Fake Blue Sky

originally posted by: luxordelphi
reply to post by windword

 

I find the idea of a "fake sky" a bit far fetched.

Because of these substances and their properties and behavior or lack of behavior it is possible to create a fake sky.

-What properties and bahaviour is that?
-What exactly would a 'fake sky' entail? Would we still be able to see the sun, moon and stars through it?
-How much silver would be needed to cover the entire earth?
-At what altitude would this fake sky be created?
-Would we notice this fake sky being there from a plane, if so, why not?

Continuous delivery systems for an ongoing fake sky are also available and already in place - I mentioned one - cloud seeding.

For cloud seeding little prop planes are used, mostly. Hardly the kind of stuff you'd need to cover the entire earth

Another one is persistent contrails on a level never seen before. Most jet cirrus winds up being too high and too thin to see and categorize with the eye as cirrus. It still does retain obscurant properties. So coupled with what we can see, which is considerable, it all winds up giving us a view of no view. And more pointedly a view of a sky but perhaps not our sky.

There's always a percentage of moist present in the air. Whatever the contrails add (persistent or not doesn't matter, the same amount of H2O is being produced by the jet) is negligible. Remember that most of the H2O needed to create contrails is present in the air already. Jets only help to trigger the formation if clouds in saturated areas.

So anyway, what do you mean a view of no view? Do you think that the amount of H2O in the air is blocking our view somehow?

Because the technology exists to make rain (though I personally question the wisdom of 'creating' rain in a closed eco-system) and move clouds and clear skies and because the technology exists to eliminate jet cirrus, the question of why arises.

Because the safety of nano size particles is suspect and questionable (i.e. depleted uranium dirty bombs and asbestos) and because no safeguards for it's use are in place the wisdom of massively spitting out these particles has to be looked at.

Is there any evidence that anyone is spraying silver or gold or whatever, or that anyone is creating a 'fake sky'?. No I didn't think so either. Well of course there's you who thinks the colour of the sky is off, therefore this whole fantasy of yours has to be legit right? I mean it makes sense in your mind, therefore it's true!

edit on 22-11-2014 by payt69 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-11-2014 by payt69 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-11-2014 by payt69 because: can't type

a reply to: Pitou

If you live in or near an urban area you can probably step out of your door and see one if you know how to look. Here's an article which claims that the first fake plastic tree was installed in South Africa.

Cellphone Towers Disguised as Trees Are a Puzzling Attempt at Aesthetics

In my area...it's palm trees. Plenty of them. There's been some trouble, though, because the real palm trees next to the fake ones start to die when the fake ones are activated.

a reply to: payt69

Anything that spits out particles, i.e. jets, can seed clouds. That's why there's so much cirri these days.

Nano size particles straddle two worlds. Their behavior is unpredictable (non-linear) and is often a surprise when discovered in the lab. It can be likened to Euclidian and hyperbolic measurements. One doesn't work with the other. (Although I once asked a mathematician what would happen if something very very small was measuring in our space - would their measurements be hyberbolic in our Euclidean space. Answer from the mathematician: should anything that small really be doing any measuring?) (Sometimes you just have to laugh!)

An obscured sky (very thin cirri not really eyeball detectable) shows the sun and moon and some stars. Particle choice (for obscuring) would then depend on the color of whatever you're trying to obscure.

Very little silver in nano size is needed to cover the earth because nano size particles have an incredible surface area which far outstrips their size. This is a hard one to get your mind around. I read a PHD candidate thesis recently where this was addressed vis a vis pharmaceutical delivery systems. The upshot was that these delivery systems were not taking the surface area into consideration but were still treating nano like micro. I can't find that anymore so you're just going to have to take my word for the analogy which is that what one thought was a dose is actually much multiplied by this surface area anomaly.

The atmosphere is not precisely layered. Additionally, there are holes in portions of it. Stratospheric injections are preferable (from a geoengineering srm management standpoint) because particles there remain much longer than in the troposphere. The science behind squishing atmospheric layers (getting closer to earth) because of pollution is in its' infancy. What I'm trying to say is that the height of various layers today is not what the height was yesterday. The height has always been uneven. Best delivery for an obscured sky is a transpolar flight.

Prop planes, mom and pop, are, imo, basically, for public feel-good propaganda. Drones are the future and the present. (Although the ones you can buy in a hobby shop are pre-programmed to self-destruct. That I have personal knowledge of. One of those people that has to try everything out.)

I hope I answered your questions. Thx for your contribution to this thread.

a reply to: luxordelphi

I read a PHD candidate thesis recently where this was addressed vis a vis pharmaceutical delivery systems.

I guess the next question should be...Did you understand it?

Drones are the future and the present. (Although the ones you can buy in a hobby shop are pre-programmed to self-destruct. That I have personal knowledge of.

So your saying all the drones sold in the world that were purchased in a hobby shop are pre-programmed to self destruct?



So how do you explain the lack of reports about these self destructing drones, also how long do you think a business that pre programmed their drones to self destruct is going to stay in business.

Plus that would be a top story on the national news, yet we see nothing...wonder why?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So your saying all the drones sold in the world that were purchased in a hobby shop are pre-programmed to self destruct?

I think she's saying her's crashed.

I crashed one too. The typical problem of mixing up left and right when it's flying toward you. I panicked.
My friend was good natured about it but I think he was pretty pissed off.

a reply to: luxordelphi

I wonder what amazing things you could do, if you put your energy into fixing actual problems instead of inventing them.
I admire your conviction. Honestly.

a reply to: Phage

I think she's saying her's crashed.

That is what I'm hoping, because a pre-programmed self destruct model doesn't seem that it would be a big money maker after a few self destructed.

But this ATS so anything's possible I guess.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

More about hobby shop drones: it's true that operator error could be a part of it, however, slightly dyslexic though I am, the crash happened when someone not dyslexic at all was flying it. Suddenly, out of nowhere, it took on a life of its' own and flew in a wide circle, rather low, buzzing cars (had a camera) and finally crash landed in front of a police station. The speed of the thing was incredible.

I think the frequency was locally hacked. Sailed around online for awhile to discover many others who also felt the same and had busted up drones.

Tried e-mailing the manufacturer but they were all Chinese and there was a major communication barrier. (Had previously tried replacing moving advanced composite parts i.e. blades - it was a hover craft - with normal plastic stuff because this was not the first indication that it had a mind of its' own and I was hoping it would be a simple fix.)

This particular police station has drones of its' own. In fact, it is touted as one of the most technologically sophisticated in the nation. So, perhaps, my drone was just trying to get back to a more recognizable home than mine. Kind of a pre-empt, in place, situation to discourage forays like mine. (Joe Public that I am.)

I don't know if they have this situation in China, where this was manufactured, because there was a major failure to communicate. The instructions that came with it were bad enough but, in the end, doable while the in-person, through e-mail, back and forth was just ludicrous.

So your statement:

So your saying all the drones sold in the world that were purchased in a hobby shop are pre-programmed to self destruct?

is fair and unfair...just like my statement:

Drones are the future and the present. (Although the ones you can buy in a hobby shop are pre-programmed to self-destruct. That I have personal knowledge of...

is fair and unfair. So tit for tat.

P.S. The McEnroe video is kind of dating you. (I wouldn't want to take unfair advantage.)

a reply to: luxordelphi

P.S. The McEnroe video is kind of dating you. (I wouldn't want to take unfair advantage.)

And yet it still works...especially in the context it was used.

a reply to: luxordelphi

I think the frequency was locally hacked. Sailed around online for awhile to discover many others who also felt the same and had busted up drones.

So you don't think it was programmed to self destruct?
Can you make up you mind, please?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: luxordelphi

P.S. The McEnroe video is kind of dating you. (I wouldn't want to take unfair advantage.)

And yet it still works...especially in the context it was used.

Yeah...definitely twisted; and old.

a reply to: luxordelphi
And you're old enough to recognize it?
I know I am.

a reply to: luxordelphi

South Park is not real, ya know!

If you don't get what I'm saying, South Park did a episode recently about drones. Was hilarious.

And what you're saying sounds a lot like that episode.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: luxordelphi

I think the frequency was locally hacked. Sailed around online for awhile to discover many others who also felt the same and had busted up drones.

So you don't think it was programmed to self destruct?
Can you make up you mind, please?

I think it was pre-programmed to self-destruct because drones, hover drones, quiet drones, in the hands of Joe/Jane Q are a nuisance to secretive government. I was just throwing those other reasons out there because you all seemed disenchanted with the simplest explanation. And second simplest, almost up there with a built-in fail, is a hack.

a reply to: luxordelphi

I was just throwing those other reasons out there because you all seemed disenchanted with the simplest explanation.

No. You were quite specific.
One reason. Not "thrown out.

I think the frequency was locally hacked.

a reply to: luxordelphi

Thanks for replying Hmm, I live in a palm tree-free area/climate, and here the masts appear undisguised. Hence the confusion

a reply to: luxordelphi

. I was just throwing those other reasons out there because you all seemed disenchanted with the simplest explanation. And second simplest, almost up there with a built-in fail, is a hack.

No the simplest explanation is you crashed your little drone, and now you thought why not make a thread and tell everyone that my drone self destructed.

a reply to: luxordelphi

I think it was pre-programmed to self-destruct because drones, hover drones, quiet drones, in the hands of Joe/Jane Q are a nuisance to secretive government.

Ohhhh please explain how they are nuisance,

forget how they are to secretive Gov. unless you want delve into that as well but just explain how they are nuisance to the gov. in the hands of Joe Average.