I can't talk about things that don't exist. It offends my epistemology. As for the other thing, I'll leave that to you.

It is incontestable that Trump has made the right enemies.

Look you said there was a kill switch. That makes sense only if you are imputing truth to what you say Or, as you admitted, it was just fantasy. Here you are now denying it was a true thing...which equals it being a fantasy. Why do you keep doing this?

You stated the kill switch to be a true thing, and that is a declaration. The ordinary meaning of a statement. Such things can also be remarks. You apparently cannot tolerate overlapping categories.

I will stick with your own admission it was a fantasy. You came right out and conceded that it was. I have a good memory for that kind of faux pas.

Burden of proof comes from logic, and was applied to trial proceedings. You are maybe aware that lawyers were originally trained in logic? (Maybe not.)

You are the one saying these are mRNA shots. But if there is anything on the same physical scale, the criticism still applies. You have just abandoned the ever-popular "it's 6G" crowd. I'll sit back and watch. Now you have no plausible mechanism for a switch. The net result, which I will continue to come back to, is that you have absolutely no basis of proof for your fantasy. What else can you call it? It is not a reasoned and supported hypothesis.

In your case, I can win lots of bets with the presumption that you will wiggle your way to deflect and avoid coming up with any substance to your claim. Kill switches are fantasy. Prove me wrong. (Prediction: you won't because you haven't because you can't.)

My apologies. I can't seem to track back to your reference, but I think you are alluding to "Rods from God." I don't know what technology you think it is "within." They are supposed to be huge and heavy. As orbital junk they would be the equivalent of a navigation hazard. As a weapon system, they would have the highest probability of not being in the correct place at the desired time (classic problem of on-call orbital weapons). As a re-entry system, they would need very reliable propulsion that is space-storable over long time intervals. (Or you de-orbit them on a regular basis to flush out the likely failures.) They don't have a sensor that can see through a hypersonic shock wave. I'm not even certain that a long pole would remain aerodynamically stable on re-entry.

The railgun concept had inherent problems. One was the "reverse rocket" effect, where the projectile would gain weight from scuffing the rails at high speed, leading to an ultimate speed limit. Another was the fact that the launch acceleration was in the thousands of g's, and once out the muzzle, the aerodynamic deceleration was hundreds of g's. Bad environment. The muzzle blast must have been tremendous. The barrel wore out. Just more of a headache than a solution.

The Airborne Laser was a complete success, shooting down a boosting ballistic missile on 11 February 2010. (I was on the program.) Obama scrapped it shortly afterward, with the same wisdom he displayed in terminating F-22 production. No matter. The Air Force is fickle when it comes to laser technology, always lusting for the next one.

Back to Rods, you don't launch things into orbit on demand. It has to be scheduled and is a long process. We have no command and control system for them, or battle management system. We have no idea what the delivery accuracy would be, or what the delivery effects would be. (Talk of the tungsten vaporizing is pretty unsubstantiated. The practical applications we know about, in anti-tank shells, is that they simply penetrate like hell.) What do you shoot them at? They would be extravagant overkill against a tank (which could move maybe 10 feet to get out of the way). We have other weapons already. I calculate back in the 90s that a reasonable-sized re-entry vehicle could be used to sink a naval cruiser...if we could guide it. Moving targets are tough.

I haven't forgotten the Challenger disaster. I still have a copy of "Prescription for Disaster" by Trento on my bookshelf. You weren't reading closely. It was the Columbia disaster that prompted the retirement of the Space Shuttle program, because NASA finally awakened to an inherent and fatal design flaw.

Air travel in general is maybe not dangerous, in your view? We shouldn't be upset at 346 passengers and crew killed by 737 MAX crashes because of malicious software? Just suck up the dangerous jobs?

I've actually worked in this business. What insight are you suggesting that I "get"? I would like to know.

Oh, yeah. Exploding energy will most definitely move in straight lines, unless there are constraints. Microwaves can be reflected by surroundings. Atomic bombs produce an initial burst of X-rays that are maybe measured in microseconds, then they are absorbed by the atmosphere into an incandescent plasma, which also radiates. So, yeah, the energy from an atom bomb is essentially instantaneous. They don't call it a flash for nothing. The direct radiation does NOT linger. The heat is mostly resident in the mushroom cloud and that convects away from the ground. (read "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" by Glasstone and Dolan) The shadows were nothing left to burn; they were just contrast against the exposed surfaces that had been bleached by the initial radiation. (Unless you were talking about the grease spots, which would have been reduced to char anyway).

I can't trace back to what you are responding to, but I have to point out that something being discontinued isn't false on account of you not liking the answer. You still have an obligation to offer proof of a smokescreen.

I'm very familiar with the analysis of turbo-engines. But here's the problem with your thinking: When fuel is burned, allowing for inefficient combustion, the inefficiency is usually related to full combustion of the carbon. The hydrogen likes to be fully combusted. So, if you are using less fuel, you can't possibly be generating more water, at least for the same thrust level.

There is a simpler reason. Modern aircraft are now flying commonplace at higher altitudes. Where the air has less water vapor, true, but the relative humidity is mostly saturated. So water vapor exhausting into this air cannot remain as vapor and will condense (or crystalize), making a contrail without fail.

I grew up in the town of Bellingham in Washington state. When I was a small child, I would sit out in the back lawn on a sunny and cloudless day, and watch multi-engine jet aircraft fly far overhead, leaving behind white marks across the sky like chalk. What I was watching were test flights of B-52 bombers being built at the Boeing works in Seattle. B-52s fly at 50,000 feet. Flying at much lower altitudes (early jetliners) would only occasionally produce contrails (there was more moisture in the air, but the relative humidity was low).

Funny you should say that. I have a briefing to hand, complete with diagrams, of a space-orbiting mirror relay system, the elements of which were basically very large laser primary mirrors. I produced that for a VP who was interested in what such a system would look like. The idea was to have a very large laser on the ground beaming up to one satellite, which would then beam across to another in a tactically useful position, which would then engage the target.

As for other Star Wars weapons, I did patent a concept for a compact kinetic kill vehicle. The concept was evolved into a design that we won a contract to develop, and we demonstrated the world's first actively-stabilized solid propellant KKV. Through a series of corporate hand-offs, this ultimately became the basis for the KKV warhead on the Standard 3 missile.

The science and geometry behind space lasers turns up in the gigantic optics that self-assemble into things like the James Webb space telescope. The laser weapons, without exception, have been infrared. The Chemical Oxygen-Iodine Laser (COIL) on board the YAL-1A Airborne Laser was of a classified power level, but always described as "megawatt class." It flew and successfully shot down a boosting ballistic missile in 2010. Sort of "outside a laboratory."

I agree that nothing like these systems are currently flying in space.

Yes. You can use it for structure to hold the logs that you really wish to burn.

Typical response when someone produces credentials and track record: deny that such things are relevant to what one says. A perfect argument for those who have neither credentials nor track record.

Legalistic argument is a form of sophistry, and it is called "legalistic" because it often shows up in courtrooms. You are a natural.

But now you do make a lie. You really and truly admitted that your remark about kill switches was fantasy, and seemed rather proud of it. But you don't know logic as well as you imagine. The problem of proving a negative is real and not to be discounted. A "kill switch" for mRNA is purest fantasy, lacking even any physical basis for operation. (Microwaves and millimeter waves are at least millimeters long. The mRNA is a molecule. The longer waves would simply go around the molecules without exchanging energy. How's that for an objection? It's called physics.)

Yep. Cloud-seeding for rain was a practice back in the 1950s. I remember seeing a segment of "You Asked For It," that showed how it was done. It took a while for the seeding to have effect. No "chemtrails."

An anon directed me to an interesting (but long) video from an arborist who had visited many firesites where all the houses were burned to ash but the trees were unburnt (though apparently cooked). I recall 3 or 4 sites in California that I was unaware of. It looks like a real phenomenon that is still unexplained.

Exactly.

I've read debunking that is not widely known. No correlation between roof color and what was burned: houses with known blue roofs also burned, and houses with non-blue roofs also didn't get burned. Now, the houses on the island with the majority of blue roofs may have been in the part of the island where the fire was not, which can lead to a faulty statistic of "percentage of blue-roofed houses burnt."

Great discussion. Facts over fiction. Gold star.

We have to be very firm on reality. DEWs absolutely exist, there is no "almost certainly" about it. But firmness has to be carefully distinguished from being doctrine. It has to be rooted in evidence and empiricism. Fond fancies must be held at arm's length if the evidence and logic are lacking. That requires intellectual integrity.

Also, blue roofs would not deter a DEW, since anything dark is open game for them. Easy target. It is all a matter of open-fire intensity. I can maybe hold my hand in the flame of a spirit lamp indefinitely...but it is a different story if I change to a gasoline fire.

More knowledge. Which may mean more books and fewer videos. People conclude things are true on the basis of superficial association and bias, not on rigorous logic and evidence.

My father saw Nagasaki in 1945 post-conflict. He saw the shadows, which were real. The direct radiation bleached the surrounding surface, but the shadow of the person standing in the way was not bleached (though the person was vaporized). Nothing to do with microwaves. The radiation is from X-rays and plasma incandescence from their absorption. The neutron bomb was a different creature that came along much later, thanks to Sam Cohen.

There are no orbiting nuclear devices (specifically forbidden by Outer Space Treaty). They would make about as much sense as nuclear mines adrift in the sea. You wouldn't want to do it even if you could do it. Best thing for starting fires is someone with a match and kindling.

In view of the "Woke" phenomenon and the LGBTQ etc. movement, I think we can see that a huge portion of the public should be in a mental hospital already. Getting hit in the face by any reality---even what we already know---may send them over the edge (think reaction to a Trump electoral victory).

As for other things, I think Q is overblown. The vast majority of people have to cope with all kinds of unexpected tragedy, loss, injury, debilitating illnesses, and misfortunes, and we don't think for a moment that the nation as a whole needs to be put in hospital. Ever been near a volcanic eruption? Been there, done that. It is at the level of "forgettable." It is typical of the enlightened to have the conceit that they are better "prepared" than the common person to assimilate bad news. As someone who needed and had open-heart surgery when least expecting it, I just call it bullshit. Life turns on a dime, and we turn with it. It doesn't kill us...even though we imagine it would.

Yes, it was less than a sentence, making an obligatory allegation that the Chinese and Russians are working on DEW antisatellite systems. An allegation is less than a "confirmation" by a long shot.

But going after ICBMs at apogee is fruitless. The booster burns out in 200-300 seconds from launch, which is maybe 100-200 km altitude (or less, my memory is dim). The post-boost vehicle is separated at the conclusion of the boost, which is well before apogee.

Much ado about nothing. All he has is a sensor "track" from overhead. No three-dimensional anything, despite his claims. He cannot possibly know if it is going upward north or upward south or even a hump or a valley inbetween, since he is making the a priori assumption that it is what he wants to think it is, and he has no independent source of altitude information. It is strictly 2-D.

In fact there is better evidence, from the appearance of the "track" and its seeming duplication in another image that it is a sensor glitch. The "track" is highly pixelated, but it is clear that the sensor resolution is much higher than the pixelation, which means that this is an image processing fault of some kind. It might even be a spark flashing across the sensor chip, or the effect of a cosmic ray passing through the chip. (In passing, he shows global imagery where in the time passage, whole blocks of image become blank, yet he doesn't bat an eyelash at that.)

The proximity to air bases? A coincidence. Life is filled with them. But the first case (Tyndall AFB) was simply bogus, since the implied association with a fire was far, far from Tyndall (like in another town). The gulf coast has a plenitude of military installations, due to water proximity and favorable flying weather. In my location (Puget Sound), we have an Army base, an Air Force base, and 3 Navy bases, not to mention 3 major ports and 3 major airfields. Nobody thinks anything about it. In the city of Seattle alone there are an Army and a Navy base that have been deactivated in my lifetime.

I could hardly stand the breathlessness of his delivery, real-time amazement, and lightning-fast conclusion-drawing, when the most likely explanation (a cosmic ray track) slipped right through his fingers.

Were you alive when the Shuttle was canceled? That was a final result of the 2003 Columbia disaster. The system was NOT safe to travel on. NASA had let a commonplace flight anomaly continue until it killed a crew on re-entry. Yeah, it could bring back something from outer space, but apparently not anything alive. GW Bush initiated the retirement process before he left office. The last Shuttle flight was in 2011. Obama executed the retirement. (And why not? He was no fan of U.S. military advantage.)

The Outer Space treaty bans the orbital placement of weapons of mass destruction. Anything else is not stipulated. We spent a lot of time in the 1980s designing space-based interceptor systems for anti-ballistic-missile defense (and satellite defense). Some of that is now in bad odor due to debris generation problems.

"Chemtrails" are not real. All the "evidence" relies on ignorance of what contrails are and what cloud forms water vapor can take. (Not to mention ignorance of how airliners are built.) I've seen no Navy admission of anything. Patents are only bright ideas, proving nothing operational. Cloud-seeding for local weather influence has been a thing since the 1950s, but goes no farther than that.

DEWs have been real for a half century, but they are not magic weapons, and they are not in space. Their existing applications are in tactical combat. They do not represent any technology that is either controversial or Q-related.

Boeing built the YAL-1A and conducts weapon research in Albuquerque, NM https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/?cf-view&cf-closed

DEWs are not a conspiracy. They are simply old news with a long trail of record. A nutty idea like space-based DEWs is a "conspiracy theory" with no substance. When space-based DEWs come along, then they will be a respectable topic for discussion. And if they do, they will not have magical powers.