equipment that would equate to a fraction over 3 seconds. However, this was only in one direction. Since the recording of the conversation took place on Earth, and Nixon was also on Earth, as soon as the astronaut’s voice is heard, Nixon can and does answer immediately and we hear it immediately and without delay. The time delay is only apparent when Nixon finishes a sentence… we don’t hear a reply from the astronauts for about three seconds… about 1.5 seconds for Nixon’s voice to get to the moon, and another 1.5 second for the astronauts reply to return to the Earth. There are also edited versions of the exchange on some documentaries that have removed this lag.
"unbelievable the b**** the people believe"*
Well that's junk online conspiracy theory for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But it's not a UN meeting is it.
This is an old video that was deceptively framed by a perpetrator of the chemtrail hoax and is still over a decade later batted about your vacuous echochamber as supposed evidence of chemtrails. Supposedly she was addressing the UN - only she wasn't. This was simply a 2007 conference on Climate Change organized by the UN, not an actual UN session. Peterson did not work at the UN, or have any connection to the UN at all. Peterson is a retired crop loss adjuster (a type of insurance agent working in agriculture). She worked for the USDA in Mendocino, California. Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defence Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC was simply the name of her personal web site. And contrary to your claim, Peterson did not mention "chemtrails", rather misappropriated weather modification (cloud seeding), regular aircraft exhaust and some NASA sounding rocket experiments.
And despite becoming an unwitting spokesperson for this fraud the late Ms.Peterson later (in 2012) entirely distanced herself from the hoax and explained that she did not think there was any good evidence to show that any trails were anything other than normal contrails:
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft." Rosalind Peterson 2012.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If possible catch a movie called Capricorn 1 (about a fake Mars landing). This movie parallels in so many ways the moon landing that I think it is closer to the truth about the moon landing than anybody thinks. Of course in the movie, the outcome is different than the "moon landing", but Hollywood movies have to have an exciting ending."
It's a film - pure fantasy, nothing more. To fake the Apollo programme would have required the silencing of not just the near half a million involved and associated with the project, but the collective coercion and co opting of entire branches of science such as astronomy, geology and physics. Additionally, the Apollo flights were tracked all over the globe. The US couldn't even keep a blow job on the president a secret.
"Also, I don't believe they had the computing power in 1969 to successfully get anyone to the moon since the average modern cell phone has more computing power than NASA had back then."
You personal incredulity and beliefs, have no bearing upon reality and scientific fact. The computing power was sufficient though - hence the fact that it was able to undertake it. Of course any contemporary device has vastly more raw computational ability than the computers employed during the moon landings, but they were nonetheless remarkably capable, reliable, and up to the task given. To understand the Apollo system is to appreciate why its tiny amount of raw processing power is irrelevant.
The Apollo Guidance Computer in the command module had two main jobs. First, it calculated the necessary course to the moon, calibrated by astronomical measurements that the astronauts made in flight. No different to the principle of a sextant used by oceanic navigators. Once the moon was lined up, Earth, or the sun was then located in one sight, and it was then necessary to fix the location of a star with the other. The computer would then measure those angles and recalculate its position. Second, it needed to control the many physical components of the spacecraft. The Apollo Guidance Computer could communicate with 150 separate devices within the spacecraft. Conceptually, the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, which designed the system used principles derived from the work they’d done for the Polaris guided-missile system. The Apollo computer's hardware was well understood in the world of military avionics. Most of the system’s memory and tasks had been prewritten woven onto rope memory, but some elements could also be written both by the astronauts and remotely from Mission Control. Sceptics focus on 'power' without comprehending that it’s not about the raw number of transistors, but the machine fitting and designed around the mission objectives. So capability, not power.
That you don't understand it is as I said, irrelevant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for that, I've seen this before but didn't realise that they plan to deploy provisional trails as early as next year.
"Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the “StratoCruiser” would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere."
Significantly...
"Keith stresses that it’s too early to say whether any geoengineering technologies should ever be deployed. But he has argued for years that research should move ahead to better understand their capabilities and dangers, because it’s possible they could significantly reduce the risks of climate change. He stressed that the experiments would have negligible environment impacts, as they will involve no more than a kilogram of materials."
Also...
"Only two known experiments have been carried out in the open air to date that could be considered geoengineering-related: University of California, San Diego, researchers sprayed smoke and salt particles off the coast of California as part of the E-PEACE experiment in 2011, and scientists in Russia dispersed aerosols from a helicopter and car in 2009. The so called SPICE experiment in the United Kingdom was quickly scuttled in 2012, following public criticism and conflict of interest accusations after several of the scientists applied for a related patent."
Clearly though, such geoengineering experimentation involves very small quantities of materials and the principle of SAI involves deployment at very high altitudes. This video is debunking the chemtrails hoax which alleges that large white plumes in the wake of commercial air traffic are evidence of a programme of global chemical spraying. It has since been intentionally conflated with geoengineering by the perpetrators. SAI would not resemble a contrail and is designed to be deployed at double the altitude. Hopefully the believers in the chemtrail conspiracy theory will actually bother to read the link that you provided. Thanks again for that.
1
-
1
-
@theconspiracydentist
It's the same misconceptions by the same sort of individuals, consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over and over again. It makes perfect sense, even to those have the most fragile grasp of the economics, history and science & technology of the Apollo Programme.
Apollo 8 "went to the moon" eleven years after Sputnik - (what's your point?) whilst the first lunar landing was twelve years after. It has been just under 52 years since Apollo 17, not 55.
And what on Earth are you talking about, can't come close? Artemis 1 was an overwhelming success. It wasn't approved until 2018. Apollo was cancelled in 1972 due to a lack of political and public will and Congress pulling the funding. It is hideously and obscenely expensive to develop and sustain a manned moon landing programme and with the cessation also meant the abandonment of a heavy lift capability where the emphasis shifted to low Earth orbit through the folly of the shuttle programme and the construction of the ISS. This doesn't mean that spaceflight technology hasn't significantly progressed, simply that no one built a rocket with the power of the Saturn V that was capable of hurling a crew to the moon via a Hohmann transfer. This is all changing again. And that's the point - these modern materials and technologies all need testing and validation in space.
Between 1959, the first year of NASA, and 1973, a year after the most recent moon landing, NASA spent $20.5 billion ($152.7 billion in 2018 dollars) on its lunar directive or 42% of all NASA spending. The most expensive aspects of the project were the rockets to get astronauts into space and the modules they would travel in. These two needs have consistently been the biggest expenses in the agency’s history. The cost today is gargantuan and Artemis has a fraction of the budget that Apollo had.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It's Geo-engineering, and is happening."
Some areas of Geoengineering are indeed happening such as GGR which encompasses strategies such as aforestation, biochar, ocean fertilisation and carbon sequestering. SRM on the other hand, (with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening) are entirely hypothetical. What does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails.
"This is why Texas & New Hampshire banned them. "
Sigh. There is no ban. A New Hampshire House of Representatives bill that would prohibit some forms of emissions linked to the baseless “chemtrails” conspiracy theory has not been voted on or signed into law. The claim is based on an article published by a website that regularly publishes fabricated stories. Are you incapable of independently verifying dumb social media memes for yourself?
"Agent Orange in Vietnam was a conspiracy?? Really!!! It was to stop the moonsoons."
No it wasn't. Agent Orange is a defoliant and was intended to strip the cover afforded to the Viet Cong/NVA on the Ho Chi Minh trail? You are getting confused with Operation Popeye. What does cloud seeding have to do with aircraft trails in the stratosphere?
"Look up HB 1700."
A bill drafted by two Republican crackpots cynically attempting to legitimise dumb online conspiracy theory which is why is hasn't been passed.
"YOU need to research, Joe!!"
Er yeah...appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
"You've deemed truth to be a conspiracy before, and were wrong!!"
No, he's deemed untruth to be a conspiracy theory. There's a difference.
"Scrape your windshield after a storm, bring it to a college lab, and wait and see the toxic mixture. Strontium, aluminum, barrium."
Then ask for the readings and the proven causal relationship with those long white trails, six to eight miles above your head, that you don't understand. I think you mean 'barium'. And why do you people always parrot the same predictable nonsense? "strontium, aluminium and barium"? Strontium? Let's start with that shall we?
"Agenda 21."
Ah yes, that old chestnut. Do you have a badly written 'conspiracy theory for dummies' crib sheet/aide memoire? You mean that non-binding action plan suggested by the United Nations in respect of sustainable development dating back the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, some twenty eight years ago? The one that isn't enforced and contains a series of guidelines pertaining to fair trade practices, sustainable energy and urban development (i.e. more efficient zoning), and debt reduction for the developing world? The one that no nation ever has instituted or rigidly adhered to its guidelines? That Agenda 21?
Clever lad!.
1
-
@spaceted3977
Of course your question can be answered, just as you could have done so for yourself. It's so staggeringly dumb, I actually needed to ascertain whether you were being serious. Unfortunately that appears to be the case.
When you wash nylon, you do so in a medium, which is water. Heat through this can break down the fibres and ruin the fabric of synthetic materials including nylon so when washing, it is advisable to do so at cold water setting or 30 - 40 degrees max. On the moon, there is no appreciable atmosphere and so therefore no medium - in this case air temperature, so no convection. Conduction through a pole is negligible to zero, and so the only way for the flag to be heated was through the radiative heat from the sun. Objects on the surface of the moon take time to reach their equilibrium temperature. The temperature extremes that you hear about are surface temperatures. All of the Apollo missions were timed to land at the lunar dawn. Daytime in the moon is equivalent to 15 Earth days. It wasn't the intention for the flag material itself to last. It was just to be there during the event - the landing and departing from the moon, for which it was perfectly adequate.
No, the flags wouldn't melt, even at the peak of the lunar day. However in the half a century and more since the Apollo moon landings the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon’s environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and heat with 14 days of numbing-cold -150° C darkness. But even more damaging is the intense ultraviolet radiation from the pure unfiltered sunlight on the cloth from which the Apollo flags were made. Even on Earth, the colors of a cloth flag flown in bright sunlight for many years will eventually fade and need to be replaced. So it is likely that these symbols of American achievement have been rendered blank, bleached white by the UV radiation of unfiltered sunlight on the lunar surface. Some of them that toppled have likely physically disintegrated under the intense flux.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There are actually legit conspiracy reasurchers that use facts for their conclusions."
Really? Name one. (Incidentally, I think you mean 'researchers').
"Most people are already programed by the goverment media to believe that a conspiracy theorist is as dangerous as a terrorist!
Bullshit!"
Incorrect. Most people are simply able to see that conspiracy theory is "bullshit".
"There is no bigger terrorist than your goverment period if we go by historic facts."
Who in their right mind would trust their 'government' - but simply because governments have lied, deceived and committed atrocities in the past and present, that does not afford legitimacy to 'chemtrails' or any random conspiracy theory of your choice or devising. Surely you can comprehend that?
"All the demonizing of the conspiracy reasurchers comes from the goverment made.propaganda, which is in fact a conspiratory activity."
No it doesn't - the reality is, government's don't give a rats arse about 99% of this nonsense. The demonising you refer to is self-inflicted due to the unsubstantiated claims, false equivalence, deception, quote mining, scientific inaccuracy, manipulation, profiteering and agenda peddled by the perpetrators of online conspiracy theory, which if you hadn't noticed has become quite lucrative for some and a product line for others. If you can't see through that, then you really aren't as 'awake' as you and your ilk claim to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Absolute utter nonsense. There have been multiple unmanned missions to the moon, whilst there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20.
Incorrect. Artemis 1 was a test flight of the SLS the new ICPS and Orion capsule. Orion was sent into the densest region of the Van Allen Belts in 2014 (note the plural since there are two, with a third that is transitory), where it performed flawlessly.
Additionally, a mannequin onboard was equipped with the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit – a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. It was fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration in order that engineers could compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion yielded data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluated the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 was 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reached an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. The mannequin was also testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also the mission coincided with peak solar activity which was a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pineapplepissant
"since you obviously aren’t very intelligent I found it for you. Didn’t want you to hurt yourself"
The burden of proof is incumbent upon you, since you are the one making the claim. The onus does not lie with me to search for an absent or negative based upon your behest, personal incredulity and general ignorance of the topic.
"us-patent 4686605"
Really? This again??? Have you actually even read this? It's the Eastland patent from 1985, that not only was never adopted, has now expired. Why is it the same things parroted over and over and over again by you people?
Specifically, the patent involves using a hydrocarbon fuel - (natural gas is suggested) to generate electricity to create electromagnetic radiation to excite a tiny section of the ionosphere to about 2 electron volts, thus moving it upward along the lines of the magnetic field. The conspiracy theorists that you are mindlessly parroting, once again, completely ignore the fact that this can only happen in the ionosphere, and they interpret it as some kind of weather control system or seismic weapon. Such conclusions are once again bereft of any scientific basis or any rational or plausible foundation.
A further disconnect in this conspiracy claim is that Dr. Eastlund's patent was for a speculative and unproven device approximately one million times as powerful as other HF pumps. The patent does allude to these but none of its drawings remotely resemble anything built . For perspective, HAARP's antenna array measures about 1000 feet on a side. A device such as that imagined by Dr. Eastlund would have been 14 miles on a side, with one million antenna elements, compared to HAARP's 180. Furthermore, Dr. Eastlund left APTI to found his own company before the HF Pump programmes were commissioned and was never involved with them.
You also need to comprehend, that a patent is not proof of something, merely the registration of an idea, irrespective of how outlandish it may be.
Unfortunately this is yet another example of a dumb conspiracy believer attempting to sound clever and significant over a subject that they clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever. I would be more than happy to discuss the physics of the Eastland Patent with you in more detail in a civil and constructive way. Hopefully then in the future, you won't place blind faith in online conspiracy theory to tell you what to think.
What does any of this have to do with the chemtrail conspiracy theory which is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
"since you obviously aren’t very intelligent"
The irony - was it intentional?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you not even remotely see the irony in your continual parroting of 'cognitive dissonance' given the nonsense that you just churned out? Why are conspiracy believers so lacking in self-awareness.
And no, contrails do not "always show parallel thin lines behind the engine of a plane that disappear at a constant distance of the plane". This is completely false. Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or they may not necessarily form at all. Whether or not they do and the degree of their spread is dependent upon the prevailing ambient air conditions - in particular, the interaction between air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure.
Of course geoengineering exists. The are many forms of GGR in progress and the future most probably lies in DAC in spite of the expense. In respect of SRM, with the exception of ground based albedo modification and isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening it remains entirely hypothetical and unlike to ever progress beyond that due to ethical approval and the impossibility of international governance. Why are you changing the subject?
More to the point, why are you attempting to sound authoritative about subjects that you demonstrably have zero knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@graff8757
No it really isn't. The introduction of additional nuclei into existing clouds that are conducive to precipitation is merely an attempt to influence it on the local scale. The UAE and China have state sponsored schemes, which have never been secretive. How do you "admit' to something that isn't denied?
Cloud seeding is conducted by a range of methods. --[1] by air, typically turboprop light aircraft retrofitted to burn silver iodide flares; [2] burn sticks containing silver iodide, placed in desirable spots on the ground, [3] rockets (they are often also fired in order to prevent the formation of crop-damaging hail [some tea growers also use them], sometimes with radar-reflecting "needle" wire dipoles scattered through the silver iodide, to enable tracking of the release points; some hail rockets are at least partially reusable); and [4] surplus AA (antiaircraft) guns, whose shells contain silver iodide instead of high explosive. The Chinese make extensive use of cloud-seeding through AA guns, whose shells' fuses can be set to burst at any desired altitude within the guns' altitude capabilities.
None of this is a revelation or new. Cloud seeding has been around since the 1950s and there are many private sector organisations that offer 'weather modification' services online. In spite of this, and the state sponsored schemes mentioned, it is not widespread, the results are highly erratic, it does not create clouds, rather needs existing rain clouds to induce rainfall, and the very efficacy is questioned by science. Hardly "controlling the weather".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teamflaco1
As I explained, "they" - the water authority, do not necessarily add fluoride, it depends where you live. Also, to reiterate, fluoride is toxic at high concentrations but in the amounts added to water it is not. Fluoride additions are no more than 1.5 milligrams per litre (equivalent to one and a half parts per million). In most areas it’s much lower. It is also naturally present as a mineral and is released from rocks into the soil, water, and air. All water contains some fluoride. Usually, the fluoride level in water is not enough to prevent tooth decay which is why it is sometimes added; however, some groundwater and natural springs can have naturally high levels of fluoride.
In our air? You mean ground level industrial pollution? It's hard to conceive of a more ineffective way to "poison" a population than those white trails six to eight miles above your head that you don't understand.
"Do your research"? Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
1
-
@teamflaco1
"yea I have did research"
Have did? I'd start with basic written English if I were you. And to return to my question, appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you accomplish this?
"am I a scientist... no I am not"
Well no shit.
"So your saying that fluoride in our water and chemtrails is not a possibility?"
Seriously, do you have learning and comprehension difficulties? To reiterate, fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral and present in ground water. Chemtrails are not a possibility no, in fact they are a physical impossibility. Moreover, it's hard to imagine a more ineffective way to disperse an agent. Incidentally, you needed to type the contraction 'you're' as opposed to the determiner - 'your'.
"Are you saying you know how much amount of fluoride is put in out waters?"
And once again, it isn't added by every water authority. In cases that it is, for the third time now, around 1.5 milligrams per litre (equivalent to one and a half parts per million).
"Flouride is a poison..."
Not at those levels it isn't.
"and has nothing to do with the benefit of our teeth"
I assure you that it does. Would you like me to explain the biochemistry to you?
"and IF it was you really think the government would be giving it to us for FREE?? HELL NO they would charge your ass!"
To understand the cost effectiveness of water fluoridation, I suggest that you study the York Report.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The number of people needed to be in to the moon conspiracy is not thousands - under 100 people is more than enough."
But that simply wasn't the case though. All personnel involved in the Apollo Programme, not simply scientists, engineers, managers and contractors, but the entire workforce needed to communicate and see the big picture in order to accomplish Kennedy's goal of a manned landing by the end of the decade. It is impossible to compartmentalise a project with so many complex, interlocking parts - one change in any part of the system affected all the other parts, therefore NASA had to engender completely the opposite from top to bottom. Management encouraged all staff and contractors and in particular engineers from different departments to interact and share information/best practice and build familiarisation and rapport. They were keen to introduce communal spaces where staff could intermingle and even separate cafetria were frowned upon. The whole idea was to create a culture of openness, honesty, reciprocity, collaboration and cooperation. In fact, if it was done any other way it would have immediately aroused suspicion: Even defence contracts do not operate like that, and NASA was not a defence outfit it was a civilian organisation utilising a myriad of contractors and providers. Over the years plenty of personnel came and went - and were dismissed, and its mostly civilian workforce was at liberty to leave, move about, mix with strangers, travel. A hoax of such scale and magnitude - and actually, transparency, would have been impossible to conceal. Apollo was completely transparent, there was vertical and horizontal integration, the press were embedded and it involved a myriad of external stakeholders, contractors and partnerships.
"And there has been leaks and whistle blowers"
Who precisely? Name just one. Surely, you can't be referring to the ludicrous Bill Kaysing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"BS. Over Brooklyn there are never any “vapor” trails streaking from horizon to horizon at night, and I’m up 4:am."
They aren't "vapour" - water vapour is invisible. Such persistent contrails are a product of largely condensed atmospheric water vapour.
"I’ve seen and photographed “thin mist” in these trails (daytime) gently cascading downwards accompanied by the sun refracting off it into a subtle rainbow isolated in a tiny are ."
Pendules and iristation.
"Why have jet engines never, until recent years, ever left a perfect linear cloud which doesn’t dissipate??"
They have. Persistent contrails have been observed, recorded, documented, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight. They posed a particular problem for bombing raids during WWII whilst during the cold war the Lockheed U2 spy plane even had a rear view mirror to enable the pilot to enable detection and adjust altitude in response. Didn't do Gary Powers much good though.
"Last: the planes leaving these trails are crosshatching the sky, and mostly aren’t in commercial flight lanes?"
And how have you established this?
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
https://youtu.be/d9r3H4iHFZk
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_skitch_viz_20121001_214327.jpg
"Been watching the sky since I could see.."
So have people that actually understand what they are looking at; y'know, all those pilots, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, air traffic controllers, remote sensing and envirionmental monitoring initiatives, aerospace engineers...You obviously know better. Perhaps they need to watch the same crap You Tube conspiracy videos too?
Incidentally, there's another bloke from Brooklyn posting on this page. Very nice chap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If they really are caused solely by condensation from the jet engine, wouldn't that air cool back down and the trail dissipate?"
Contrail perseverance is a function of humidity but also low temperature.
"If they really are caused by things as natural as atmospheric temperature and barometric pressure, why do contrails sometimes start and end so suddenly--as if turned on and off with intention?"
Because the atmosphere is not homogeneous. Ask yourself what causes partial cloud cover and the boundaries between a cloud and clear sky which can be immediate. Also remember aircraft are travelling at vey high speed. If they encounter a column of warmer drier air then the contrail will instantly cut off. Conversely, flying into a cooler parcel of high humidity it will suddenly appear. Sometimes they will not occur at all, others they will fade gradually or almost instantly. However if the ambient air is very cold and saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will persist and even spread becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus. This is because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state which is invisible water vapour.
"Doesn't temperature in the atmosphere change gradually, unless directly ahead or behind a front"
Air can rise, subside and overlap. The atmosphere is constantly in flux and motion. Again think of a clear sky on a summers day. Within minutes scattered clouds can appear.
The atmosphere is not isothermal and air will cool adiabatically with altitude. In ski resorts, you are told to expect the temperature to drop by about 1 degree per 100 meters you go upwards. According to the adiabatic lapse rate the air temperature at the cruising altitude of an aircraft at say 32,000ft should be about -80°C (assuming a sea level temperature of 15°C). In fact, this is somewhat of an underestimate. A more realistic value is about -60°C. The explanation for this discrepancy is the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. As air rises, expands, and cools, water vapour condenses out releasing latent heat which prevents the temperature from falling as rapidly with height as the adiabatic lapse rate would indicate. In fact, in the Tropics, where the humidity is very high, the lapse rate of the atmosphere (i.e., the rate of decrease of temperature with altitude) is significantly less than the adiabatic value. The adiabatic lapse rate is only observed when the humidity is low. This is the case in deserts, in the Arctic (where water vapour is frozen out of the atmosphere), and, of course, in ski resorts. So an understanding of DALR is important, but it is also crucial to understand the ELR and the SALR. In addition to this, temperature inversions and in particular subsiding inversions.
"I'm no atmospheric scientist but it just doesn't seem right to me that when the sun rises and the air is at its coolest (right?) there are no contrails but by midday they crosshatch the sky."
I often observe contrails driving to work early in the morning - it all depends upon the atmospheric conditions up there. Much depends on three important properties of air. The first important property is that air is transparent to most, but by no means all, of the electromagnetic spectrum. In particular, most infrared radiation, which carries heat energy, passes straight through the lower atmosphere and heats the ground. In other words, the lower atmosphere is heated from below, not from above. The second important property of air is that it is constantly in motion. In fact, the lower 20 kilometers of the atmosphere (the so called troposphere) are fairly thoroughly mixed. You might think that this would imply that the atmosphere is isothermal. However, this is not the case because of the final important properly of air: i.e., it is a very poor conductor of heat. Add in high humidity and at the altitudes that aircraft cruise involving very low temperatures, then you will see contrails. It also depends upon where you live. Air traffic is scheduled and by early afternoon the skies can become very busy with intersecting airways, routes and corridors. If the conditions are widely conducive to persistent contrails then these will frequently linger in a grid pattern.
This is a great video produced by NATS which explains the management of the very congested skies over the United Kingdom over a period of a day.
https://nats.aero/blog/2014/11/take-guided-tour-uk-skies/
Hope this helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"More ad hominem attacks in order to prop up/support the patently false narrative of 'moon landing'."
It isn't a narrative though - you people always say that whilst completely ignoring that the scientific, independent and third party evidence is demonstrable.
"Like many conspiracies, vilified at first and many years later, determined to be self evident and true...and all by the same 'vilifiers'."
Such as?
"Because...'government agencies' NEVER lie or mislead the public, obviously."
And meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic, profiteering or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? - obviously.
Should we trust our governments? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that our governments are always up to something and can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
Of course governments, agencies and organisations lie and conspire - no one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. However, simply because they do, it does not then logically follow that claims of a hoaxed moon landing or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choice, devising or personal agenda must automatically assumed to be true. Lazy thinking and a syllogistic fallacy, affirming the consequent, through the undistributed middle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Chem trails are real !!"
Actually, no. They are simply a dumb conspiracy theory originating in the 1990s surrounding the misidentification of aircraft contrails, popularised over Coast to Coast FM and subsequently perpetuated through internet echo-chambers.
"Nope they are trying to heat the earth"
Heat the earth? You mean anthropogenic climate change?
"and they did make the Cali fires"
Because wildfires never happen in nature then. Who precisely are "they"?
"You have no brain!!"
The irony, was it intentional?
"It's Agenda 21"
You mean that non-binding action plan suggested by the United Nations in respect of sustainable development dating back the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, some twenty eight years ago? The one that isn't enforced and contains a series of guidelines pertaining to fair trade practices, sustainable energy and urban development (i.e. more efficient zoning), and debt reduction for the developing world? The one that no nation ever has instituted or rigidly adhered to its guidelines? That Agenda 21? Righto then.
"and bill gates just admitted they were spraying the skys you joke!!"
No he didn't - he leant vocal support and provided some funding for research into a division of Solar Radiation Management called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. The proponents of this particular area of geoengineering wish to publicise their work as much as possible to generate awareness, and attract backing. How do you possibly admit to something that isn't denied? Not only is this is entirely hypothetical but the entire rational is to cool the planet, not as you suggest "heat the Earth". (incidentally, the plural of sky is 'skies').
You haven't really thought this through have you?
Cue the inevitable abuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryuranzou1936
"I get it I made a silly error at 3 a.m. "
I queried it several times and you still didn't notice . It wasn't a "silly error" or a typo, simply testament to the fact that you are commenting upon something that you don't fully understand and haven't bothered to learn about beyond cursory confirmation bias. Quite why you though that I2 would be released from "mountain top generators" is beyond me. These are simply ground based flares releasing Agl. Cloud seeding is a commercially advertised venture and is neither secretive or covert. It usually involves silver iodide, potassium iodide or dry ice in the form of solid carbon dioxide. Liquid propane has also known to be deployed because it expands into a gas and can crystalise at higher temperatures than the latter.
The negligible quantities of silver generated by cloud seeding, amount to about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere. Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background levels.
"Also I never said it was a spray, for the freekin record."
Then why mention cloud seeding in the first place?
I didn't suggest that you did. I merely queried why you would refer to cloud seeding in relation to this video when it does not involve spraying, is not secretive does not produce a trail and is not conducted between six and eight miles above your head.
"I believe contrails are as poisonous as any other exhaust (contributing to the overall health burden of pollution)..."
Known science and "belief" are very different things. Nonetheless, good for you, if only because, like I said, contrails are a visual testimony to the terrifying exponential expansion of the commercial aviation sector and the shameful carbon footprint associated with this.
"and I also acknowledge geoengineering ( which is essentially deliberate pollution with some goal in mind).... "
What precisely do you mean by "geoengineering"? - It is a very broad term divided into two branches - GGR (or negative emissions technology) involving such practices as carbon sequestering, biochar and aforestation...(most geoengineering funding is channeled into one branch of this, ocean fertilisation). So could be as benign as planting a tree. Then you have SRM, or albedo modification which encompasses research strategies such as SAI, marine cloud brightening and space reflectors. But again, this could be as harmless as a modification to a rooftop or an architectural strategy to lessen the urban heat island effect.
I'll wager, (given the desperate attempts by the perpetrators of the chemtrails conspiracy theory to conflate geoengineering with their online hoax), that you are referring Stratospheric Aerosol Injection? Such a strategy would attempt to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols. Such aerosols are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and are also naturally present in the Junge Layer. Aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths - so currently there is no agreement which material will best serve this purpose.
SAI currently exists in the form of paper based research and in the province of computer modelling. Fortunately, the formidable challenges in respect of logistics, geo-politics, governance and the appreciable opposition both within and outside scientific circles mean that it is very unlikely that even in a last ditch attempt to address climate change, that it would ever be used. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, later this year an experiment involving a balloon and mere kilos of calcium carbonate - chalk - will take place in the Arizona desert to measure dispersion and perturbation.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Even if SAI were to become a reality, it is unlikely that it would be perceptible to the ground based observer due to its designated altitude, empty field myopia and its deployment in the form of a fine mist. In addition to this, it would likely be based in equatorial regions to ultilitse the Brewer-Dobson patterns. However, you are absolutely correct in that the environmental effects are not quantified.
Saying that, given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and computer model, again, would not form a trail and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video - may I ask you what precisely is your point?
"Finally, I don't doubt that in some cases there are covert campaigns of spraying "god knows what" on people in order to see what happens, or if they've done the covert studies already -- to affect human health in some devious manner. The record shows this kind of stuff has occurred (spraying places with various bacteria etc etc secretly).... so why not eh?
I am familiar with this dubious history and am able to discuss each case individually if you wish. Many of these "experiments" were not performed on the public per see, rather tests to measure dispersal. However, once again, this wouldn't be conducted six to eight miles above your head and involve a long white trail in the wake of a commercial aircraft would it?
To remind you, the subject matter of this video is the chemtrails conspiracy theory - which is the erroneous belief that persistent contrails in the wake of civil airliners cruising in the tropoapuse and lower stratosphere are evidence of an intentional programme of spraying conducted for such reasons as depopulation, to controlling the weather, to mind control, trans-humanisation, concealing the return of Planet X, dropping fibres that burrow into and riddle the populace with morgellons disease etc etc...(they don't seem to be able to make their minds up.) All seemingly easier to for these people to believe than condensed atmospheric water vapour generated by superheated aircraft engine exhaust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2001: A Space Odyssey is nothing remotely like the Apollo footage and although admirable for the time is completely flawed and inaccurate. In addition to which, Kubrick was a director, it was Douglas Trumbull who was responsible for the special effects.
All of Kubrick's whereabouts during the six Apollo moon landings were accounted for. And what the hell are you talking about "NASA built a huge movie stage". Evidence? Where? You goons can't even agree on that. And that's one hell of a "movie stage" to convincingly replicate uncut, and six times, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
Not only are you technically clueless about the Apollo Programme and the art of film making, you are also completely ignorant about the man himself. Even if such a ludicrous claim was technically possible, there is no way given Kubrick's personal traits and personality that he would have consented to anything of the sort, compromising his artistic integrity, values and career in the process.
Stop allowing dumb Tik Tok feeds to substitute for the education that you lack and tell you what to think about subjects that you demonstrably have zero knowledge of whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@g-man-uz3gx
Why aren't you answering the question? You stated that it was "filmed in Hollywood" You seem very sure of yourself. Could it be, like all the rest, you are simply arrogantly and ignorantly parroting junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever, so you just consume and regurgitate crap conspiracy videos and social media memes in the deluded belief it makes you sound informed and clever?
To address yours however, One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase and the term he used was "destroyed" not "lost". Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes which are far cheaper and do not carry the risk. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
You don't, 'lose' technology in the sense that it is forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappears. All the technology remained but rapidly became defunct. You lose the capability, as explained, most significantly, Pettit was referring to the heavy lift capability which was also forsaken in favour of the Space Shuttle Programme and the construction of the ISS. It is a given in engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes rather than trying recreate old equipment. There is no longer the capability to fly passengers at supersonic speeds. When civil aviation eventually returns to supersonic flight (it's been nearly a quarter of a century since the demise of Concorde), it isn't about to roll a 1960s design, featuring 1960s hardware out of the museum/hangar. Rebuilding such a complex project as Apollo on a similarly massive scale and utilising contemporary technology on a fraction of the budget of the Apollo Programme has been a long and protracted, painstaking process. Project Artemis was only approved in 2018.
Why is it even necessary to explain this?
1
-
1
-
@XEONvE
Your caps lock appears to be intermittently malfunctioning.
Something doesn't make sense to you? Surely not. there must be some mistake. Continuous exposure to what precisely?
Firstly, regarding the VABs; the trajectories taken by the Apollo missions meant that they posed no danger to the astronauts passing through them as your original post erroneously claims. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the exception of Apollo 14, the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts. The VABs trap high energy particles from the sun, but they are not uniform in intensity and are subject to flux.
Contrary to your claim, when NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Measurements showed that electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. NASA actually overestimated the levels in the inner belt meaning that many craft have been overprotected. Based upon the data, engineers designed shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls. Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2. What this means that the even the SPE of August 1972 which occurred between Apollo 16 and 17, had it occurred during wither of these missions would have been attenuated by the capsule from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. Fortunately there were no such storms during the Apollo missions. There were solar flares, but since these are directional, they avoided and posed no danger to the crews of Apollo.
What 'continuous exposure' in cislunar space are you referring to? Measurements and source please. Thanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Contrails are produced by the compression and rarefaction of air, creating water vapor which appears then disappears a few seconds later. "
Wrong. Water vapour is invisible, so how can it "disappear"? Contrails are precipitated by the fact that water (together with CO2) are the main products of hydrocarbon combustion. Do this in the regions in which aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - and if the conditions are conducive in respect of temperature, pressure and humidity then a short lived contrail will form. In cases of high RHi, this will persist because it is unable to sublimate back into its gaseous state - and if the air is supersaturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand and often fanned by high altitude shear will draw upon the available atmospheric moisture budget. This means that contrails can not only grow, but that they can agglomerate becoming indistinguishable from regular cirrus.
"Chemtrails is a substance being sprayed in the sky that is dumped on us. It doesn't go away, stays in the skies for hours, and does not evaporate."
You mean, much like the above scenario? - how coincidental.
"The contents of chemtrails is well known, lab tested and not a mystery. "
Excellent - finally!!!! Could you present these "lab tests" together with the precise methodology which also demonstrates cause and effect. One analytical in-situ sample of a chemtrail at source would be a great place to start too. Given the high volume of comparable studies into the microphysical properties of contrails, there should be hundreds at your disposal.
1
-
@Pinlight
"But there are multitudinous examples of both Chemtrails and contrails and the two are completely different"
Splendid, you can become the first of your ilk to actually detail both your qualitative and quantitative methodology to allow differentiation. Your alternative, bearing in mind, the scientific content of my original reply to you is to concede that you have no such methodology.
"- all verified by hundreds of video examples from numerous sources."
Verified? Numerous sources? Countless footage of contrails and baseless conspiracy videos posted on You Tube by incredulous believers in this hoax is not "verification". What sources?
"Seeing is believing."
Known science is not about "belief" - and actually understanding what you are looking at helps.
"Unless you believe that contrails can be turned on and off selectively, as we see in films on chemtrails all the time."
As I said, science is not about "belief" The atmosphere is neither isotropic or homogenous and is constantly in flux. The main factors that govern the formation of contrails - pressure, temperature and humidity can change within mere metres. A contrail is a binary event based upon the interplay of the latter. Fly a commercial aircraft through such changeable conditions at high speed then of course they can appear to instantaneously and sporadically turn on or off. Don't believe me? You need to look harder. Ironic that you people exhort us to "just look up" but oddly you never seem to notice sections of recently deposited contrails seemingly arbitrarily fade and vanish as parcels of rising or subsiding drier or warmer air create this phenomena. Or perhaps you have an alternative explanation?
These "lab tests" that you referred to, as requested could you present them, together with the precise methodology which also demonstrates cause and effect. One analytical in-situ sample of a chemtrail at source would be a great place to start too. Given the high volume of comparable studies into the microphysical properties of contrails, there should be hundreds at your disposal. Only, it seems that you forgot.
1
-
Actually it's "Eastlund" - you couldn't even parrot that correctly.
Have you actually read the patent, or like most online conspiracy believers did you just rely on pseudoscientific websites to tell you what to think? Dr. Eastlund's patent, which has since become popularly and inaccurately known as the "HAARP patent", is widely batted about your online echo-chamber, often with much commentary from lay conspiracy theorists making their own interpretations of how it might be used. Specifically, the patent involves using natural gas to generate electricity to create electromagnetic radiation to excite a tiny section of the ionosphere to about 2 electron volts, thus moving it upward along the lines of the magnetic field. The conspiracy theorists, once again, completely overlook the fact that this can only happen in the ionosphere, and they erroneously interpret it as a weather control system or seismic weapon. Such conclusions are utterly bereft of technological and scientific basis or reality.
A further disconnect in this conspiracy claim is that Dr. Eastlund's patent related to a speculative and unproven device approximately one million times as powerful as HAARP. Remember, a patent is not proof of the existence of something - simply a means to register an idea, irrespective of how outlandish that may be. The patent does not even mention HAARP, and none of its drawings remotely resemble anything built at HAARP. For perspective, HAARP's antenna array measures about 1000 feet on a side. A device such as that imagined by Dr. Eastlund would have been 14 miles on a side, with one million antenna elements, compared to HAARP's 180. Furthermore, Dr. Eastlund left APTI to found his own company before the HAARP program began, and was never associated with the program.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tvviewer4500
"You know what the worst part of people like you is, Son?"
Well given that like Apollo, you know nothing about me, this should be interesting. Go ahead, I'm all ears.
"You never did anything. You just read a book and repeated something."
Said the online conspiracy believer. Actually, take your own advice - and perhaps read a book or two. 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica' would be a good place to start.
"Life gets really dull when you build your foundation based on only the "truisms" you are exposed to rather than the ones you discover for yourself"
You mean, that time you watched a You Tube conspiracy video?
As I explained - I am irrelevant to this exchange. The known science of Apollo is supported by physical laws and mathematical axioms that speak for themselves. I'll remind you again, you are welcome to attempt to falsify them.
Wonderful, and for the third time of asking I am inviting you to share them 'son'. From your 'discoveries', present your singular best evidence that the Apollo missions never happened - I'm still waiting. Go ahead then. What's wrong? Are you doubting the strength of your own conviction? Off you go, clever lad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why are you pretending to ask questions, demonstrably in the absence of knowledge before arrogantly making claims about subjects you know nothing about and on that basis, (none whatsoever), declaring something to be fake?
You are referring to a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which Kelly Smith discusses the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced high density electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and last year, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again?
So you also use one conspiracy theory to justify belief in another? Great logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@avestaone-lo3de
"And I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Van Allen belt"
Which one? There are two, with a third that is transitory.
What about them? Let's face it, the only reason that you've actually heard of the belts in the first place is because some online con artist grifting junk conspiracy theory told you what to think about them. if you have a shred of integrity then I'd like you to honestly ask yourself the following questions:
1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation?
2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it?
3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from?
4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts?
5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions?
6/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs?
If the answer to these questions is nothing, then obtaining the answers will prevent you from humiliating yourself in the future on a public comments section with no actual prior knowledge about the subject whatsoever.
"and the footage of your heroes FAKING distance from Earth from inside your beloved Apollo 11."
'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon'? Is this serious? You mean footage that had long been publicly and commercially available years before that renowned con artist, liar and grifter Bart Sibrel tampered with it? How gullible does it get? Can I recommend you watch the entire TV transmission rather than the 2 minutes that Sibrel allows the viewer to see. Also listen to the astronauts radio communication during this time, something again Sibrel doesn't allow the viewer to hear. Interestingly, if you can be bothered to view the entire footage (remember, this was available on DVD via Spacecraft films in the late 1990's well before Sibrel release of his claimed "never seen before" footage) you will see the image of earth was filmed through a rectangular window and not the circular window Sibrel claims. You will also note that we can see the entire west coast of America and much of the Pacific Ocean - something not possible for a spacecraft in low earth orbit. And finally, Apollo was easily the brightest object in the sky (bar the Sun and Moon) and if it had remained in low earth orbit for the duration of the mission it would have been observed by thousands - and yet it wasn't. However, what we do have is observations of the spacecraft in cislunar space. The whole low earth orbit claim is demonstrably false. Sibrel harvests stupidity for profit, and you are the target market.
1
-
1
-
@NorbyatManeuvers This is possibly something that I find explaining most frequently to moon landing doubters. The answer lies in optical physics/angular resolution.
You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see the details of the landing sites from Earth or space. To explain why, understand that the expression of the resolution of a telescope used visually is called the Dawes limit, which tells us that the smallest angle we can resolve (in arcseconds) equals 116/D, where D is the aperture’s diameter in millimeters. If we were to train say the Hubble telescope on the Moon (for which D is 2,400 mm), we’d be able to discern surface features as small as 0.05 arcsecond. When the Moon is closest to Earth (221,000 miles away), 0.05 arcsecond equates to about 85 meters (280 feet). Not only is this insufficient to resolve a discarded flag on the Moon, but it’s not even sufficient to detect the 10-meter-wide spread of the lunar module descent stages at the six landing sites. Space telescopes such as Hubble and JW are designed to probe into the far reaches of the universe and detect objects that are trillions of times bigger and orders of magnitude brighter.
However, The Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 17 landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2. These images correspond precisely with the known selenic coordinates of the six Apollo landings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
??? What about i?. Geoengineering has never been secretive or denied - it is well known public knowledge- and no aspect of it has anything whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails. For some reason chemtrail believers use it as false equivalence in some bizarre attempt to justify their belief in this hoax.
Geoengineering consists of two main divisions - 1/ GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) or negative emissions technology as it is sometimes termed and 2/ Solar Radiation Management. Some branches of GGR are underway - for example biochar, aforestation and carbon sequestering. Ocean Fertilisation is a proposal - and one that has some concerns due to possible side effects. SRM meanwhile, with the exception of ground based albedo modification, is entirely hypothetical. One branch of this, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, is regularly mentioned by chemtrail believers due to false equivalence by the perpetrators of this conspiracy theory in a lame attempt to validate their hoax. SAI is intended to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and those heterogeneously produced in the Junge Layer. SAI has yet to graduate beyond mathematical modelling and research proposal. A small scale trail called SCoPEx, involving a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere releasing a few litres of water to evaluate perturbation (and subsequently maybe 2 or 3kgs of calcium carbonate to establish reflectivity) has been postponed multiple times.
Did you actually bother watching Brennan's voluntary address to the CFN the theme being 'Transnational Threats to Global Security' - or was it the ridiculous title containing the word 'chemtrails' that hoodwinked you? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan wasn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it exists, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the misuse of it. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. I can provide you with a full transcription of the speech if that helps?
Like I said, SAI doesn't exist beyond paper proposals and computer modelling. In the highly unlikely event that it would ever be attempted, it would not form a visible or lasting trail or involve commercial jet aircraft and would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. There is currently no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft). More tellingly, in addition to the environmental unknowns, cost and logistical problems, the sheer impossibility of international governance mean that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection will never get off the ground - unless you count the SCoPEx project that I referred to.
Cue the inevitable abuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FierceMouse
"How many times does the science community have to lie to you before you take their information in critically?"
Known science is governed by physical laws and mathematical axioms and thereby has a voice of its own and is the ultimate arbiter. The 'scientific community' is answerable to the scientific method. Whilst of course your online conspiracy theory meanwhile is entirely honest, accurate and consistent, not in the least bit deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? How many times do these charlatans have to lie to you "before you take their information critically"?
"Why the lie about the petrified wood given to France?"
And you can't even parrot that correctly. Case in point.
"Why are they continuously getting caught using wires and special effects?"
Who? When?
"You will listen to the organization who receives a blank check to deceive you on the cheap. They just need to give your kind pictures created from a computer and you're happy."
Nope. Science demands independent objective evidence and data.
"BTW, the term "conspiracy theorists" was created to take eyes off the CIA after they killed Kennedy. After all these years, we know this now."
This again? Really? It's the same thing gullibly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again with you people. You even have a conspiracy theory about the term conspiracy theory.
Absolutely false. Completely untrue. You clearly believe anything you read on the internet, and yet have the temerity to accuse others of lacking critical capability. Were you to possess one iota of this then even at a cursory level of inspection you'd discover that the term had been in popular parlance and literature since the 19th century. In respect of the 1967 document 'Countering Criticism of the Warren Report' there is not a single sentence in the document that indicates the CIA intended to weaponise, far less introduce the term “conspiracy theory” to disqualify criticism. In fact, “conspiracy theory” in the singular is never even used in the document. “Conspiracy theories” in the plural is only used once, matter-of-factly in the third paragraph. The authors of the document deploy the term in a very casual manner and obviously do not feel the need to define it because it was not a new term but already widely used at the time to describe alternative accounts. At no time do the authors recommend using the label “conspiracy theory” to stigmatise alternative explanations of Kennedy’s assassination.
Seriously, how gullible?
To return to my original response to you - are you also of the belief that the VABs are analogous to a "microwave oven"? 🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@windolite
"nothing wrong with being simple minded"
Confirmed the crap online conspiracy believer.
"the government tells you something happened and you take it as fact."
Because the junk online conspiracy theory that you mindlessly parrot is of course entirely scientifically accurate, honest, truthful, not in the slightest bit misleading, dishonest, disingenuous or exploitative and being entirely bereft of agenda or bias, has your best interests at heart. Ok then.
I am irrelevant to this exchange, so is "the government" - not interested in that. The science that you are woefully ignorant of is axiomatic and therefore has a voice of its own.
"I think for myself though so yeah."
Said the gullible believer in junk moronic online conspiracy theory.
Of course you do - absolutely no reliance whatsoever upon crap You Tube conspiracy videos, clickbait confirmation bias, cherry picked quote mining and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites going on here.
I'd stick to your gaming, it's more grounded in reality. "So yeah"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexc1105
Heat is transferred between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere in a variety of ways, including radiation, conduction, and convection. Since the atmosphere is a fluid and a poor conductor you are correct the main process is convection.
Essentially all of the energy the Earth receives is in radiant energy that originates from the Sun. The temperature of the Earth is a balancing act, with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contributing to a planet that is inhabitable. This balance of temperature is maintained through several different mechanisms.
If all that contributed to the temperature of the Earth was the incoming, absorbed sunlight then the temperature of the Earth would rise nearly 1 million degrees Celsius over a billion years. Therefore clearly a habitable planet must have the mechanism to lose shed energy to space. Since Earth is surrounded by the vacuum of outer space, it is unable to lose energy through conduction or convection. Therefore the only way the Earth loses energy to space is by electromagnetic radiation. At typical planetary temperatures, this energy being shed to space is in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. All objects with a temperature emit some form of radiation, and the infrared emission to space results from contributions by the planetary surface and atmosphere.
The temperature of an object governs the speed that they will lose energy to their surroundings. Obviously hotter objects emit more radiation than colder objects, and thus a hotter planet will shed more energy to space than a colder planet. This means that there must be some temperature where the rate of infrared emission to space equals the rate at which energy is being absorbed from the Sun. If, for whatever reason the planet were made hotter, the energy out would simply become greater until the planet had cooled to its equilibrium temperature. Similarly, if the planet were suddenly made colder, it would lose energy more slowly and thus warm up until the energies balanced.
This balancing act of solar and terrestrial energy flows defines the energy balance (and equilibrium temperature) of a planet. This balance is the basic constraint on a planet's climate, and the dependence of outgoing infrared energy on temperatures is a basic type of stabilising feedback that allows planets to remain in equilibrium (in addition to not easily exhibiting very wild climate swings of hundreds or millions of Kelvin).
Since radiative equilibrium is the benchmark of climate physics, it then follows that climate scientists are very interested in the concept of energy balance. When climate changes, such as through the burning of fossil fuels and the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration it is imperative to understand how the incoming and outgoing energy flows are disrupted and what temperature changes are demanded in order for the whole planet to be in energy balance as opposed to a runaway greenhouse effect witnessed on Venus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly, research into SAI has never been concealed, secretive and has always been in the public domain. How precisely do you "admit" to something that isn't denied? In fact, it has always been in the interest of any proponent of geoengineering to publicise their work to attract funding and support - (although less so certain GGR schemes which tend to be better financed than SRM).
Secondly, you are referring to the hypothetical concept of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, a theoretical branch of geoengineering that has not yet even progressed beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols as a last ditch measure to arrest climate change - and although there is no agreement yet on the materials that would be employed to achieve this, it's likely that sulphates themselves would be deployed. SAI has not even reached the early stages of small scale trail. There was a field experiment designated for last year to take place above the Arizona desert and to involve a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere. The intention was to release small quantities of water and later a few kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation and dispersal. However, to date this has yet to take place. This is your SAI as it currently stands...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
To clarify, this video is about the chemtrail conspiracy theory which is predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video...which is misidentified contrails, may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hermanschweizer9717
"it strikes me odd that NASA has last all the technology and blue prints from the Apollo program"
They haven't though.
"And when asked, they can’t build it back up again."
They haven't been asked though. Apollo was cancelled, which means the tooling, the r&d, the production plants and processes abandoned, the technology left to lie fallow and the expertise retired whilst funding was diverted to LEO, the development of the Space Shuttle, the construction of the ISS and at the time, Nixon continuing to wage an expensive foreign war. That technology has been rendered obsolete and is now superseded by modern design and production, composites, materials and systems utilised by the Artemis programme.
"The pictures from the mission’s have showed studio lighting"
No they haven't - they are entirely consistent with the sunlight, the angle and the reflectivity and albedo of the moon's surface at the time of the landings.
"and shadows coming from different directions."
All landings coincided with the lunar dawn. Low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. You can see the same effect on earth. And if there are multiple light sources, why does each object only cast one shadow?
"that doesn’t confirm they did not land on the moon, maybe they had problems with the film , and they had to recreate the pictures on earth."
All the original prints were released immediately following each mission.
"And then there is the van Allen belt"
No, that would be 'belts' there are two of them.
"dangerous space radiation"
The belts have different intensity and what do you mean about "dangerous space radiation". You understand that this is not homogeneous or uniform and that there are different types yes? The VABs consist of highly charged alpha and beta particles that is actually not difficult to shield against in the regions and the time periods that the Apollo missions flew. Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always around the vicinity of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the sparse edges of the Van Allen belts.
To quote James Van Allen himself:
"the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
"that NASA just claimed it is a challenge right now to find protection for the astronauts"
Wrong, you are simply regurgitating dishonestly quote mined statements removed from their original context by dishonest conspiracy theorists. We know how to protect the astronauts passing through the VABs, however, Orion is a new vehicle designed for a different mission to Apollo. It will spend weeks, months, even years outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field. By way of comparison Apollo spent only a few days outside of this protection. In addition, Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionization tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics that are more susceptible to damage than the core rope memory of Apollo.
"I did my own research"
Then why are you simply regurgitating the same tedious and ill-informed conspiracy theory that I warned you against doing? If you had truly conducted "your own research" then demonstrably you wouldn't be parroting these claims and you would have learnt about the science, history and technology of Apollo and be able to dispel them yourself.
"And if NASA has the luna orbiter, ,why can’t we get some detail pictures from the Apollo landing sites, would like to see how it looks after 50 years, or maybe they are all gone."
Nope all still there - as evidenced by tracks, the descent stages of each LM, and above all the experiments such as EASEP, multiple ALSEP installations and LLRR which by their very design were intended to be and could only be configured and assembled manually.
1
-
1
-
"If you look up John Brennan he himself admits to chemtrails. The real name is stratospheric aerosol injection.if John Brennan tells you he is spraying the skies would you believe him"
Seriously, how many times?
You are referring to ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan in his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations, the theme being "Transitional Threats to Global Security".
https://www.cfr.org/event/john-brennan-transnational-threats-global-security
Have you actually bothered watching this or was it simply the fact that your conspiracy video had chemtrails in the title? Brennan discussed future issues that may result in global instability. An SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused and has significant geopolitical ramifications - in addition to international policy and governance, the unknowns surrounding environmental impact. It is within the remit of the CIA to consider a range of initiatives and their associated potential future international implications and threats, including science oriented concepts. Brennan was discussing SRM in the future abstract sense from the analytical perspective of a Political Environmental Social and Technological analytical framework in addition to other hypothetical research proposals, emergent/novel technologies and concepts that may however never be put into practice. He even talks about anti ageing.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI or saying that it is in progress, on the contrary, he is warning about the implications of the future misuse of it should it ever become a reality. Please cite the precise passage in which John Brennan "admits" that geoengineering, (or chemtrails as the deceptive titles of these videos would have you believe), are currently in progress. Here is the full transcription of Brennan's speech to help you...
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
SAI has not graduated beyond research proposal and computer modelling and has yet to even reach the early stages of small-scale trials. There is not even an agreement upon the materials that would best be employed to simulate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols - indeed, this year, an experiment was scheduled involving a steerable balloon launched 20 km into the stratosphere above the Arizona desert releasing mere kilograms of water and possibly in future experiments, calcium carbonate, to measure dispersion and perturbation. Here's your SAI as it currently stands.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
What does any of this have to do with the persistent contrails under discussion in this video?
SAI wouldn't even make a trail, would take place at double the altitude of the aircraft that you are seeing and wouldn't even be visible to a ground based observer.
1
-
Except the level of X Rays encountered during the Apollo missions was not comparable.
Hasselblad significantly adapted and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. They also collaborated with Zeiss to produce a custom lens for the lunar cameras. The lens couldn't be used on a regular camera because Hasselblad removed the mirror mechanism and the viewfinder, The moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that were used were well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Regarding the film itself in more detail - firstly Apollo used ektachrome EF (S0168) and ektachrome MS (S0368) both of which were developed expressly for use in space utilising different emulsions due to higher UV and eliminate blue haze radiation. X rays, can indeed be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv and was a measured average of 60mSv per hour at skin level during all of the Apollo landings. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit and on the surface would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. The environment at the Moon is more likely to have high energy effects, and there actually are signs of radiation in some of the images, if you look carefully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@craigwilliamsSeekTheLord
"You actually believe what you wrote and, thus, can’t see how deep the programming of your mind goes."
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory and religious zealot.
"Can’t get cell phone coverage in some parts of the US, but a call to the moon in the ‘60’s! No problem!"
Seriously? This is a dumb as it gets. The signal on your phone is received by a crappy 1.94 square centimeter antenna nestled into the bottom of your device, as opposed to a 200ft wide radio telescope dish. The current 4G communication band is 0.8-2.6GHz, and the main communication frequency band used by 5G is also below 6GHz, your signal can dip as low as a trivial -30 dBm. A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and have towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. The transmitters used in space have exponentially greater power than the few milliwatts of a cell phone, using a high gain receiver and directed focused antenna arrays. The Apollo radio transmissions broadcast at 20 watts, to a huge parabolic dish almost 200 feet in diameter which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module. They are entirely different scenarios.
And guess what? Radio transmission - it's a thing. Newsflash, fellah called Marconi, 1895, may well have passed you by.
"We can go to the moon in the 60’s, but we can’t in the 21st century — radiation and stuff! What about in the ‘60’s? Be quiet, you afk too many conspiracy theory questions"
Without being remotely interested in hearing the answers. So yes, shut the f**k up you arrogant tool and gain something in the way of self-awareness and humility,
You are referring to a 2014 video entitled 'Orion: Trial by Fire' in which engineer Kelly Smith discusses the challenges posed by the VABs for the then new Orion capsule. Because the computers aboard Orion are much more powerful than those carried by NASA’s Apollo moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s, such advanced high density electronics are more susceptible to the levels of radiation found in the Van Allen belts and beyond. This is a given and needs no further explanation. However, understand that the read only core rope memory used by Apollo is radiation hard. In contrast, radiation ionising the underlying semiconductor material - for instance when an electron tunnels into a transistor, can cause adverse effects. Look up single event upset and the more destructive single event effects/latch-up for more information. The large bipolar (NPN and PNP) transistors in the AGC were not very sensitive to radiation. Modern MOSFETs are much more radiation sensitive. Orion's onboard systems use modern electronics that are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts. When high-energy protons and other ions hit orbiting spacecraft, they often leave ionisation tracks in electronic chips. These tracks can upset spacecraft computer memories and otherwise disrupt sensitive electronics. This was not a problem for the Apollo design. Smith stated that these challenges "needed to be solved" before we can send a crew into those regions of the belts and beyond. In the same year Orion was sent into the densest regions of the belts and in 2022, to orbit the moon and return to Earth as part of Artemis 1, to overwhelming success. Why is it even necessary to explain all this again?
"Well, apparently, they didn’t enshrine it in a national museum. No, according to the narrative and NASA, they scrapped it!"
Demonstrably false. Why are you lying?
"I am heavily censored on this platform. I know, it’s shocking."
Oh spare us you self-entitled tit. No, it isn't shocking at all that a dumb conspiracy believer doesn't understand a crude spam filter and the notion of shadow banning that not only afflicts us all, but that a six year old child could comprehend. You are not special and your mindlessly junk parroted conspiracy theory has absolutely zero bearing upon reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@souljahroch2519
"Because they ruined their soul, now they are ruining 'my' soil, and The Corporation cares not for humans."
Monsanto did not "ruin your soil" and as I said, does not exist anymore. Stop mindlessly accommodating online conspiracy theory. All business cares about is business...and maximising profits. No "conspiracy" here.
"My land grows my 'organic' crops better without aluminum"
Which occurs naturally in soils. Some, more than others. Again, why would Monsanto not have wanted to engineer aluminium resistant crops?
"which has also been identified as a cause of Alzheimer's."
No it hasn't. There is no proven causal link whatsoever.
"The chemtrails are litterally poisoning the land to grow only Monsanto's GMO acid resistant terminal seeds, & poisoning the air, leading to increased respiratory illnesses."
"The chemtrails" that you refer to are simply persistent contrails. Even if they did contain aluminium, which they do not, you are seriously suggesting that there is a global plan instituted by an agrichemtical company that doesn't even exist any more to spray the planet in aluminium from six to eight miles above your head. Have you any idea how inefficient this would be...not to mention the logistics. There's about 470 million acres of arable land in the US. The topsoil is about the top six inches. So that's 290 billion cubic meters of topsoil. 1% of that is 2.9 billion cubic meters. Soil is about 1500 kg/cu.m, so that's, 4.35 billion tonnes of aluminium needed to raise the aluminium content of soil by 1% (i.e. from 8% to 9%)
Most of the world's production of Aluminium comes from bauxite. The total world production of bauxite is around 200 million tonnes per year. Bauxite is only about 50% aluminium by weight.Hence, to increase the aluminium content of US arable land by 1%, you would need to spray the equivalent of 40 years of the entire world's production of bauxite.
"The glyphosate used in the Roundup necessary to grow these anti-nature seeds has also been proven to cause cancer, & autism."
No, it really hasn't.
"This is solely to monopolize the market, and squeeze small family farmers, like me, out. Please, sir, pull your head out of The Corporation's ass."
I deplore the way that concessions to big business attempt to crush small independent producers and that corporate laws favour the economies of scale....however, chemtrails are a baseless online hoax, perpetrated by opportunistic charlatans whose stock in trade is scaremongering and stoking outrage. If you hadn't noticed, conspiracy theory is big business too.
1
-
@souljahroch2519
"I diplore the way selfish Corporate schmucks defend The Beast."
How is anything in my responses to you defending corporate interest? I have simply explained to you why an organisation sought to engineer aluminium resistant crops. I have at no stage defended Monsanto or advocated the use of Roundup - simply pointed out the inaccuracies in your posts. Incidentally, the correct spelling is "deplore".
"Monsanto 'doesn't exist anymore'? Monsanto is now Bayer."
No - Bayer brought out Monsanto. Completely different.
"This was done to indemnify Monsanto from their crimes against humanity, & imminent bankruptcy due to their cancer, & autism causing Roundup."
The shareholders, corporate strategy and entire history of business takeovers would suggest otherwise. Moreover, roundup continues to be manufactured and sold, whilst glyphosate is still the most widely used herbicide and crop desiccant. There is no causal link to cancer - simply weak statistical associations which are inconclusive and certainly without any basis for a legal case to be made. Roundup has never been found to cause autism.
"You, & your Corporatist pals are killing mankind, & the planet, for no more than paychecks of valueless 'money'."
How? To reiterate, I despise corporate interest and the profligate western consumer lifestyle. What pals? What paycheques? - you have no idea what I do.
"When the trees are gone, & the crops are gone, & the water is all soured, and leaded, what will our children eat? But you don't care. Selfish Selfish Selfish..."
On the contrary, I care very much for the future of this planet and the welfare of those that inherit the earth. Precisely why I devote time and energy to genuine environmental concerns as opposed to baseless online conspiracy theories predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails and perpetrated and perpetuated by profiteering exploitative charlatans. Once again, you appear oblivious to the money that these people make by exploiting your outrage, scientific ignorance, gullibility and incredulity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daveeol1987
"oh you seem to know it all."
The irony, was it intentional?
"Why do you discuss things on YouTube at all? So you can prove your intelligence or ignorance."
I suggest that you look back at your last few posts.
"If you think for one minute John brennan would address this technology and the major geopolitic consequences he outlined in the speech without the us government already testing the technology your very naive"
SAI is nothing whatsoever to do with the US government.
To repeat, SAI is one area of a branch of geoengineering research called 'Solar Radiation Management' which with the exception of ground based albedo modification is entirely hypothetical. It has nothing to do with either cloud seeding or like the latter, aircraft contrails. It proposes replicating the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols as a last ditch method to arrest global temperature rise. Cost, logistics, environmental uncertainties and above all, the problems associated with international governance and geopolitical relations mean that it is highly unlikely ever to become a reality.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft contrails and the subject under discussion in this video... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
1
-
"Obviously it's a black op dumbfuck how would you be able to get any information on the technology. "
And there it is. Why is it impossible to engage with any conspiracy believer without the inevitable ad hominem abuse? Why do you feel the need for it. Concentrate on the topic instead of attacking the individual, all you achieve is your own humiliation.
"how long did it take you research that bullshit o wise one"
You are the one making claims that you are unable to substantiate. Regarding 'research', it's actually my job, and my background is atmospheric science. I'm more than happy to discuss either with you.
So far, you have posted a deceptive chemtrails video and confused and conflated SAI with cloud seeding. SAI would be deployed between 65,000 - 70,000ft, Cloud seeding, which is conducted at 2,000 - 6.500 feet and has nothing to do with the latter, whilst neither would result in a trail, but the aircraft contrails that you are observing which do, are typically formed between FL180 and FL440.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daveeol1987
"OK the first line of your smokescreen copy paste."
So straight into the attack again. I copy and pasted the original question that I posed to you, that's all.
"How do you know that sai doesn't exist beyond research and mathematical modelling considering black projects exist?"
It could do, but given that the purpose would be to arrest global temperature increase and that it needs to be conducted across the globe - what would be the point? Moreover, since it would require the complicity of every government on the planet (the issues of international governance that I referred to), it would be impossible to keep a secret. Additionally, why publicise and draw attention to a 'black op'?
And again, what does any of this have to do with misidentified aircraft contrails that conspiracy believers term 'chemtrails' which is the subject of this video?
Odd don't you think that the entire independent fields of atmospheric science, meteorology, environmental monitoring and aerospace engineering worldwide - y'know, the people that actually understand the physics of the atmosphere - remain completely oblivious to the presence of these supposed 'black op' geoengineered 'chemtrails' yet a community of online armchair conspiracy theorists and self-appointed overnight 'experts' think that they know better because the internet told them so.
"Why would it be a commercial jet aircraft?"
I wouldn't be - and if it was, it would need to be heavily modified. Simply that conspiracy believers that push the false equivalence of SAI in a lame attempt to justify and legitimise their belief in chemtrails, point to precisely that. Trails left by commercial aircraft. Moreover, that is the subject of this video - misidentified aircraft contrails. SAI wouldn't even result in a trail and to attribute it to contrails demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what it actually is.
"would they not test as high up as they could go with conventional aircraft"
No point. The entire purpose of SAI is to replicate volcanic (and heterogeneously produced aerosols in the junge layer). In 2019 there was a small scale trial scheduled by Harvard called SCoPEx to involve a steerable balloon launched to 20kms in altitude intended to release a few kilos of water and possibly the same negligible quantity of CaC02 to evaluate perturbation, reflectivity and dispersion. This test has yet to take place. As I said, the materials have not even been determined, hence the research. It's likely to be some form of sulphate - although calcium carbonate may have potential.Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose.
"Do they have multiple aircraft purposefully built to complete the project, Which could carry the load?"
Like I said, this would be necessary, yes.
"And yes I believe that video of brennan to be an admission of sai expierimentation as I said before he's not talking about it unless it's happening"
So admission of something that isn't denied in a speech about possible future technologies and their impact on global security, and reference to what you claim to be a 'black op'. Yes, that makes perfect sense then.
Like I said, I suggest that you read the transcription for yourself instead of relying on a daft strapline on a junk YT chemtrail conspiracy video. Your 'belief' and personal incredulity has no bearing on reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chadkline4268
"I can substantiate Chemtrails, and I can show people how to prove them to themselves"
Splendid!! Even better. Why didn't you say? Given that substantiation does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, I very much look forward to seeing how.
"but you and your fellows at YouTube keep deleting my posts that substantiate Chemtrails."
So simply because I asked you to qualify your claims you now conclude that I work for You Tube? Seriously, how do you people even manage to dress yourselves in the morning? Nothing to do with the spam filter settings on this page then. I've had three comments fail to post in the last 24 hours - because they contained links. On other occasions, it's been ok and they have. It seems to be quite specific what it picks up on. You're replying now, so why don't you simply answer the question?
"Y-assassin = YouTube truth assassin. afraid of free speech, are we?"
No in the slightest. Free speech is the noose by which you hang yourself, and conspiracy believers do so through their own stupidity. I encourage it which is why I have repeatedly implored you to answer the question. So here it is again - very simply, what particles are being sprayed, who precisely are "they" and how have you established this? Not hard.
Try again - only it seems to have slipped your mind last time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Juxtapositional
You only need the one reply, why is it that you people are virtually incapable of consolidating your ramblings into one comment?
"‘responding accordingly’ is not just effectively saying ‘nah ah’ without any tangible specifics to why the moon can be proven to be physical."
I didn't - read it again. Happy to discuss any aspect of it.
Said this -
"not just effectively saying ‘nah ah’ without any tangible specifics"
Says this -
"Try again, unlucky"
Like I said, the unintentional irony is as hilarious as it is staggering.
"if you were at all well versed in debate, you’d realise the schoolboy error of resorting to logical fallacies constantly - these are not arguments that have substantive meaning, just various emotively or disingenuously aligned statements"
To remind you, you said this -
"Amazing to think some people still believe this nonsense! How they would begin to deal with the true shape of the earth boggles the mind somewhat you could say…"
And this -
"If you’re not a bot, then you’re really terrible at this!"
And here is a list of yours in this thread alone - false premise, reducto ad absurdum, begging the question, false dilemma, strawman, argument from incredulity, hasty generalisation and hilariously, your trump card - The Tu Quoque. Add to that a large helping of illusory superiority and a chronic affliction of the Dunning Kruger effect.
To remind you, you said this too...
"Why for instance does half the moon get obscured by the blue sky on numerous occasions during the day if it’s a rock floating in space?"
I mean, I'm curious now. Do you actually share these these thoughts in the real world or in public? - and assuming that you interact with reality, people that you meet?
Shall we return to my response to you? You can't just hand wave it away, which is precisely what you dishonestly accuse others of doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spaceted3977
"Area 51 is the only place where you will be shot on site"
You said the Arizona desert, Area 51 is in Groom Lake, Nevada.
"and Russian Satellites have Shown Moon Craters and film Studios."
Source? Evidence?
Meanwhile the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the actual landing sites that correspond exactly with the selenic coordinates, and which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2. Yet you completely disregard this.
"As usual, you are talking a load of Rubbish !!!"
The irony, was it intentional?
"Do you think they would film the Moon Landings in Yosemite !!!!"
I'll repeat what I sad to you, because either you are incredibly dim, or lack the necessary levels of comprehension: "The Arizona desert is it now? What about Death Valley, or the Utah desert? Or Cannon AFB New Mexico? Area 51 Nevada? Devon Island Canada? Hollywood or even Shepperton UK? You goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which conspiracy theorist you allow yourself to be duped by."
Meaning that you people are always making contradictory statements. Which is it? Area 51? A hangar in an airfrorce base? or a Hollywood Studio? You need to get your stories straight.
I also notice that like any conspiracy theorist you have completely disregarded my responses to you in respect of the nonsense that you typed regarding Armstrong's first steps on the moon. Do you just make this up as you go along?
1
-
@Dave.S.TT600
Why the abuse? Can't you debate or attempt to refute his points instead. Of course you can't, because your regurgitated online conspiracy nonsense didn't tell you that part.
Actually, 280 F (138 C) - which may be the temperature of the lunar surface material at equilibrium in full sunlight, but it's not necessarily the temperature of any object in a similar situation. Objects will be heated to that temperature only if they absorb the same amount of sunlight as lunar surface material, and also radiate it at the same rate. More reflective objects absorb less light and are heated less. Less reflective items may be heated even hotter. The temperature of the lunar surface (i.e., rocks and dust) as quoted by NASA has nothing to do with the equilibrium temperature reached by other objects exposed to sunlight in the lunar environment. Objects will slowly approach this from emission and absorbtion of radiation.
All the Apollo missions to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. Bear in mind here that the lunar day is just under 700 hours long. In addition to this, the angle of insolation ensured that the sunlight was not too strong.
There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the albedo on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts. The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. As you correctly said, the moon has no atmosphere. The normal kind of thermal transfer we see on Earth requires matter for the heat to transfer to. With no air, heat has no immediate way to escape a body. and so in respect of convection - the most efficient process of heat transfer - there is no medium for this to take place.
Body heat of the astronauts was carried away from the water-cooled undergarment and in waste air, both of which passed through the PLSS (Personal Life Support System) backpack, where they were cooled by a water ice sublimator. Several gallons of water was contained in a pair of flexible reservoirs inside the backpack for this purpose. Astronauts could control the operation of the sublimator, and so the amount of cooling. No heat was ever needed, as the human body cranks out as much heat as an incandescent light bulb.
All very basic thermodynamics. Do you wish to dispute that too?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dave.S.TT600
"i said : i started with observing the tv apollo footage"
No you didn't - you started by 'observing' junk online conspiracy videos - that much is abundantly clear.
"mate, your responses here are the 'claptrap'. Just absolute shit. Stop talking shit."
I am irrelevant - your dispute lies not with me but with independently verifiable science which is governed by physical laws and axioms thereby has a voice of its own.
To remind you, your OP stated the following...
"What is the surface temperature on The Moon's sunny side? (over 200 celsius/392Fh)"
My response - which you were completely incapable of addressing - was intended to dispel your incredulity. Now, for the benefit of anyone reading this I am challenging you to demonstrate that my reply is "absolute shit." - No use saying it. Go ahead then, refute it on a point by point basis. I'll be waiting.
"ANYONE..that looks at the basics with their unbias eyeballs, like i did, will think the footage and other basic observations look fake and silly."
You can't even successfully coordinate a caps lock key. What 'you think' - as incapable of the original thought process as you demonstrably are - is not only irrelevant, but is simply regurgitated conspiratorial nonsense and bad science mindlessly parroted over the comments section of a video entertainment platform. Your illusory superiority and your gross affliction of the Dunning Kruger effect renders you incapable of challenging your own preconceptions and recognising your innate cognitive bias.
"Forget about your elaborate responses you Dick."
You mean those replies that you conveniently 'forgot' because you were unable to respond to them?
"Goodbye idiot, beleive what you want, you Sap."
Known science is not about 'belief' - that would be baseless online conspiracy theory. Quick tip before you go though; if you really must insist on branding people idiots over the internet, you'll find that its more effective if you learn to spell first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you are comparing the AGC to a Simon Game then your first logical fallacy is false premise. This was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was an outstanding piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby.
The second thing to understand it that the launches must be timed so that the space vehicle intercepts the moving moon antipode and the intended landing site. The time required for the moons antipode to travel from the interception of the 72° launch azimuth trajectory, defined the duration of the launch window. TLI is simply the physics of raising an orbit. This is called a Hohmann transfer which is the most energy-efficient two-impulse maneuver for transferring between two coplanar circular orbits sharing a common focus (Earth to the moon). The Hohmann transfer is an elliptical orbit tangent to both circles on its apse line. The periapsis and apoapsis of the transfer ellipse are the radii of the inner and outer circles, respectively.
Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.
1
-
@civlengr68
You can independently verify this for yourself. There are hundreds of publications and technical authorships both from the time and afterwards detailing the design and function of the AGC and the RTCC. As opposed to academic publications in computer science journals, for the lay reader may I recommend the excellent 'How Apollo Flew to the Moon' by D.W. Woods (Springer); Digital Apollo by David A Mindell (MIT Press); or The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation' by Frank O'Brien (Springer).
No telemetry from the Apollo moon landings was "wiped". Now you are simply resorting to regurgitated conspiracy theory. All of the telemetry is preserved and obtainable. Do you even understand what "telemetry" is? Magnetic tapes were used to back up raw data at source. This consisted of telemetry and slow-scan broadcast signals sent by Unified S-Band. Once this had been extrapolated, converted and transcribed they were no longer required. Magnetic tape decays and is not intended for archival use. It is also very expensive and so was designed to be reused. For this reason, some of the tapes pertaining to the Apollo 11 EVA were erased, however having served their purpose, the contents was not longer required. With the tapes now defunct and the machinery for playing them obsolete, some from Apollo 11 and preceding/subsequent missions have been sold via auction to private collectors, because they are useless but not without financial value.
Yes I am also familiar with Willy Heidinger and the IBM connection and have read Edwin Black's book twice together with the expanded editions. Although no one would doubt that IBM bespoke technology, leased machinery, technical support assisted the Nazi party in their execution of the 'Final Solution', he does not demonstrate that IBM were complicit, or bear some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done. Not sure what your point is here. How does this sordid connection undermine the validity their design of the Apollo mainframe computers? It's like saying that Wernher von Braun was a card carrying SS member and the chief architect of the V2 rocket built through slave labour at the Peenemünde and Mittelwerk plants, therefore the Saturn V was fake. Why the non-sequitur and why are you shifting the goalposts when your original incredulity surrounded the physics and mechanics of transit through the Van Allen Belts and the trajectory to the moon?
1
-
@hassanchop7096
Nope, nothing to do with NASA - everything that I typed in my response is independently verifiable. I suggest that you start by familiarising yourself with ASTM E595 testing. I can also recommend a very good article in 'Machine Design' - 'Epoxies and adhesives fit for space'. Duct tape and kapton tape have served a myriad of purposes in both American and Russian exploration and has been applied inside and outside the craft. This phenomena is due to adhesion, which can be called the process of bonding or combining of dissimilar particles.Thus, the particles of tape, cling on to those of the other object.
The intermolecular forces responsible for the function of various kinds of stickers and sticky tape fall into the categories of chemical adhesion, dispersive adhesion, and diffusive adhesion.
However, any bonding material intended for long term use in space must possess the following characteristics:
1/ Good resistance against radiation degradation
2/ Outstanding atomic oxygen resistance
3/ Excellent micro-cracking resistance against thermal cycling
4/ Low outgassing characteristics
Resin systems that meet some of these requirements include polyimides, cyanate esters, silicone, epoxy, polyurethane and acrylic resins. Among the adhesive polymers available for an aerospace materials engineer, silicone stands out as possessing certain obvious advantages.
Your argument is simply one from ignorance and incredulity. If you claim that the information I provided is 'rubbish' then your dispute is not with me, rather the fields of chemical and aerospace engineering and you will need to falsify their findings. No use simply saying it or parroting dumb online conspiracy sites - you need to substantiate your claim with data to the contrary. Good luck with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jhiggz9258
Spectral measurements? Geoengineeringwatch Science guys? Really? - you sure about that?
Righto, then you'll have no problem presenting an in-situ analysis of of one of your supposed chemtrails at source using optical array spectrometry. Go ahead then.
To answer your question, my own field was Remote Sensing - particularly in the microwave frequency range (10-100 GHz or 3 cm to 3 mm wavelength. I have been fortunate to have been involved in a range of field studies and projects over the years - largely concerning atmospheric sounding. I have contributed to work on differential absorption LIDAR measurements, and one of the most fascinating studies I was involved in evaluated AGW observations in the lower atmosphere, in particular ABL occurrences using CDWL and subsequently AIWs in the form of leeward orographic waves in the French Alps. Another initiative concerned the theoretical development of ground-based differential absorption LIDAR system for daytime and nighttime measurements of ozone throughout the free troposphere. Of further interest has surrounded evaluation of the stratification of aerosols, i.e., the vertical structure of the aerosol layers (base, top and thickness) and of later interest - the PBL. I have also contributed to the longitudinal measurement of PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μm) in London, correlating temperature and locational information, to derive a model for allowing prediction of the air quality at each station over time. If you'd like to learn more about any of this in greater detail, I would be only too happy to oblige.
Regarding your so called "science", you won't find a shred of it surrounding anything remotely connected to Dane Wigington which is precisely why his audience and his income is derived from gullible lay online conspiracy believers.
Returning to your so called science - I would specifically be most interested in the results from airborne differential absorption LIDAR measurements during a defined IOP, PBL illustrating the dynamics and vertical separation of these aerosol layers of your alleged chemical trails. Radiosonde and scanning backscatter LIDAR comparisons would also be interesting in addition to the information yielded by combined LIDAR scanning electron microscopy and x-ray microanalysis. I would also expect to see a distinct signature of these chemical trails regarding the extent of thermo-atmospheric scattering which can be derived from mono-static SODAR data and optical thickness equations and in association with the extrapolation of the Ångström exponent.
Further, any claimed soil or water samples will need to detail the methodology to allow differentiation from existing sources of natural and anthropogenic origin in addition to demonstrating a causal relationship with aerial spraying.
In your own time. Do appreciate, I absolutely guarantee that I'm infinitely more familiar with Wigington's fraud and his junk science than yourself. You won't bamboozle me.
1
-
@jhiggz9258
"Oh, make no mistake, I'm completely impressed with your massive science background and LIDAR measurement life skills."
Well you asked.
"My life has been spent designing analytical instrumentation, optical and chemical, maybe some of what you've used in your 'studies', who knows, with even a patent or two."
Of course it has - the internet is a wonderful thing.
"Unfortunately you're naive as hell."
The irony - was it intentional?
To clarify, you subscribe to an online hoax that has managed to turn a cloud into a conspiracy theory and you post this in support of your gullible beliefs...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/geoengineering-watch/
So back on point, because I noticed you avoided the question - could you direct me to these in-situ analytical studies of a chemtrail at source that you refer to? - actually, just one will do,
1
-
1
-
@jhiggz9258
Question? I simply asked for an in-situ analytical study of one of your supposed chemtrails at source. You claimed that these exist. Moreover, you should have hundreds to choose from. And yes, science requires that you detail methodology and demonstrate a causal relationship. Go ahead.
"On the other hand, find me one with your exacting criteria proving, to your satisfaction, of course, that what Wigginton indicates is entirely impossible, cannot be done. Actually that's a pretty good place to start. You claim he's dead wrong. Based on what peer-reviewed study? Waiting here."
Geoengineeringwatch claims that the contrails that you are witnessing are in fact evidence of a branch of Solar Radiation Management called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - correct? This is indeed demonstrably false for a multitude of reasons. Furthermore, this video is about aircraft contrails - a phenomena that has been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. To remind you, this was your OP -
"Can you say Barium and fly-ash? Try it.. b-a-r-i-u-m.. OK, neever mind"
When I asked you what this has to do with condensed water vapour formed by jet exhaust you replied by posting a ludicrous Dane Wigington YT conspiracy video. (note the spelling). Then proceeded to argue that his website contained legitimate science and contributions from scientists in the field which you have since been unable to produce. As the one making the claim that these trails are anything other than condensed water vapour the burden of proof is entirely incumbent upon you. The onus does not lie with myself or another party to establish or prove a negative. Why is it that no conspiracy believer is able to grasp the rudiments of this simple logical fallacy?
Once again, please refer me to the analytical studies and data that you claim Wigington has conducted. One in-situ measurement of a chemtrail will suffice. Thanks.
1
-
@jhiggz9258
As I explained, as the one that opted to troll this video with your chemtrail nonsense the burden of proof is incumbent upon yourself - not me. However, I'd be more than happy to explain to you what Stratospheric Aerosol Injection actually is and what it would involve.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is hypothetical branch of geoengineering that has not yet even progressed beyond research proposal and mathematical modelling. This is centered around the current $20m Harvard research initiative. This is peanuts though. In fact there have been very strident calls from the scientific world to step up the research, particularly in America where the AGU has called for US funding agencies to back evaluations of climate intervention adding that our understanding of the risks and opportunities remains poor. They maintain that it is essential to understand the economic, environmental and practical challenges of geoengineering. The systematic dominance of physical science and engineering perspectives in geoengineering research encourages a neglect of social and environmental impacts. This negligence is characteristic of an approach that addresses symptoms but aims to leave the underlying conditions that spawned the problem in place. Yet the socio-political and socio-economic implications of large-scale technological schemes to “fix” the climate are profound: under existing global power relations, geoengineering is bound to be exploited for corporate and strategic interest which is why it almost certainly will never be deployed, or even surmount the environmental objections and appreciable issues of policy and international governance.
SAI would aim to replicate the cooling effects of volcanic aerosols as a last ditch measure to arrest global warming - and although there is no agreement yet on the materials that would be employed to achieve this. These volcanic aerosols which are produced by the reaction of gaseous H2S and SO2 with water to form aqueous sulphuric acid (H2SO4). Incidentally, these are also occurring heterogeneously in the Junge Layer. Some aerosols are efficient scatterers but only weak absorbers at solar wavelengths so there is much work to be done to evaluate which material will best serve this purpose. it's likely that sulphates themselves would be deployed. SAI has not even reached the early stages of small scale trail. There was a field experiment designated for last year to take place above the Arizona desert and to involve a steerable balloon launched 20km into the stratosphere. The intention was to release small quantities of water and later a few kilos of calcium carbonate to evaluate perturbation and dispersal. However, to date this has yet to take place. This is your SAI as it currently stands and this is what it looks like...
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Odd don't you think that the entire independent fields of atmospheric science, meteorology, environmental monitoring and aerospace engineering worldwide - y'know, the people that actually understand the physics of the atmosphere - remain completely oblivious to these supposed geoengineered 'chemtrails' yet a community of online armchair conspiracy theorists and self-appointed overnight 'experts' think that they know better because the internet told them so.
Let's be honest, you people would never have even heard of geoengineering were it not for the intentional false equivalence on behalf of those that perpetrate your ridiculous conspiracy theory - such as Wigington - in a lame attempt to legitimise their ludicrous hoax. They also know that the believers in this nonsense are completely emotionally invested in their fraud so unlikely to ever critically question it and knowing nothing about aviation, meteorology and atmospheric science - far less, geoengineering itself will claim overnight armchair 'expertise' and uncritically lap up and regurgitate these claims about subjects that they are wholly ignorant about.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing ; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video...which is aircraft contrails, what's your point?
To reiterate, you elected to troll this video about the science of contrails with a nonsensical comment regarding fly ash and barium. When asked to substantiate this you produced a junk pseudoscientific You Tube video. When challenged over that, you started parroting nonsense about UV spectral measurement, 10/2.5/200u filtration and "science guys". To clarify again, as the one claiming that aircraft contrails are anything other than condensed water vapour, such as 'fly ash' or 'barium' or evidence of stratospheric aerosol injection, then the burden of proof rests with you to qualify those claims.
It's very simple, refer me to one in-situ measurement of a chemtrail at source using optical array spectrometry. Only for some reason it keeps slipping your mind. Try again.
1
-
@jhiggz9258
????? Have you actually bothered reading this? Read again my last post - it's precisely what I have been telling you. This article explains that geoengineering consists of two broad headings/strategies - carbon capture and SRM, the latter being the preserve of research and computer modelling. You clearly missed the following -
"Most geoengineering technologies are largely hypothetical, and major uncertainties remain as to whether they could ever work at all."
And more particularly, this...
"SRM has thus far only been simulated in computer models"
Followed by this...
"but it could leave the lab as early as 2018. Backed by a multimillion geoengineering fund provided by Bill Gates, Harvard University scientist David Keith, and colleagues working on the high profile Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) project known as “SCoPEx” plan to run first field experiments in Tucson, Arizona, this year."
I even actually referred you to the SCoPEx project involving a steerable balloon and a few kilos of water, which as of today in 2021 is still yet to take place. The article that you posted discusses the geopolitical ramifications of geoengineering, the environmental unknowns and the possible implications of both SRM and CCD/GGR strategies. Seriously, what's wrong with you?
Once more. Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video...which is aircraft contrails, again what's your point?
Trust Wigington? You still can't even spell his name. I am irrelevant. Why don't you instead place your trust in the known meteorological and aviation science that he contradicts and which has a voice of its own? Invariably and tellingly, those that mindlessly subscribe to this charlatan without exception know absolutely nothing about meteorology, aviation, atmospheric science or geoengineering itself as you have amply demonstrated. Dane Wigington is one of the original perpetuators of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. He legitimises his fraud through the false equivalence of geoengineering which is why gullible scientific illiterates such as yourself think that a contrail is a result of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - because Wigington told you so.
To reiterate, you elected to troll this video about the science of contrails with a nonsensical comment regarding fly ash and barium. When asked to substantiate this you produced a junk pseudoscientific You Tube video. When challenged over that, you started parroting nonsense about UV spectral measurement, 10/2.5/200u filtration and "science guys". To clarify again, as the one claiming that aircraft contrails are anything other than condensed water vapour, such as 'fly ash' or 'barium' or evidence of stratospheric aerosol injection, then the burden of proof rests with you to qualify those claims. Posting a link to 'The Dumbing won't cut it.
It's very simple, refer me to one in-situ measurement of a chemtrail at source using optical array spectrometry. There must be hundreds to choose from. Only for some reason it keeps slipping your mind. Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"you are so wrong. Chemtrails only exist in highly populated areas."
Chemtrails don't exist at all. And you are talking complete nonsense. There are videos posted all over the internet from chemtrail believers in sparsely populated areas misidentifying aircraft contrails. Wherever there is commercial air traffic, in cases where the ambient atmospheric conditions are conducive to their formation, you will see contrails.
"You will not find them, for example, on Canary Islands, because the wind would blow them into the barely populated Sahara desert."
Not true. It is quite common to see long haul transatlantic flights overflying the Canaries and heading east towards the African continent. I'm looking at them now on Flight Radar 24. Also the prevailing winds are the north-east trade winds, typical of subtropical climates in the northern hemisphere. Also, it is not uncommon for easterlies to blow in from the continent as evidenced by Sahara dust storms.
"And what a coincisence: In Europe, Canary Islands are known for having very good conditions for all kinds of lung diseases."
No, lower levels of respiratory disease and prevalence and severity of COPD than Spain. Epidemiologists largely attribute this to the favourable climate characteristics.
"And there are big airports on Tenerife and Gran Canaria. So why are there no chemtrails even if there are big airliners flying around"
Because the contrails that you erroneously refer to as 'chemtrails' are formed at cruise altitudes, Proximity to airports has no relationship to this.
"They are destroying the immune system with aluminium hydroxide, titanium oxide and barium. Therefore, many people get ill as soon as it is raining, beause the posion comes down concentrated in the rain."
How have you established this, where is your data demonstrating a causal relationship and who precisely are 'they'?
"And in towns, you will realize that the sky is not full of chemtrails every day. Some nice warm sunny day, everything is clear. Next day with same weather, it´s full of chemtrails that are spreading in the sky over hours. Why is that although the amount of flights are similar on these days?"
Are you equally perplexed by variations in cloud cover. Perhaps start with an understanding of relative humidity.
"It just doesn´t make any sense that those stripes in the sky that spread over hours and sometimes exist, sometimes not, come from water particles in normal contrails. It simply makes no sense."
"It makes no sense to me so it can't be true" is not an argument. Your personal incredulity aside, because jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, the chief products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water. In the regions that aircraft cruise (the lower stratosphere), the ambient air is not only very cold, but if the relative humidity is high and encountering a lower vapour pressure, the water in the exhaust will snap freeze, condense out as ice, forming a trail. A contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. In cases of high relative humidity, then the trail will linger because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the gaseous phase (water vapour). If the air is saturated in respect to ice, then the trail will expand, spread and increase in mass because it is almost entirely drawing upon the available atmospheric moisture. The exhaust is merely the trigger event where 99% of the trail is drawn from available atmospheric water vapour. As I indicated - the same process as a cloud, which is precisely what contrails are. It makes perfect sense to anyone with a basic understanding of meteorology.
What doesn't make sense is precisely how your supposed chemical trails are able to expand, increase in mass and vastly exceed the MTOW of the aircraft producing them.
1
-
@segoiii
So in common with most online conspiracy believers, you have completely disregarded my response to you.
"I´ve been many times to canary islands. I´ve been to every island there including the small ones El Hierro, La Graciosa and Lobos. There are no chemtrails there."
Correct, chemtrails do not exist. There are however contrails largely as a consequence of long haul transatlantic flights.
"If you see oversee flights on flightradar, it´s even more a proof that chemtrails do exist."
Nope. Simply confirmation of commercial air traffic which if the ambient atmospheric conditions allow, will produce contrails.
"Because the sky over canary islands is always clear and blue"
No it isn't. That is demonstrably false.
"If you see contrails there, they are like you know them from the 90s and further back."
Again incorrect. Contrails are more prevalent today due to the increased volume of commercial air traffic.
"Long, sharp, thin and they disappear within 10 minutes."
And there it is again. As I explained, a contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all. Whether it does or not is a governed by the interrelationship between ambient air temperature, relative humidity and vapour pressure. Please explain why a contrail must be "long sharp and thin and must disappear within 10 minutes" detailing the physical laws that determine this.
"The checkerboard patterns that spread over hours and make the sky milky dusty grey, simply cannot be contrails, because water aerosols do not spread like that."
Water aerosols? Contrails are condensed water vapour in the form of ice crystals. No different to a cirrus cloud.
"Which can be proven on real contrails."
What 'proof'?
"If those are not chemtrails, then why do those contrails behave so differently ? Why don´t they spread over hours on canary islands ? Why do we have sometimes blue sky in high populated areas too? And then suddenly, the checkerboard patterns are back again without any change in weather or amount of flights in that area ? And when there are chemtrails, you can still observe planes that leave normal contrails that are sharp and disappear within 10 minutes."
If you hadn't elected to disregard my reply to you, then you would have had your explanation. The atmosphere is in flux - it is neither homogenous or isotropic. Are you equally confused and perplexed by spatial and temporal variations in cloud cover? What you refer to a chemtrails are simply persistent contrails. And yes, of course you can see variations in length and duration at the same time.
"It simply doesn´t make sense"
'I don't understand something, therefore...conspiracy' is not an argument.
"Those checkerboard patterns that spread over hours and end in a milky sky, cannot be normal contrails. Their behavior is too suspicious."
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
What simply doesn't make sense is how a supposed chemical spray can expand, spread and increase in mass vastly exceeding the MTOW of the aircraft producing it. Just like, well no shit....condensed atmospheric water vapour.
1
-
@segoiii
"You are the one not answering the major questions."
I have systematically and methodically addressed every aspect of your comments as this thread is ample testimony to.
"So again just for you: Why are there no checkerboard "contrails" on canary islands that spread over hours and end up in a misty, milky sky?"
Because there simply isn't the volume of high altitude air traffic at cruise that you observe over the continent.
"A normal contrail in 10km height looks thin and sharp like that"
There is no "normal contrail" As I explained, a contrail may be short lived, persistent, persistent spreading or it may not necessarily form at all.
"because it´s very dry up there"
You clearly have no comprehension of relative humidity.
"You could argue that those long lasting "contrails" where i say they are chemtrails, are created in lower heights where you also see clouds and where the air is more saturated with water. And that´s why they appear near big cities where airplanes start and land. Okay."
That would also be an incorrect assumption and as I said, proximity to airports is irrelevant. Persistent spreading contrails are commonly formed in very frigid air, at altitude - the regions where aircraft cruise, the tropopause and stratosphere. If the relative humidity is high, and the vapour pressure sufficiently low then the water in the exhaust will snap freeze forming a trail. In cases of high relative humidity in respect to ice, the trail will persist and therefore be of greater length. If the air is supersaturated which it is more conducive to at altitude then the exhaust is all that is needed to trigger a persistent spreading contrail where the atmospheric water vapour is feeding 99% of the ice in the trail. These trails can be further fanned out by high altitude wind shear.
"But then, why there are none of those checkerboard long lasting "contrails" on canary islands ? There are 2 big airports at Tenerife and Gran Canaria. So you should see them, but you don´t."
Because what you fail to grasp is that air traffic predominately landing and departing in warm air does not form contrails. Although observable, there is simply not the volume of long haul traffic overflying the islands to result in the grid patterns that you refer to.
"The only answer of you is that i am a liar"
Now you are lying. At no stage had I branded you as such and my answers have been comprehensive and based upon known atmospheric science, geography and aviation. The problem being is that you are quite confused, full of misconceptions and apparently rely upon online conspiracy theory to provide explanations for things that you demonstrably don't understand.
"Well ... I have been there many times because of my Asthma. Never seen chemtrails. And in whole Europe, Canary Islands are known for being very good for health problems with the lungs. What a "coincidence"
Nope, it's known as a logical fallacy called false equivalence. You think that persistent contrails are chemtrails, and since they are not frequently observed in the Canary Islands you attribute that to the lower incidence of respiratory illness whilst completely disregarding factors such as geography, climate, epidemiological data and the lower levels of ground based/urban pollution.
"Science is just a new religion that you liars use to silence people´s discoveries."
Sigh. Yet here you are, using a device that allows you to make that asinine claim around the world. No, science has shaped the world around you. You live off and enjoy the spoils of the scientific method. Chemtrails are not a "new discovery", it is a dumb baseless conspiracy theory originating a quarter of a century ago with the misidentification of aircraft contrails. Known science needs to be evidenced, independently tested and reproducible and being governed by demonstrable physical laws and mathematical axioms, has a voice of its own.
Why the need for unnecessary abuse?
1
-
@segoiii
"Doesn´t make sense. Because then, you would always see the same kind of contrails at the same time on airplanes that fly at round about the same height. But that isn´t the case."
It's independently verifiable meteorological science. What you meant to say was simply that again, it doesn't make sense to you. And to reiterate, your personal incredulity has no bearing upon reality. Commercial aircraft do not fly at the same altitude they are subject to vertical, lateral and longitudinal separation minima. Furthermore, as I explained, the atmosphere is not isotropic nor homogeneous in terms of humidity and pressure, it is constantly in flux and the interrelationship of the factors that determine the formation of contrails can change within mere seconds and metres. Again, are you equally as perplexed by variations in cloud cover?
"I´ve at the same time planes that make long contrails, but that disappear within the normal 10 minutes. And planes that create chemtrails that spread over hours with this typical pearl-like structures."
Yes, you are seeing contrails at a range of altitudes and subject to differing ambient conditions. If you actually looked hard enough, you'll frequently observe large sections of recently deposited trails seemingly randomly fade, vanish and even reappear. This is confirmation of the motion of the atmosphere, the rising and subsiding of warmer drier air - yet not one chemtrail believer has every noticed this phenomena.
"The air cannot be oversaturated and not oversaturated at the same time."
? Of course it can. Read up on lapse rates, dew points and relative humidity. And in the stratosphere, as I have already explained, it does not take much to saturate the ambient air. How do you think that high altitude cirrus clouds can occur on a hot summer's day? Seriously, this is very, very basic meteorological science. Your ignorance at this stage is frankly shocking.
"And again: If that was the case, you would have to see those chemtail-like contrails also on canary islands. But you do not see them there."
But you do observe persistent spreading contrails over the Canary Islands, I have seen them myself. The explanation lies in high altitude long haul commercial aircraft.
"Your explanations simply do not make sense. That´s what you are ignoring."
They are not "my explanations". This is largely Primary School science. What you are ignoring is that simply because it does not make sense to you is not a valid argument. To reiterate again, your personal incredulity is irrelevant.
1
-
@segoiii
"this crap is not science, but pseudo-science to hide a major crime. You all belong sued and imprisoned."
And there it is. It really didn't take long. Seriously - are you ok?
I have explained the formation of contrails to you, the geographical and climatic reasons that the Canary Islands experience a lower level of CPOD and respiratory diseases. I have detailed basic principles of air traffic and meteorology to you, the fact that the atmosphere is in continual flux, whilst recommending that you understand basic principles such as lapse rates, relative humidity and dew point. I have corrected your misconceptions and methodically addressed your every contention. If you wish to brand independently verifiable and rudimentary atmospheric science as 'crap' simply because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear and descend down the dark path of junk online conspiracy theory instead, then I pity you and suggest that you worry more about your future mental health as opposed to your asthma.
The aircraft contrails that you are witnessing have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
Genuinely, I pity you.
1
-
@segoiii
"It might be not generally wrong what you are explaining, but it doesn´t explain my observations."
It matches and accounts for them perfectly,
"Your explanations still don´t explain why there are no chemtrails (or over hours spreading "contrails") on Canary Islands, why i see chemtrails and normal contrails on different airplanes at round about the same hight at the same day and why those chemtrails correlate with the population of an area. Your explanations are not sufficient."
Then either, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, you have not adequately read my responses, or you have reading, learning and comprehension issues. Key takeaway points:
1/ You are not seeing 'chemtrails' which are a physical impossibility. How can a chemical spray expand and increase in mass like a cloud, vastly exceeding the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
2/ The air traffic that you are seeing is not "about the same height" - commercial air traffic is subject to separation minima regulations which are both spatial and temporal.
3/ The atmosphere is nether homogenous in terms of humidity or pressure nor is it isotropic. It is layered and in continual flux.
4/ Contrails are observed wherever there is commercial air traffic routed in the skies above. They tend to be formed at cruise altitudes. They do not correlate with the population of any given area, that is complete nonsense but obviously in the case of large countries and populous continents there will be a high volume of domestic and long haul flights in the airspace above.
5/ Read up on lapse rates, dew point, relative humidity, supersaturation, cirrus clouds and the formation and growth of persistent contrails.
"With your explanations, the Canary Islands would have to have a special climate where the air in 10km height is never fully saturated with water in contrast to the 99.9% rest of Europe and maybe even the world."
To reiterate. The Canary Islands do not have a high volume of air traffic routed over them. Nonetheless, contrails are occasionally observed because long haul flights do pass overhead. Arriving and departing flights will not produce contrails.
"Which is obviously ridiculous, because in Greece, South Italy, South Spain, Croatia, for example, the climate is similar to Canary Islands, but the area is way more populated and guess what Chemtrails are there, too."
Continental Europe and a higher volume of air traffic. Guess what? They are contrails too.
To reiterate again, and you are completely ignoring this - what chemical when deployed can expand and increase in mass? just like, well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour, completely exceeding the maximum take off weight of the aircraft producing it? Have you the vaguest comprehension of the weight, volume and mass of material in a 100 mile long or persistent spreading contrail? Of course you haven't.
1
-
@segoiii
"what you are claiming is ridiculous for someone living in Germany, because here they cannot hide that they spray stuff into the atmosphere, because it was spread in federal television on I can´t give you external links and on fascist youtube, everything was censored away. So you have to search for yourself."
What on Earth are you going on about now? Surely you can't be referring to that weather report broadcast on that date in which the TV weatherman refers to some military aircraft over the North Sea?
"I can´t give you external links and on fascist youtube, everything was censored away. So you have to search for yourself."
Sigh - you are referring to shadow banning that is a broken algorithm/spam filter that indiscriminately affects every user of the comments section - particularly if you post links.
"But on that day, on the weather radar, you could see huge parallel stripes from the North Sea over Western Germany down to almost Switzerland. And they said on Television that "this is just stuff brought out by some military planes over the North Sea and has nothing to do with weather". Which should express that the people should not expect rain from those clouds. But they said more than they wanted to say...Until today, they cannot hide this. You also find this on the "Kachelmann weather site" which is another huge well known weather guy in Germany. They say that those are only "Düppel" which is military technology to fool radars. They even tell the people officially what they are using. They are using metallized plastic fibers or carbon fibers."
Yes - chaff deployed in a military exercise. It's no secret, it has been used by the military as a radar countermeasure since the Second World War. No one is hiding anything. Why are you changing the subject? This has nothing whatsoever to do the aircraft contrails that I was discussing with you.
"The only thing they are not admitting, is that this spraying is used to poison people"
Because it isn't. Seriously, what's wrong with you?
"So telling that chemtrails aren´t possible is as stupid as telling me that Santa Clause exists."
These aren't even your supposed 'chemtrails'. This is military chaff. If you wish to refer to them as such, then more fool you. It's no different to saying crop spraying - therefore chemtrails. To clarify for you. The chemtrail conspiracy theory centres around the misidentification of aircraft contrails and that is what is under discussion here. If you wish to change the subject to chaff, then I can explain the details of that to you too. To reiterate again, the trails that you are witnessing have nothing to do with the latter and are simply aircraft contrails. Chemtrails are a physical impossibility since no such trail would be able to stretch for such a distance, periodically fade and reappear, expand, spread over the visible sky and increase in mass weighing thousands of times more than the aircraft producing it. The reason it can is because you are observing condensed atmospheric water vapour. No different to the formation of a cloud aside from the fact that the water in the exhaust is the trigger event.
1
-
@segoiii
"it´s not contrails."
No, correct, it's chaff. You changed to subject to something wholly unrelated to the trails that you are seeing.
"The only links i can give you is from other platforms because youtube fascists censored it away. And if i post external links, my comment gets deleted."
As I already explained, there is a poorly written algorithm/spam filter which can result in the indiscriminate removal of posts. This can happen to anyone using the comments section of You Tube, myself included. You are much more likely to be shadow banned if you post links.
"And no - we are not talking about contrails"
That is precisely what I was talking about, you simply misidentify and term them as 'chemtrails' because you allow junk online conspiracy theory to substitute and provide and explanation for the science that you are unable to comprehend.
"those are definitely chemtrails in which matalized fibers are used. Proven in federal television."
No, this is military chaff and has nothing to do with the trails behind jet aircraft that can expand and spread across the sky that you were initially referring to, remember? You simply veered off on yet another tangential non-sequitur and false equivalence fallacy. What do you mean proven? No one is denying the existence of 'chaff' - it isn't in the slightest bit secretive and has been used since World War II. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the trails that you were describing earlier and the footage that you provided.
"And you claimed that they are not possible. Which is definitely 100% wrong."
At no stage have I claimed that chaff is not possible. You simply changed the subject. To clarify - again - and I'll try to keep this very simple for you because it isn't going in. The trails that you refer to as chemtrails, that you said spread across the sky "over hours" are not 'chaff' and are not chemtrails, they are simply persistent contrails that have been observed and studied for the best part of a century. It is a physical impossibility for a chemical spray to stretch for 100miles in length or to expand and increase in mass vastly exceeding the maximum take off weight of the payload capacity of the aircraft producing it. Are you able to comprehend that. The trails that you are seeing that cover the sky contain millions upon millions of lbs of ice. They are no different to clouds because the ice is drawn from the available atmospheric moisture vapour due to supersaturation. Seriously, how many times? It is physically impossible for them to be anything else for this reason.
"I´m ending this now"
Is that a promise?
"because it makes no sense to discuss this on a fascist platform where you cannot bring any evidence, because the proofs are deleted on the own platform and external links are getting deleted, too."
As I said, shadow banning afflicts everyone that uses this comments section, myself included. It is triggered by a certain combination of words or phrases but is unable to detect intent or context. Like I said, links are virtually certain to result in a comment being removed. It's simply a crude and unsophisticated draconian method of moderation that saves time and expense, that's all.
1
-
@segoiii
I thought you said you were going?
"Chaffs are chemtrails."
Nope. Chaff is a radar countermeasure that has been employed by the military since the Second World War. Not in the slightest bit secretive or sinister and nothing to do with the expanding trails that fill the sky that you originally began this thread by referring to (until you veered off tangentially to a totally unrelated topic). If you insist upon referring to chaff as 'chemtrails' then as I said, more fool you.
"It makes no sense to permanently pollute the air with that crap."
Then fortunate that it doesn't. And it makes perfect sense if you are a military aircraft wishing to avoid detection by enemy radar or during a military exercise.
"As i said. I´m using radar at work, too and i see those stripes, too."
Of course you do. With all due respect, I seriously doubt whether you could successfully operate a transistor radio.
"It´s not that it occurs only once a year. You can see those stripes permanently. And we are not in a war. Why should you permanently use anti-radar-spray?"
Chaff does not leave a trail. The stripes that you refer to and in your footage are contrails.
"Chaff is a protective claim to hide the chemtrail poisoning program."
Seriously, you need specialist help. I genuinely mean that.
"Aluminium is highly toxic and they admit to use it in those "chaff" chemtrails."
Aluminium is in your kitchenware. It's in beverage cans, pots and pans, siding and roofing, and foil. Aluminum can be mixed with other metals to form alloys. These alloys are used in water treatment and in consumer products such as antacids, food additives, cosmetics, and antiperspirants.It is in our soils and has multiple pathways into nature. It is on the air you breath, you are surrounded by it as the most abundant metal on the planet and the third most common element. Toxicity is a function of exposure concentration and duration.
"And those polymer strings also perfectly fit to my observation that those chemtrails spread over hours in the sky and make it milky and dusty even on hot summer days with no clouds at all and dry air"
Or instead, as suggested, you could learn about lapse rates, dew point, relative humidity and supersaturation. You don't even understand that temperature and pressure decreases with altitude. Clue for you - those cirrus clouds that you see on those "hot summer days" - they are composed of ice crystals. How do you think they got there?
"And it perfectly fits that although there are flights on canary islands, too, you don´t see those chemtrails there, because they don´t spray them there."
As I said, contrary to your claims, you do see contrails over the Canary Islands. I have explained why.
"And you definitely said that chemtrails aren´t possible from a technological standpoint."
They aren't.
"I proved you that it´s wrong."
Nope, you changed the subject to chaff, which doesn't even leave the 'long thin white trail' that you are describing. Nor does it spread out and fill the sky. At most, when flares are deployed they resemble a firework shell. Given the extremely low concentrations of chaff encountered in the environment, there is only a remote possibility that chaff could be ingested by humans, livestock, or wildlife–thus, health hazards associated with this exposure pathway are deemed to be negligible.
Talking of fireworks though they produce smoke and dust that may contain residues of heavy metals, sulphur-coal compounds and some low concentration toxic chemicals. These by-products of fireworks combustion will vary depending on the mix of ingredients of a particular firework. (The colour green, for instance, may be produced by adding the various compounds and salts of barium, some of which are toxic, and some of which are not.) Aluminium, barium, caesium, sulphur, lithium, magnesium, titanium, beryllium, strontium and radium. By your logic, chemtrails!!! - and there are an estimated 2.3 million tonnes of fireworks detonated every.
"You entangle yourself in your own contradictions and always and only focus on one single aspect without seeing the whole picture."
The unintentional irony at this stage is frankly staggering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stellaabby37
"Let me put it like this, yes they did. It was in Harvard magazine but No one has to come out and admit anything."
You have completely misunderstood my reply. Research into SAI has never been secretive - how do you 'admit' to something that isn't denied? Moreover, no one is denying the existence of such research initiatives, they simply have nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft contrails that you are seeing - and there is nothing called 'Operation Solar Shield' - which is purely the invention of chemtrail conspiracy theorists based upon the false equivalence of SRM.
"And It’s not a belief, I know they spray the sky’s with something"
Your anecdotal personal incredulity is precisely that - a belief. And you 'know' nothing of the sort.
"I live within two miles of a international airport."
So what? Proximity to an airport has nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails that you are observing.
"Since childhood I’ve looked up. There were very few contrails then"
So have I - it's been my living. And that's simply untrue. Contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years. This again is independently verifiable. The following is a 75 year old photograph taken from the pages of a meteorological textbook:
https://binged.it/2EJMOdm
Contrails are more prevalent today due to the exponential growth of the commercial aviation section and associated routes flown.
"you could not go out at night and watch the planes spray over the moon"
Yes you could. Also, surely, surely you are able to comprehend that this is relative to your position and perspective as a ground based observer?
"nor could you have the sky’s covered up on one day or week, then watch them take a day or a week off and have nothing but blue sky’s with what I would call normal air traffic."
Are you equally perplexed and confused about variations in cloud cover?
"I don’t know what there spraying or why but You’ll never convince me there not spraying something at certain times for some kind of reason."
Of course I won't. As a conspiracy believer you are emotionally invested and amongst the most closed minded community on the entire internet.
"Come on NASA has the rocket engine test site in Louisiana and the BBC said they were playing god cause they can make it rain."
The BBC said nothing of the sort. You are referring to the Stennis rocket test stands in Huntsville Mississippi visited by Jeremy Clarkson and the appropriated footage dishonestly misrepresented by chemtrail videos. NASA don't "make it rain". If you fire a liquid fueled rocket engine in conditions of high relative humidity, the plume will condense and precipitate as a consequence.
"Moreover they ran the thing the longest it has ever ran in the middle of hurricane Harvey. You know, Had to get that testing done. This is a fact."
What?????? These are liquid fueled rocket engines - test fired for a few minutes. What on earth are you talking about. You can't artificially create a hurricane - far less control one. The latter are spawned halfway across the globe in tropical seas. When warm moist air over the water rises, it is replaced by cooler air. The cooler air will then warm and start to rise. If there is enough warm water, the cycle will perpetuate forming a hurricane. Seriously, you need to learn some basic meteorology instead of substituting a lack of education and scientific illiteracy with junk online conspiracy theory and pseudoscience.
"Now your going to say your government has never lied to you?"
Of course government's lie. Should we trust our government? No. Patriotism, as far as I am concerned, involves distrusting the government. Keep them in check. They are our employees...they are to represent us, yet they are frequently self-serving. But that distrust is pointless if we're fooled into thinking that a government is always up to something and yet we can't discern when it is, and when it isn't - or detracts from genuine corruption or duplicity.
So because historically government lie and deceive it then follows that chemtrails or any conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary subjective choice or devising must be true? Of course it doesn't - surely you can comprehend that?
1
-
1
-
@stellaabby37
"it’s no theory or hypothesis"
I'm not suggesting that it is. You seem terribly confused again. I was responding to your ill-informed comments about gravity and explaining what the term theory and hypothesis means in science as opposed to lay parlance. Regarding chemtrails, it is neither - and nothing more than a baseless hoax involving the misidentification of contrails.
"All you have to do is go outside and look up."
No, all you have to do is understand 1/ why chemtrails are a physical and mathematical impossibility and 2/ what you are looking at.
"Planes and dark gray epoxy like clouds covered up the sky, not high altitude and not in the normal flight path."
So air traffic, contrails and cloud cover then
"You can call it paranoia, but like I always say it’s not paranoia if it’s really happening."
It's a combination of paranoia, gullibility and allowing online conspiracy theory to provide the explanations instead of science for something that you don't understand.
"Just like you can give examples for theory but it is no longer a theory if it is real."
What theory? I explained that in science - any theory is based upon evidence and data.
"Now let’s talk hypothetical. I could say I think my boat sank cause it had a hole in it. That’s my theory. If I go bring it up and it’s got a hole in it then it would be a fact. Just cause my theory was right doesn’t help my friend that drowned. Guess what I’m saying is Occam‘s razor. The simplest solution is probably the right one."
Then why do you reject it then in favour of a ludicrous physically impossible hoax that would require the complicity of every government on the planet, the global aviation sector and the collective coopting and coercing of the entire branches of meteorological and atmospheric science and environmental monitoring worldwide?
"Two many variables to create a contrail."
And you clearly don't understand a single one of them. Start with air temperature, vapour pressure and relative humidity. Are you equally perplexed about the formation of a cloud? - because that is all that a contrail is.
"Especially one that looks like a two part epoxy that’s mixing together and stays in the sky till out of site."
Your anecdotal personal incredulity is irrelevant.
"I’m not trying to convince you. I Challenge you"
I am irrelevant. Your contention lies with known physical laws, meteorological science and the fundamentals of aviation.
"Every time your outside, look up, if it’s a clear day, take note"
I have done all my life having alpine climbed from childhood, worked as a mountain guide across four different continents and obtained a post-graduate qualification in Applied Meteorology over a quarter of a century ago. Question to you. What is your occupation?
"you see a contrail, look at each one and consider that maybe that’s not condensation. Maybe in your mind it always will be? In my mind I don’t know why or what but I know where and know someone is putting it there for a reason."
And a challenge for you. Ask yourself, what is the weight of material contained in the trails that I am seeing and the payload capacity of the aircraft producing them? Do I actually understand the terms, lapse rates, relative humidity, dew point and supersaturation? And finally, can I name these precise chemicals that can mysteriously linger, expand and increase in mass just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour? Get back to me when you have those answers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
🤦♂
"Project Cirrus: October 13, 1947, when good ol' US Gov't researchers seeded a hurricane with 80 kilos of dry ice attempting to disrupt its internal structure and weaken it, but instead it smashed into Georgia causing $2M in damage."
Yes, a cloud seeding/hurricane mitigation initiative that didn't work. It's trajectory had nothing to do with Project Cirrus and had turned westward before the experiment was conducted. Today, the attempt to modify one with only 80 kilograms of dry ice appear as laughable as the notion that it could have altered its path. The heat energy a hurricane releases each day can be compared to the energy released by 400 20-megaton hydrogen bombs.
"Project LUCY is their high power radio frequency transmitters [H@@RP] that detect and compress atmospheric methane into diamond dust to create artificial 'noctilucent' clouds to reflect sunlight back into space to cool the arctic; yay!"
Project Lucy is a proposal (first conceived in 2005) which aims to decompose arctic methane in the atmosphere using beamed radio frequency transmissions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme and remains purely hypothetical.
"So now we have fake snow and acid rain, which will probably cause the next Ice Age considering their luck with the crap they've already dropped into the atmosphere."
What on earth are you talking about?
"The US Gov't filed a patent for influencing weather in 1974"
Patent number please? - I'll explain it to you.
" it's called 'geoengineering', and they've been lying about it for decades"
Geoengineering is a very broad term. Firstly understand that it consists of two main divisions - 1/ GGR (Greenhouse Gas Removal) or negative emissions technology as it is sometimes termed and 2/ Solar Radiation Management. Some branches of GGR are underway - for example biochar, aforestation and carbon sequestering. Ocean Fertilisation is a proposal - and one that has some concerns due to possible unknown feedback loops. SRM meanwhile, with the exception of ground based albedo modification and some isolated experiments into marine cloud brightening, is entirely hypothetical. Geoengineering isn't in the slightest bit secretive and no one has lied about it. (There it is again, the mysterious 'they'). Proponents of this research and these technologies go to every effort to publicise their work in order to attract funding and support.
"because sheesh... even little kids know clouds don't have straight lines. But... conspiracy, right?"
Absolutely false. Straight edges of stratus and altostratus clouds are in fact fairly common and usually indicate a very strong demarcation between air masses, especially at the rear of a receding cold front with very dry air plunging down from the north behind the cold front. These kinds of edges can also be seen at the front of an advancing squall line in the summer. Straight edges within stratus clouds may be an indication of wave motion, which occurs at all levels of the atmosphere and is most easily detected when clouds are present. Wave motion of striking consistency, width, and duration produces undulating patterns that are beautiful and extensive. Another physical cause of such edges could be a very long wavelength wave that lifts an expanse of air, resulting in a cloud with a sharp edge in opposite directions; this is more likely for altostratus than for stratus. Morning Glory clouds have been observed since antiquity and the air is saturated enough so that the rising air in the front produces a surface inversion and a cloud, which forms the leading edge of the cylinder, and evaporates in the back producing parallel tubular formations.
What does any of this have to do with a dumb conspiracy theory predicated upon the misidentification of aircraft contrails?
1