Then we are talking about inter-state politics, not anything technological. This is not much different from the various uses to which the Colorado and Columbia rivers are put.
Sorry, then. I have a policy of taking people at their word---because sometimes the most absurd things are proposed seriously. I like popcorn.
Now that does sound interesting. Have you been able to contact the airport or air traffic control authorities to determine what is going on? Possibly it is an air surveying operation.
That explains her coherence through 90 minutes of fray. I was thinking, "Damn, she certainly learned her lines. Where did she get the discipline?" It also explains her facial expression passing from panicky dismay to smug disdain, as she goes from not having a clue to having her lines passed to her.
I think Trump should certainly retruth this post and let the bystanders get all excited.
More like she had "all the responses." One could hardly call them "answers." Most of them were answer-avoidance by insulted-dignity-objections.
He was totally focused. I know that look in his eyes. That's the look of a man who is observing, listening, assessing, and calculating. Pretty much the look of a man in a one-round boxing match---against 3 opponents.
Relax more and sicken less. She was rehearsed---which means that her answers came across as canned. She was not poised, she was posed, like a mannequin. There were moments where her eyes betrayed her by widening in panic. Anybody with a brain would realize she was alleging wildly and gaslighting. And failing to answer questions. At the end, we know more about the fact that we know less.
Trump had a very concentrated and baleful look. Nothing fake about that. His demeanor and message were completely in synch. Harris was laughing off her record all the way through the debate. Anyone who doesn't understand Trump's serious concern is already Part of the Problem.
One plane? You have identified it by tail number? It sounds more likely that a number of separate planes have flown over your location. Contrails are the result of atmospheric humidity saturation. If airplanes fly through a region of such saturation, they will leave contrails.
If you see a lot of tiremarks over a stretch of highway, do you conclude that ONE VEHICLE is passing to and fro---or that a number of unrelated vehicles have simply passed through?
Is there a problem?
No, they are slowly bringing you to what the normals have known for years.
Cloud seeding does not always work, but you can go tell the farmers suffering from drought that you have the power to alleviate it---but won't.
The rest is utter nonsense. No "star trek." No "space laser." No "large spinning mirror" (where did that come from?). We never did "build that." You need to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
People did and they weren't. I remember watching an article about it on television when I was in early grade school. Plenty of people facing drought were glad of it when it worked. Drought is not funny. You turn on the tap and nothing comes out. You ask your neighbor for a gallon, and they are also dry. The neighborhood is dry. The township is dry. The province is dry. How do you find water? That's what everyone is now facing in Zambia...but it's not newsworthy.
They are not admitting anything except what has been public knowledge for at least 70 years. If you don't know about it, where have you been? They are reminding us. But cloud seeding does not proceed at high altitude and does not produce "chemtrails." No "catastrophic outcomes" from cloud-seeding for all this time.
And it does. Very demonstratively.
The lingering trails are just evidence that planes have been crossing over the land. Ever looked at a map of air travel routes? It is like a bowl of spaghetti thrown on the tablecloth. Nothing but crisscrossing. And at high altitude, where the air is mostly at saturation humidity, they can only linger for hours. They are clouds, just like the other clouds at that altitude. You are not surprised that the clouds linger through the day. No contrails are "chemtrails." Many are completely uninformed about contrails and make speculations beyond their knowledge.
Admit? When cloud-seeding has been openly aware to the public for 70 years? She's just reminding the young people and everyone what has been a known practice. No "chemtrails" here. (The one shot they had of dispersion from the sky showed no trail at all. The particles are too fine to be seen. Otherwise, it is done from the ground.)
They ARE particulates: ice crystals. They always have been. And if the air is at saturated humidity, they will not evaporate. I'm so glad you agree.
If I deleted it (and I can't recall what I said), it was probably because I realized my comment was redundant to the thread topic or mistaken. If I realize I'm wrong-headed about something, I retract what I say. No point to sticking around and argue about something I have no desire to argue. There was no lie...and the funny part about this is that you have now proven that you have no evidence that I lied. Someone as smart as me is a "Cadillac driver" who likes to use a keyboard and not memorize passwords, which I don't need to remember in order to get on the page. In order to reset my password, I had to re-up my handle. The admins know who I am, but they didn't want to remind me of my password. I don't think that is quite right, but you gotta obey the tong gods.
Yep. That's what explosives do. Kennedy armed the package, but that is not the same thing as fuzing it. The fuze malfunctioned. Handling and using high explosives is rightly considered dangerous. There was a saying about the differing approaches taken by the U.S. and the U.K. to developing weapons. "The Americans would take something that would work, then make it safe. The British would take something that was safe, then make it work." A mishap involving an experimental weapon in operation is not "questionable." It is a tragedy and a mystery, but there is no more to say about it.
Being a Trump and MAGA supporter, I have to wonder what you are smoking. Trying to help the world is a noble intention---but failing to do that is an unhappy outcome.
His transmitter never worked. (I presume you are talking about the Wardenclyffe installation).
The ability of someone obsessed with an idea is limited only by their conviction and patience---not because the idea is feasible. Tesla had no sense of practicality. He lived in a very nice hotel and at his death left behind a huge debt in lodging and dining.
He was at complete liberty to implement his systems---but he had to beg for money because he was NOT a man of means. It's like any freedom under the Bill of Rights: your freedom to do something does not include the freedom to reach into my wallet. He had generous supporters, but they finally tired of his ideas that were leading nowhere. He ran out of money, couldn't get more, and just walked away. The installation just sat there. Eventually, the land owner had it demolished for other purposes. It might have been as solid at the Statue of Liberty---but it produced about the same amount of electricity. (For an example, Paul Moller worked on his skycar for 40 years, spending $100 M, and it came to nothing. His company has been unheard from since 2015. There is a lesson, here.)
I have no desire to take anything away from Tesla, but neither do I have any patience when the thoroughly uneducated to endow him with a level of genius and precognition that is not warranted by the unremarkable final decades of his life.
Nothing "questionable." Legitimate military operations approved by Gen. Arnold. Lieutenant USNR J. P. Kennedy Jr. killed in accident during mission flight with a B-24 fully loaded with explosives. Mission success greatly impeded by weather conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite
No, there was only one reason: I had forgotten my original password and had to re-register with a new handle and a new password. Are you saying there was a different reason? Can you find it?
You've pretended all along, coming down on those who disagree as being "indoctrinated." Are you not a member of the Tesla Cult, believing its mythology about his infallible genius, miraculous inventions, and the foul theft of his most significant discoveries? He fed pigeons in the park.
It doesn't matter. The only truth in this conversation (if I can call it that) is your reluctance, refusal, or incapability of addressing any science behind the topic.
Trump sat down with Sean Hannity in the spin parlor. Hannity asked him if he would tangle with Harris in a second debate. Trump said he would mull it over, but he said (paraphrasing): "You know, that is a sign she knows she lost the debate. In boxing, if you beat somebody in the ring, the first thing they do afterwards is ask for a rematch." So, he wasn't overly disposed to a rematch. His assessment was that he did good.