And they don't use them to start fires. That's why we have matches, gasoline, and napalm. The first experimental weapon-class lasers were operating 50 years ago, but they were no secret. The only reason you didn't hear about it sooner was that you weren't paying attention.

DEWs exist (in testing) and they exist only because we know precisely how they work. They are absolutely the opposite of magic.

As for hits and misses, all I can say is that forest fires are notoriously unpredictable.

YAL-1A is presently disembodied scrap, thanks to then-President Obama. It only worked from high altitude to higher altitude. We looked at ground attack, but not very seriously. It was too weather-dependent (can't shoot through clouds) and there were more important missions to reserve for the weapon.

You've got it (from a death ray designer).

Except for the fact that there are no known space-based DEWs, and they would need to have major power levels (e.g., megawatts) in order to be effective on terrestrial targets. This imposes certain required sizes (meter-wide directing telescope) and masses (thousands of kg for operating fuel). Also, they would have to be in an orbit that crosses Hawaii...but would be overhead for only a matter of minutes. Oh, yes, and the skies must be clear of clouds (and smoke), as lasers penetrate them only poorly, and can't see their target through them.

This is a bunk idea.

1. DEWs are real, but they are terrestrial and only in service for test.
2. If the Deep State is getting its ass kicked and has access to machine guns, napalm bombs, and nuclear weapons, why would they NOT use them? (You don't construct an argument FOR item X by posing questions of WHY NOT item X.) A space-based laser would be there for only a classified mission, and you would not compromise such an asset by using it for a cheap thrill and spending its limited burn time reservoir.
3. Too bad for Lahaina, but we have already experienced past forest fires covering far more territory in Washington, Oregon, and California. Some of which have been proven to be caused by arsonists. (Maui has a land area of 727 square miles. The land fires in 2022 burned 11,839 square miles.) Why use super-technology when good old-fashioned arson works just dandy?

As for using DEWs---

1. You don't need "laser precision" to wipe out an entire island. Any number of fire bombs would do nicely.
2. Perhaps you haven't heard how arsonists use items like phosphorus, magnesium, and/or accelerants to ignite and promote the rapid expansion of an all-consuming fire.
3. No reason for arsonists to "run around" if they are pre-positioned.
4. Investigators would never conclude it was a DEW. No evidence.

I guess I would be a "Sooner-fag" (from the nickname for Missourian): "Show me."

Doesn't change the fact that the Space Force is part of the Air Force, which is part of the Armed Forces, which is part of the Department of Defense, which is a cabinet agency reporting to the President.

It doesn't matter when the other armed forces were created. The Navy and the Marine Corps pre-date the Constitution, but the Constitution subsumes them into the Executive branch.

Find the document that establishes a private "corporation" and you might have something. But otherwise, the Constitution forms a corporate body politic in the general meaning of the word. Just like cities are "incorporated" but they are not private entities. (You have to remember that private corporations exist at the behest of the government, which can unravel them whenever it wants to.)

In any case, the Constitution is self-defined as the "supreme law of the land." Nothing can supervene over it.

What do you think you have? I live near the Keyport SSBN base where the photo was taken. No other submarines operate in Puget Sound. The anti-aircraft missiles are wire-guided and their range is limited to tens of kilometers at best, against targets that the submarine can detect. They also have an aft end that is occupied by a wire spool, not a major booster rocket. The photo shows no wings or other external features of an anti-aircraft missile. You don't have anything but empty supposition, because the photo does not support the anti-aircraft missile hypothesis, nor the geography. You take refuge in my potential fallibility, but you have nothing to say against it.

What do you know about anti-aircraft missiles? I was involved in producing them (US ROLAND propulsion unit). I rather think I know what I am talking about.

I don't think so. The "US Corporation" is only a myth at this time. The US Military is the main component of the Department of Defense, which is a department of the Executive Branch---ergo, a part of government. Their officers are commissioned by the President.

Good point. I don't have a globe (need to get one) and had to mentally estimate the flight path. It would make no difference. The missile (if that is what it was) would have been a Trident II and they are not anti-aircraft interceptors.

And that's the real answer. "When good men refuse to be involved in affairs of state, the price is that bad men will rule." (I forget which ancient Greek said that.) It doesn't take sinister conspiracies to ruin our land. It only takes negligence, dishonesty, and cowardice...but especially negligence. If we get rid of all the evildoers overnight, the resulting bliss will only last for a short while, as we allow the latent evildoers to step in and take over the grotty and unrewarding job of public service. "Never again!...but, excuse me, I have to get back to more important things."

Wrong. You only hope and think I am wrong. Or you would have said something to refute what I have explained. But why would you? I am only recounting atmospheric physics. Again and again, you guys out yourselves as being know-nothings or nincompoops by unsubstantiated denial and personal jeering.

And none of them can travel the thousands of miles from Puget Sound to the north Pacific Ocean. See my response to "redtoe-skipper." You overlook the geography of what is going on. (Even according to this example, the shooting submarine needs to have some detection of the target. A blind shot is impossible.)

You must be kidding. The missile described in the video would look nothing like what was photographed. For one thing, its propulsive exhaust could not come from the tail, as the tail is occupied by the wire spool for the control link. Nor are there any fuselage features in the image to correspond to the wing and fin deployments. There is also the greater probability that this anti-air missile would not even be photographable. Its body diameter is about half a meter, whereas the body diameter for a Trident II is about 2 meters. The solid propellant would be more likely a "smokeless" formulation, which is not luminous. The propellant system for an SLBM is a composite that burns aluminum, leading to the notorious highly luminous exhaust plume.

There is also no possibility such a missile could be fired from Puget Sound and target an airplane en route to Korea. The range requirement would be prohibitive by maybe two orders of magnitude. This was NOT a shot at Air Force One.

In this case, there is no question where the submarine would be. For anyone looking, an SLBM launch would be a total tipoff. Puget Sound is small and the inlet where this happened was small-er. The ONLY submarines that enter Puget Sound are SSBNs (I've been on one).

Well, that's the leading narrative. From my eye, it closely resembled a Trident II SLBM in early boosting flight. I've read the debunking account where it was supposed to be the ventral navigation light on an overhead-passing helicopter, but I found that to be nearly as improbable an explanation. And Q was passing this along as the real thing, so that was an eye-opener for me. I am still surprised that everyone here took it without batting an eye...just a prompt for caustic remarks at the same gallery of hoodlums. That would have put us closer to World War III than anything going on in the Ukraine.

But I guess we will have to see if the future proves the past.

Nope. The missile (if that's what it was) has all the appearance of a Trident II D5 SLBM, launched only from an SSBN submarine. The launch location was in Puget Sound, not far from the Keyport submarine base and the azimuth of the view was due North. There is no possibility this could have been directed at AF1. (1) These things cannot be targeted at moving objects; they are only targeted at fixed targets. (2) In order to shoot toward Korea, the azimuth would have had to have been west-northwest, not north. There is a disturbing possibility that this could have been a rogue shot at Russia, which is due north from Puget Sound. There could have been a combat air patrol (CAP) by an F-15 out of McChord AFB with an intercept missile for the purpose of exactly this: stifling a rogue launch. When Q mentioned the intercept with the existence of a "special package," he was undoubtedly revealing classified information.

You guys specialize in being wrong. I am 72 and saw contrails when I must have been about 4 years old. They were undoubtedly B-52s on test flights from the Boeing plant in Seattle. Like chalk streaks across the sky. I also live south of a major international airport, and they are as common as clouds (and the Pacific Northwest is noted for clouds).

The reason that people didn't talk about them much until the 1990s is because it was only about then that passenger jetliners were flying close to 40,000 feet or higher. At those altitudes, the air is colder, depending on latitude (i.e., tropopause height). And at lower pressure, so the saturation vapor pressure would be much lower, and ice would stay frozen much longer. Military aircraft commonly flew at 50,000 feet, so it was no mystery that they would always generate contrails. On a very noteworthy summer at the University of Washington, a Fraternity brother and I noticed a contrail that was proceeding across the sky at an unusual rate. Trying to measure the angle rate and guessing the altitude was military (i.e., 50,000 ft), we estimated the speed as being about Mach 2+ and concluded it must have been an SR-71. That would have been the early 1970s (they entered service in 1966).

The "chemtrail" hypothesis (not analytical enough to be a "theory") is simple fancy. The proponents (like you) declare they know all about contrails, and you really don't know anything but falsehoods. You also don't like people who have credentials in the relevant fields, but that also comes with the false egalitarianism of the internet. You don't like it when experts apply their expertise, because the expert wannabees show up badly.

What I am saying is consistent with both the graph you presented and the other website. You are the one having the trouble making sense out of them. You simply don't understand what they mean.

The air has some water vapor content even at high altitude, albeit very small. The saturation vapor pressure is very low, close to zero on the arithmetic scale, but present nonetheless. The water vapor will freeze. If the temperature is cold enough, it will attain a temperature below freezing---and the vapor pressure of the ice crystal will be very low. (The vapor pressure is one 10,000th of sea level pressure at -50 C.) Low enough that it may take a very long time for it to dissipate, or possibly not at all, since clouds of ice crystals will have their own local atmosphere saturation high in water vapor. (Cirrus clouds, for example, can form as high as 66,000 feet, and they hang around for a long time. Contrails are only artificial cirrus clouds.)

Do you really know that airplanes are at the same altitude, or do they only appear to be at the same altitude? There will be a transition altitude where contrails will prevail. At altitudes below 20,000 feet, they generally do not form.

What you are seeing are contrails and your "bullshit" claim is itself bullshit. Your attempt to prove they are not is a failure, since you don't understand what you are looking at. The upper air is mostly at saturation humidity---which is a very LOW humidity. That's the part you don't understand. And if the ice gets down to the air temperature, it is so cold that its vapor pressure is very, very LOW. Just consider frozen ponds. They have a vapor pressure. Why don't they just go away by sublimation? But they don't. They persist. Because the vapor pressure is so low, the process is very slow. Antarctica is nothing but ice. According to your hypothesis, it should never persist. Tell that to Antarctica.

Here is the great problem of the Awakening: a little bit of knowledge and a huge dose of mistaken belief are almost insuperable obstacles to waking up to reality. You are there on the front lines. Have sympathy for the poor jerk who doesn't get all this conspiracy stuff...or the poor conspiracy buff that doesn't want to give up his paranoia.

Contrails hang around for a long time. I recall as a little boy sitting in our back yard that jet airplanes would cross the sky and leave behind a long, persistent trail.

There is no violation of the laws of physics. First of all, you get the mechanics wrong. It is not cold air going through a turbine, it is VERY HOT air expanding through a turbine, containing water vapor. When the exhaust mixes with the very cold high-altitude air, the water vapor first freezes because the air is already saturated with water vapor. As your wonderful graphs show very clearly, the saturation level (absolute humidity) is next to nothing. So the ice crystals that have formed and and are further cooled to air temperature will have an even lower vapor pressure and will persist for a long time. And they do. The second website that you so kindly brandish actually mentions this specifically. You have only proved that you do not understand the physics of contrails. Just because you THINK that scientific authorities are wrong doesn't mean they are actually wrong. If I am allowed to make a bet about you, I will bet you have no technical degree that touches on this subject.

Contrails are only clouds. What you say necessarily implies that there can be no clouds at high altitude, but there most definitely are.

I happen to be an aeronautical engineer of 40 years, and have lived with the manufacture of airplanes that actually fly in this environment. I can't help it if you don't understand the concept of relative humidity. Or that low temperature ice will have a very low vapor pressure and thus a long persistence.

I have posted comments on all kinds of things, mainly where I see that facts or logic are in error. I have been a long-standing critic of "global warming." I'm not a globalist and you have no grounds for making such a slur, since I have never spoken in its favor. I am in fact a nationalist---but I am not a nitwit and I do not go along with ignorant and paranoid nonsense.

Put an image in a cement mixer and see what nonsense comes out. This is a distraction for 3-year-olds.

Well, we'll see. Pelosi's refusal to invoke the National Guard seems to be the key element in what happened.

Everyone to their own taste. He comes from Winnipeg, so the view of Lake Michigan would be an eye-filler. The skyscrapers are also first class scenery and works of art. The Field Museum is world-class. It is easy to walk around.

Exactly correct. Lithium will burn the oxygen out of water...or any other oxygen-bearing chemical compound, like carbon dioxide, sand, or limestone dust. It will even more enthusiastically burn the fluorine out of typical fluorine-based firefighting agents, like halotron or halon.

The lithium mines I have seen depicted are massive open pit mines, not possible for child labor. You are probably confusing the lithium with the cobalt that is also essential to the battery composition, which is often mined in piecemeal fashion with children. But the lithium extraction is hugely energy dependent, mostly from hydrocarbon fuels.

This guy is playing word games. The 14th amendment clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." No commercial corporation is born or naturalized. The amendment does NOT establish a new definition of "person." It does NOT establish the United States as anything other than its definition in the Constitution.

This is what happens when you try to apply a specific technical meaning of a word backwards to cover the non-specific general meaning. It is analogous to saying "All automobiles are Cadillacs. And every car we drive is therefore a Cadillac, and there is only one automobile company."

His remarks on "chemtrails" are equally confused and mistaken. Contrails can be persistent and form only at high altitude. At low altitude they do not form and he had no grounds for expecting they would. The chemical test means only that he has air pollution, whether from surrounding traffic or meteor dust is impossible to say.

Just a distraction to fascinate and squander our attention. Our problems are simple and outright disregard of the Constitution, not recourse to any fancy alternative rationale.

Is this a test question on the morality of bribery?