War waged from space? -CA wildfires, PG&E accepts blame for 2017 fires

a reply to: Asktheanimals

The technology is fairly basic, yes and it can be weaponized, yes. But there's ZERO evidence of any installation. They would stick out like sore thumbs and any one of millions of ametur astronomers could see them.

Total bunk.

a reply to: ConspiracyofRavens

Please quote where the individual said fires could not be started with microwaves.

Now you cite a satellite placed in orbit that has the capacity, power, and position to focus microwaves in a tight enough beam to start a forest fire in California. Let me guess the fall back, “we don’t know what technology the government has”.....

a reply to: ziplock9000

With the money they have, they would probably be covered in Meta materials, so you would not see them.

I've scanned through this thread (haven't read every single post, but most), I also understand the technology and I have a dumb question...

If these solar power generating / gathering satellites did exist, wouldn't astronomers be all over that?

I mean, okay they beam microwave energy down to the surface so you wouldn't be able to see that (not optically anyway), but the satellites themselves would certainly have a footprint in the sky which would be observable. AND, radio astronomers for sure would easily see these signatures in space. The satellites would have to be geosynchronous because otherwise they'd be aiming at a different spot all the time, so there would be this giant energy source looming there in the sky. The distances involved (23,000 miles) to get a satellite to orbit into a geosynchronous orbit are such that you wouldn't require a very acute viewing angle at all to "see" it. I would think the astronomy community would be all over such technology, or are they part of this conspiracy too?

The other thing which doesn't 'compute' to me is, the defense community has been spending trillions of dollars to develop space based directed energy weapons for decades (since Reagan), yet we humans are still using rockets as the #1 method to kill space vehicles. If there was a technology which had the intensity (and accuracy) to light someone's belt buckle on fire in a forest from 23,000 miles away, don't you suppose the defense community would have latched onto technology like this a long time ago for things like missile defense and satellite disruption? In fact, hasn't space based directed energy weapons been the Holy Grail of defense for the US, Russia and China for like a really long time?

This kinda' seems like one of those 'forest, but for the trees' things to me.

a reply to: myss427

C'mon, man...now we're gettin' silly. How do you suppose "they" would conceal the launch of these super-stealth satellites?

And trust me, contrary to what you might read in the news, no space vehicle leaves this planet without a variety of intelligence agencies knowing about it. They may not tell the world, but they know. Because knowing the time, latitude and azimuth of the launch puts you in a pretty good position to know fairly accurately where the satellite will orbit. Yeah, there are some places on Earth which are somewhat 'blind' to something like this, but not places where they could launch something that heavy.

Plus, these satellites would have to be really heavy launches because the vehicle itself would need to be huge (solar arrays and all), and there's no piecing one together on orbit because no reusable vehicle goes that high (never did). So, it would have to all go up in one shot.

a reply to: ziplock9000

Fairly "basic" is it? LOL!

Yeah, I cobbled a couple of 'em together in my garage last month with stuff I had just layin' around!

I agree on the astronomy part though. However, I take exception to your statement about the technology being so easy to weaponize. If it could be done, it WOULD be done. 100% Guaranteed! There is no altruistic 'honor system' when it comes to things like that. They might not use it every day to plink pigeons out of the sky, but they definitely would have it...if they could. If nothing else, it would be a bargaining chip for later...IF they could do it.

But these fires have been a naturally occuring element because of Californians environment for thousands of years.

The fires naturally clean dry and dying debris. After the fires the land is very fertile for years to come

a reply to: Asktheanimals

“While most of last year’s California fires remain under investigation, PG&E has been declared responsible for the wine country fires. In late September of this year, Governor Jerry Brown signed a measure that would allow PG&E to bill their customers for any future settlements, in order to prevent the utility from going bankrupt. This is a multi-billion-dollar bailout, along the lines of Wall Street in 2008. (Does anyone still want to live in California?)”

One concerned reader emailed me this:

Apparently PG&E is facing financial difficulties, including bankruptcy, due to the possibility that its equipment sparked wildfires in California. Last year, I had seen allegations on the internet that PG&E had a role in starting fires. To quote “(Bloomberg) — California’s biggest utility was plunged into full-blown crisis by the possibility that its equipment sparked one of the catastrophic wildfires ravaging the state.” Not surprisingly, the article did not give details of the equipment failures (probably smart meters and/or the smart meter infrastructure in my opinion). see finance.yahoo.com...

www.activistpost.com... is-given-regarding-weather-geoengineering-as-part-of-uns-age.html

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ConspiracyofRavens

Please quote where the individual said fires could not be started with microwaves.

Now you cite a satellite placed in orbit that has the capacity, power, and position to focus microwaves in a tight enough beam to start a forest fire in California. Let me guess the fall back, “we don’t know what technology the government has”.....

Your talking at the wrong guy.

I can't quote to you how microwaves won't start a fire, because that's not the evidence shown by my original link.

And my fallback is that there is nothing to show that the cause of those fires required a "Tight Enough Beam" of microwave transmission as you put it, seeing as how that's not what makes microwaves cause combustion.

You need to read the link I posted first or again before coming at me.

Don't take your doubts up with the messenger, you wanted science to win like you do all over that 9/11 thread.

Don't try to "make believe" rules for this fiary "microwave beam" prerequisite of non scientific nonsense.


Capacity and Power is based on design of current satellites, if they are transferring thermal, radioactive, solar energy and redirecting that it would have an effect, let's not forget chargeable powercells and refractive light physics in this equation.


Position? So you want to go with the old "well I didn't see anything up there" defense?

OP already posts PG&E takin the blame for pretty much what thread is about.

Cite where we are wrong.
My physics say relay towers in the 60's could do this.

If you read it before speaking g out of turn you would know this.

Why don't you email them.
Until you have data more relevant to cite than what I offered by Professional Accreddited Physicists on Microwaves..........then you got nothing.

Next time read the linked material....

"Tight Beams" lol man, seriously, this is about Hertz and Frequencies, not laser beams....Read link, it will explain.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You have also failed to read the linked material I provided.

It's not a matter of IF.

And your right, if they could they would.(my linked Thesis proves we had the tech in the 60's)
They did.

Astronomers can only see satellites, which also move fast when in motion across the sky, a good telescope astronomers keep still, to observe things in a more relaxed and accurate, as opposed to spinning wild manner.

Oh and what can an astronomer do anyway genius? Can they recognize the engineered purpose of everything on a satellite they see?
Is a starmapper now a Mechanical Engineer for NASA or the US AIR FORCE?

Get Real. Psychology proves you only see what you expect to see.

Oh and Microwaves are INVISIBLE.

Have you never used one?
Remember all those bright colorful beams and waves cooking dinner?
No?

The Astro people who aren't talking about it didn't either.

Read the linked material in my first post.
And catch up with the Rest of the ClAS$

Astronomers.....lol.... I'm going to go watch another episode of Archer...you and Nuetron lol

Argent energy

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I have not giving this thread the attention it deserves and maybe I keep missing the part where the acceptance of the blame (faulty equipment) is connected to the whole solar energy collection in space part..

Is this just theory? or has there been evidence for this?

I get the premise, bad guys are burning down areas to rebuilt and make money. I just can't find the reason for making the leap to satellites. I mean if you wanted to burn the place down why not (like earlier mentioned) take a can of gasoline and a match to do that? Want to do it stealth, hook up a fiber laser weapon to an aerial platform etc...

Peace

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
You also stated to understand this technology.

My only issue with that, and to be honest fly, you and I usually agree even if you never heard me say it....
But.

The fact is we have been dealing with a military that has out budgeted the world in every single way.

If there is one thing that's a sure thing....

It's that the US of A is the NUMBER 1 Greatest Threat to Human Life as we know it.

In order for our enemies to KNOW absolutely everything we got, or made, they need one of two things depending on the goal.

1. Optimistically they need first hand intelligence of our deepest R&D projects, which if our Intelligence Departments are any good they NEVER WILL.

2. They need second hand intelligence which means our tech has moved to the level of widespread use(which the scariest bits haven't) that it can be obtained through more easily accessible channels.


3. The "astronomers" you suggested would be under social media surveillance(best bet is grandpa's inherited telescope bought offline that you never bragged about) during any drill

You would have to spend hours researching OBAmA Intel Policies he passed to understand THEY ARE EVERYWHERE they need to be now.

Maybe not as "Agents on the Ground" yet....
But definitely as "Eye in the Sky".
And I am probably wrong how many men or squads they have in every state, just as I am wrong they have CIA branches or Government Intelligence Branches built 5 floors deep at least in every STATE.

That was his publicly stated Goal!
And OBAMA IS LIKE BASKIN ROBBINS WHEN IT CAME TO INTELLIGENCE POLICY!!
"BASKIN ROBBINS DONT PLAY".

Check out this video ATS.
32 flavors of OBAMA POLICY(salute the boldness of the man) plus the 33rd flavor not supposed to exist!!!

Hint: it don't play

youtu.be...

a reply to: Asktheanimals

And China wants to hang orbital mirrors that are powerful enough to light up the night sky.

We are dead.

Can we turn the sun beams on NY too? They also don't know how to vote.

How else do you explain the election of Ocasio-Cortez? I mean....really? You guys aren't even being serious anymore.

(I'll also admit we in FL need to be stripped of it, LOL...). Just give me the heads up, so I don't get fried is all.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

I am postulating space-based satellites as a possible source of the fires. There is a history of both the technology and PG&E's interest in using it to harvest energy. There's plenty of background stories talking about investment yet never any announcements of putting it up and using it. Consider this; having gone to the expense of billions spent on such a project would you announce before or after you had it running successfully? Is it possible this was a test that went horribly wrong and to avoid legal responsibility they kept quiet about it? They would have known there was the chance of things not working and perhaps kept silent until those doubts were answered.

On the other hand maybe PG&E was simply the front use by deep state interests to put the satellites up and now we're just seeing what they actually intended to use them for. This technology was given a patent in 2016 in Russia btw, I guess it's possible they are behind it.

Just exploring the possibilities here. These fires have too many unnatural characteristics for normal explanations so we have to look outside for answers. That is my intent on starting this thread.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I really appreciate the thread and I wish I could be of more help digging up info..

The thread title just had me a little confused. I read it like "PG&E accepts blame for -CA wildfires caused by their energy collection satellite".

Peace

Here is one version of a SBSP system:

The idea of capturing solar energy in space where the sun never stops shining and beaming it to Earth may seem far-fetched, but such technology is further along than most realize. In early 2018, scientists from the California Institute of Technology announced that they had succeeded in creating a prototype capable of harnessing and transmitting solar energy from space.

Space-based solar power: How close to reality?

From the paper mentioned in the above article:

The rectenna, a ground-based receiver technology for the microwave-frequency SSP concept, was developed by Brown more than 50 years ago.2 Space-based solar power was first formally proposed in 1968.3 Major studies of the concept were funded by DOE and NASA in the 1970s and 80s, concluding that while significant R&D would be required to commercialize space solar, the associated challenges were not beyond what was expected for alternative systems of similar capability.4 To date, although many implementations have been conceptualized, 5–8 none have been realized due to the mass and number of launch of vehicles required to place the necessary infrastructure in orbit.

emphasis mine

A Lightweight Tile Structure Integrating Photovoltaic
Conversion and RF Power Transfer for Space Solar
Power Applications(direct .pdf link)

I tend to think that there would not be any way to conceal such a system from ground based observations. If it's up there, it can be spotted by anyone looking.

a reply to: ConspiracyofRavens

Well, I started writing up an itemized response to your post, but seeing as how you're being such a smart-ass, I just deleted it. Not worth the bother.

It's pretty evident you don't understand how satellite orbits work, and / or how astronomy works (radio telescopes in particular).

I have to say the microwave statement gave me a chuckle (because that's exactly what I said, but whatever).

Actually, I think you should go back and actually "read" what I wrote, but no matter.

Carry on.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thank you.

Perhaps the "linked" articles my help enlighten a certain flock of ravens...(turn the light bulb on, if you will).