A personal experience for climate change deniers

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html

Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.

You probably saw the recent rocket launch.

No that Space X rocket launched more than 24 hours prior from the other side of the country.

If you want to selectively believe this information reported from NASA, that the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule is expected to dock with the ISS on Monday at 11 pm ET, that is still almost 2 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

I just checked the ISS fly overs in my area yesterday. There was just 1 more than 3 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

My guess is it was a part of Taurid meteor shower which James linked earlier.

I just did a web search for around where I live. I won't be surprised if I'm up between 2 and 4. Louisville is CST while Lexington 80 miles away is EST. They mention different aspects of meteors, meteorites and their color.

https://www.whas11.com/article/weather/storm-team-blog/leonid-meteor-shower-viewing-kentucky-indiana/417-7a6c3679-91eb-443e-985a-b1dee05b120a

p.s., ITN and GFM "is". At the same time, a fungus like a mushroom "is". I'm not sure what the difference between "is" and "is" is..

Thought you might like this news item Spongy. https://www.yahoo.com/news/record-setting-asteroid-zoomed-past-222135711.html

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

I be jammin'

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNja0N1wD6c?si=umvXSnQdmOPh87Rz

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

I be jammin'

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNja0N1wD6c?si=umvXSnQdmOPh87Rz

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

I be jammin'

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNja0N1wD6c?si=umvXSnQdmOPh87Rz

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

You sound like ITN. Can you not comprehend casual expressions of speech?

This picture I took from the ground. This plane was cruising over Dublin, CA. This plane doesn't look 6 miles high, nor does it look like a commercial plane. Maybe it is 1 or 2 miles high.



What kind of plane do you think this is? The angle of the wings makes more of a Y shape than a T shape.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

I be jammin'

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNja0N1wD6c?si=umvXSnQdmOPh87Rz

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

You sound like ITN. Can you not comprehend casual expressions of speech?

This picture I took from the ground. This plane was cruising over Dublin, CA. This plane doesn't look 6 miles high, nor does it look like a commercial plane. Maybe it is 1 or 2 miles high.



What kind of plane do you think this is? The angle of the wings makes more of a Y shape than a T shape.

LOL, the fact is that if you do not know what kind of aircraft this is, then it follows that you do not know its size and as a result have no means to extrapolate height. So you are merely babbling about what you do not know.

PS There are at least a half dozen airports within 30 miles of that location which is seconds away by jet and jets do not vertically climb to 6 miles high in seconds so your belief that all jets are always at 6 miles high is just wacky, like you

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

I be jammin'

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNja0N1wD6c?si=umvXSnQdmOPh87Rz

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

You sound like ITN. Can you not comprehend casual expressions of speech?

This picture I took from the ground. This plane was cruising over Dublin, CA. This plane doesn't look 6 miles high, nor does it look like a commercial plane. Maybe it is 1 or 2 miles high.



What kind of plane do you think this is? The angle of the wings makes more of a Y shape than a T shape.

LOL, the fact is that if you do not know what kind of aircraft this is, then it follows that you do not know its size and as a result have no means to extrapolate height. So you are merely babbling about what you do not know.

PS There are at least a half dozen airports within 30 miles of that location which is seconds away by jet and jets do not vertically climb to 6 miles high in seconds so your belief that all jets are always at 6 miles high is just wacky, like you

Hey dumbass, 30 miles in 59 seconds is about 1,830 mph.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

I be jammin'

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNja0N1wD6c?si=umvXSnQdmOPh87Rz

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

You sound like ITN. Can you not comprehend casual expressions of speech?

This picture I took from the ground. This plane was cruising over Dublin, CA. This plane doesn't look 6 miles high, nor does it look like a commercial plane. Maybe it is 1 or 2 miles high.



What kind of plane do you think this is? The angle of the wings makes more of a Y shape than a T shape.

LOL, the fact is that if you do not know what kind of aircraft this is, then it follows that you do not know its size and as a result have no means to extrapolate height. So you are merely babbling about what you do not know.

PS There are at least a half dozen airports within 30 miles of that location which is seconds away by jet and jets do not vertically climb to 6 miles high in seconds so your belief that all jets are always at 6 miles high is just wacky, like you

Hey dumbass, 30 miles in 59 seconds is about 1,830 mph.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

I be jammin'

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNja0N1wD6c?si=umvXSnQdmOPh87Rz

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

You sound like ITN. Can you not comprehend casual expressions of speech?

This picture I took from the ground. This plane was cruising over Dublin, CA. This plane doesn't look 6 miles high, nor does it look like a commercial plane. Maybe it is 1 or 2 miles high.



What kind of plane do you think this is? The angle of the wings makes more of a Y shape than a T shape.

LOL, the fact is that if you do not know what kind of aircraft this is, then it follows that you do not know its size and as a result have no means to extrapolate height. So you are merely babbling about what you do not know.

PS There are at least a half dozen airports within 30 miles of that location which is seconds away by jet and jets do not vertically climb to 6 miles high in seconds so your belief that all jets are always at 6 miles high is just wacky, like you

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/

They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"

So here's the problem I need you to help me understand. The SR-71 collected photographic intelligence at 85,000 feet. Not only did it fly at 85,000 feet for protection, there are exabytes of their imagery from that altitude, mostly of the US priority adversaries. That imagery facilitated strategic plans and national policy over decades.

Why should any rational adult analyst, working for the intelligence community, conclude from the imagery that none of that happened? What about the SR-71 pilots?

I'm not sure why you're replying to me about this now. And I don't recall saying anything about the SR-71, nor denying it can fly 85000 feet high (16 miles).

Looking back at this conversation, all I said is the contrails we can see criss crossing all over the skies on a clear day, seem to be from jets cruising lower than the 6 mile altitude commercial jets usually cruise at. Did you want to debate me regarding that point?

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

I be jammin'

https://youtube.com/shorts/cNja0N1wD6c?si=umvXSnQdmOPh87Rz

If the contrails were all over as you say then there would be no sky, just contrails. So how high are the contrails that you see, because you seem pretty high yourself

You sound like ITN. Can you not comprehend casual expressions of speech?

This picture I took from the ground. This plane was cruising over Dublin, CA. This plane doesn't look 6 miles high, nor does it look like a commercial plane. Maybe it is 1 or 2 miles high.



What kind of plane do you think this is? The angle of the wings makes more of a Y shape than a T shape.

LOL, the fact is that if you do not know what kind of aircraft this is, then it follows that you do not know its size and as a result have no means to extrapolate height. So you are merely babbling about what you do not know.

PS There are at least a half dozen airports within 30 miles of that location which is seconds away by jet and jets do not vertically climb to 6 miles high in seconds so your belief that all jets are always at 6 miles high is just wacky, like you

I think most jets flying near commercial airports would be ascending from the airport or descending to the airport, and wouldn't be cruising at a steady altitude.

That we see so many jets always cruising at steady altitudes over cities and near airports seems irregular.

Anyway, to stop beating around the bush, conspiracy theorists believe these jets cruising at irregular altitudes with persistent spreading contrails are spraying something over cities.

My theory is that those jets are spreading airborne viruses, which attach to CO2, and prevent much of it from rising, and putting more pressure on Heaven.

Spongy Iris wrote:My theory is that those jets are spreading airborne viruses, which attach to CO2, and prevent much of it from rising, and putting more pressure on Heaven.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:My theory is that those jets are spreading airborne viruses, which attach to CO2, and prevent much of it from rising, and putting more pressure on Heaven.

This is moderately humorous. Both warmizombies and you attribute to CO2 magical superpowers to screw with your holy centerpiece, i.e. Climate in their case and Heaven in yours. CO2 is heavier than 99.9% of the atmosphere so it descends to the bottom. Ergo, CO2 doesn't "rise." At 60 miles, there is essentially no atmosphere. There is no pressure. Zero. Well, OK, it's not zero exactly. It's substantially less than 0.00001 PSI (Sea level is just over 14 PSI) and rounds to zero for all applications.

How will your faith stand when you realize that there is no glass? You will have two options:

1. Abandon your faith
2. Develop a delusion that denies reality

I was looking at the Endeavor video again, from liftoff to main tank separation at 75 miles up. You never did answer the question, i.e. at what point does the video change from being an actual video from a camera mounted on Endeavor's main tank, ... to an "obvious hoax". I asked you for a time hack. That video forces you to decide between #1 and #2 above, and I'm guessing that you chose #2 because the video clearly shows that there is no glass at 60 miles altitude. Endeavor was not obliterated at 60 miles altitude. The other video clearly shows a main tank in freefall from 75 miles altitude for several minutes. There is no glass at 60 miles and there are no copper needles.

I presume your faith is important to you so #2 it is.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:My theory is that those jets are spreading airborne viruses, which attach to CO2, and prevent much of it from rising, and putting more pressure on Heaven.

This is moderately humorous. Both warmizombies and you attribute to CO2 magical superpowers to screw with your holy centerpiece, i.e. Climate in their case and Heaven in yours. CO2 is heavier than 99.9% of the atmosphere so it descends to the bottom. Ergo, CO2 doesn't "rise." At 60 miles, there is essentially no atmosphere. There is no pressure. Zero. Well, OK, it's not zero exactly. It's substantially less than 0.00001 PSI (Sea level is just over 14 PSI) and rounds to zero for all applications.

How will your faith stand when you realize that there is no glass? You will have two options:

1. Abandon your faith
2. Develop a delusion that denies reality

I was looking at the Endeavor video again, from liftoff to main tank separation at 75 miles up. You never did answer the question, i.e. at what point does the video change from being an actual video from a camera mounted on Endeavor's main tank, ... to an "obvious hoax". I asked you for a time hack. That video forces you to decide between #1 and #2 above, and I'm guessing that you chose #2 because the video clearly shows that there is no glass at 60 miles altitude. Endeavor was not obliterated at 60 miles altitude. The other video clearly shows a main tank in freefall from 75 miles altitude for several minutes. There is no glass at 60 miles and there are no copper needles.

I presume your faith is important to you so #2 it is.

Do you have any way to determine that rocket in the video you sent me last year was 75 miles high?

I don't think you do. You are taking the word of NASA on faith aren't you?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:My theory is that those jets are spreading airborne viruses, which attach to CO2, and prevent much of it from rising, and putting more pressure on Heaven.

This is moderately humorous. Both warmizombies and you attribute to CO2 magical superpowers to screw with your holy centerpiece, i.e. Climate in their case and Heaven in yours. CO2 is heavier than 99.9% of the atmosphere so it descends to the bottom. Ergo, CO2 doesn't "rise." At 60 miles, there is essentially no atmosphere. There is no pressure. Zero. Well, OK, it's not zero exactly. It's substantially less than 0.00001 PSI (Sea level is just over 14 PSI) and rounds to zero for all applications.

How will your faith stand when you realize that there is no glass? You will have two options:

1. Abandon your faith
2. Develop a delusion that denies reality

I was looking at the Endeavor video again, from liftoff to main tank separation at 75 miles up. You never did answer the question, i.e. at what point does the video change from being an actual video from a camera mounted on Endeavor's main tank, ... to an "obvious hoax". I asked you for a time hack. That video forces you to decide between #1 and #2 above, and I'm guessing that you chose #2 because the video clearly shows that there is no glass at 60 miles altitude. Endeavor was not obliterated at 60 miles altitude. The other video clearly shows a main tank in freefall from 75 miles altitude for several minutes. There is no glass at 60 miles and there are no copper needles.

I presume your faith is important to you so #2 it is.

Do you have any way to determine that rocket in the video you sent me last year was 75 miles high?

I don't think you do. You are taking the word of NASA on faith aren't you?

IBdaMann will speak for himself, but I would say he has clearly demonstrated to all of us a unique and skillful mastery in graphics and honesty. If a video was faked, he would be the first to notify you, possibly in a PM. Check your messages often...

Spongy Iris wrote:Do you have any way to determine that rocket in the video you sent me last year was 75 miles high?

Spongy Iris wrote: I don't think you do.

Spongy Iris wrote: You are taking the word of NASA on faith aren't you?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Do you have any way to determine that rocket in the video you sent me last year was 75 miles high?

Yes. Now let me throw the question back at you. You saw the video. Do you have any way to show that the rocket was somehow below 60 miles altitude?

I don't think you do. You are denying what you see with your own eyes, from liftoff into LEO, deathly afraid to answer my question of when, exactly, the video somehow transitions to being a clear video of the space shuttle on its journey ... to an "obvious hoax." Your denial is driven purely by your faith.

Spongy Iris wrote: I don't think you do.

Of course your denial requires you to declare that I don't have a way of determining the rocket's telemetry. Of course it's absurd for you to make that kind of declaration.

Spongy Iris wrote: You are taking the word of NASA on faith aren't you?

Nope. I'm going by what equipment says, not any people or organization. First, we have the camera that verifies and validates the flight from liftoff to main tank separation.

We also have the radar that monitored the exact position (altitude and position over the earth) required for safety measures. If something goes wrong, the exact procedures followed depend entirely where they are. Also, the flight plan must be forthwith adhered if it is to get into the correct orbit (as we saw in the video) and the position radar alerts everybody that corrections need to be made if the shuttle is deviating course.

So remember, you are the one with the affirmative argument. You claim a completely invisible 60-mile glass ceiling. You bear the full burden to support your claim, unless you are going to state that your belief is simply a matter of faith and admit that you have no way to confirm verify it one way or the other.

If, on the other hand, you wish to claim that there really is glass around the earth at 60 miles (and floating copper needles somewhere beneath that) then you need to answer the questions put to you:

1. When does the video transition to becoming a hoax?
2. How can you verify that the space shuttle was below 60 miles altitude, despite its altitude being clearly visible in the video and telemetry showing it remained on course for its orbit, with tank separation at 75 miles altitude?

If you are going to deny the radar, your argument obviously won't carry much sway with those who watched the radar readout from ground level into orbit. Obviously you won't carry much sway with the space shuttle crew.

You probably won't carry much sway with those who have also watched the video which appears to be much more than a mere 75 miles, who you ask to believe that it was less than 60.

You also need to explain why this glass is magically invisible when glass is not invisible (glass normally reflects glare at most angles and a sphere would guarantee some glare from some angle for each observer). You also need to explain why the glass is not completely shattered and cracked and fractured and broken from the countless collisions of the sort that cratered the moon's surface.

... *or* ... you can acknowledge that it is merely a matter of faith and nothing more. Then you're done.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Do you have any way to determine that rocket in the video you sent me last year was 75 miles high?

Yes. Now let me throw the question back at you. You saw the video. Do you have any way to show that the rocket was somehow below 60 miles altitude?

I don't think you do. You are denying what you see with your own eyes, from liftoff into LEO, deathly afraid to answer my question of when, exactly, the video somehow transitions to being a clear video of the space shuttle on its journey ... to an "obvious hoax." Your denial is driven purely by your faith.

Spongy Iris wrote: I don't think you do.

Of course your denial requires you to declare that I don't have a way of determining the rocket's telemetry. Of course it's absurd for you to make that kind of declaration.

Spongy Iris wrote: You are taking the word of NASA on faith aren't you?

Nope. I'm going by what equipment says, not any people or organization. First, we have the camera that verifies and validates the flight from liftoff to main tank separation.

We also have the radar that monitored the exact position (altitude and position over the earth) required for safety measures. If something goes wrong, the exact procedures followed depend entirely where they are. Also, the flight plan must be forthwith adhered if it is to get into the correct orbit (as we saw in the video) and the position radar alerts everybody that corrections need to be made if the shuttle is deviating course.

So remember, you are the one with the affirmative argument. You claim a completely invisible 60-mile glass ceiling. You bear the full burden to support your claim, unless you are going to state that your belief is simply a matter of faith and admit that you have no way to confirm verify it one way or the other.

If, on the other hand, you wish to claim that there really is glass around the earth at 60 miles (and floating copper needles somewhere beneath that) then you need to answer the questions put to you:

1. When does the video transition to becoming a hoax?
2. How can you verify that the space shuttle was below 60 miles altitude, despite its altitude being clearly visible in the video and telemetry showing it remained on course for its orbit, with tank separation at 75 miles altitude?

If you are going to deny the radar, your argument obviously won't carry much sway with those who watched the radar readout from ground level into orbit. Obviously you won't carry much sway with the space shuttle crew.

You probably won't carry much sway with those who have also watched the video which appears to be much more than a mere 75 miles, who you ask to believe that it was less than 60.

You also need to explain why this glass is magically invisible when glass is not invisible (glass normally reflects glare at most angles and a sphere would guarantee some glare from some angle for each observer). You also need to explain why the glass is not completely shattered and cracked and fractured and broken from the countless collisions of the sort that cratered the moon's surface.

... *or* ... you can acknowledge that it is merely a matter of faith and nothing more. Then you're done.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Do you have any way to determine that rocket in the video you sent me last year was 75 miles high?

Yes. Now let me throw the question back at you. You saw the video. Do you have any way to show that the rocket was somehow below 60 miles altitude?

I don't think you do. You are denying what you see with your own eyes, from liftoff into LEO, deathly afraid to answer my question of when, exactly, the video somehow transitions to being a clear video of the space shuttle on its journey ... to an "obvious hoax." Your denial is driven purely by your faith.

Spongy Iris wrote: I don't think you do.

Of course your denial requires you to declare that I don't have a way of determining the rocket's telemetry. Of course it's absurd for you to make that kind of declaration.

Spongy Iris wrote: You are taking the word of NASA on faith aren't you?

Nope. I'm going by what equipment says, not any people or organization. First, we have the camera that verifies and validates the flight from liftoff to main tank separation.

We also have the radar that monitored the exact position (altitude and position over the earth) required for safety measures. If something goes wrong, the exact procedures followed depend entirely where they are. Also, the flight plan must be forthwith adhered if it is to get into the correct orbit (as we saw in the video) and the position radar alerts everybody that corrections need to be made if the shuttle is deviating course.

So remember, you are the one with the affirmative argument. You claim a completely invisible 60-mile glass ceiling. You bear the full burden to support your claim, unless you are going to state that your belief is simply a matter of faith and admit that you have no way to confirm verify it one way or the other.

If, on the other hand, you wish to claim that there really is glass around the earth at 60 miles (and floating copper needles somewhere beneath that) then you need to answer the questions put to you:

1. When does the video transition to becoming a hoax?
2. How can you verify that the space shuttle was below 60 miles altitude, despite its altitude being clearly visible in the video and telemetry showing it remained on course for its orbit, with tank separation at 75 miles altitude?

If you are going to deny the radar, your argument obviously won't carry much sway with those who watched the radar readout from ground level into orbit. Obviously you won't carry much sway with the space shuttle crew.

You probably won't carry much sway with those who have also watched the video which appears to be much more than a mere 75 miles, who you ask to believe that it was less than 60.

You also need to explain why this glass is magically invisible when glass is not invisible (glass normally reflects glare at most angles and a sphere would guarantee some glare from some angle for each observer). You also need to explain why the glass is not completely shattered and cracked and fractured and broken from the countless collisions of the sort that cratered the moon's surface.

... *or* ... you can acknowledge that it is merely a matter of faith and nothing more. Then you're done.

The camera cannot accurately measure altitude, as you should know.

But maybe you can help me understand more about how the radar works. I'm not sure radio altimeters work to measure an altitude more than 12 km...

Spongy Iris wrote:The camera cannot accurately measure altitude, as you should know.

Spongy Iris wrote: But maybe you can help me understand more about how the radar works.

Spongy Iris wrote: I'm not sure radio altimeters work to measure an altitude more than 12 km...

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:The camera cannot accurately measure altitude, as you should know.

This is a pivot on your part, and an unnecessary distraction. The camera verifies the ascent from ground to low earth orbit, from liftoff to main tank separation. To any rational adult, you cannot claim that what occurred in the video somehow didn't actually happen.

Also, yes, altitude can certainly be accurately assessed from video ... not very accurately by mere human judgement I admit, but the intelligence community has software that uses known sizes and distances and positions to accurately establish distances and sizes within imagery. This is not to say that either you or I have this software at home, but all it takes is for one human to apply this software to the video to accurately assess the altitude of the space shuttle at any point, or at all points, in the video. So altitude can be assessed from video, but for our purposes, and for purposes of any rational adult, the video confirms the reaching of main tank separation. All that is needed at this point is to examine the details of the original "flight plan" because that was what was successfully achieved, as confirmed in the video, i.e. all systems performed as intended, functioned as designed and achieved main tank separation at 75 miles as planned. Are you claiming that the space shuttle, despite being engineered to achieve main tank separation at 75 miles altitude, and despite experiencing an error-free flight, nonetheless by the miraculous grace of God achieved a successful main tank separation below 60 miles altitude and entered a sub-60-mile altitude orbit, avoiding certain death from crashing into the invisible glass that no one can see? Did you notice that the glass never once appeared in the video, despite the obvious altitude and the clear view above? No glare, no copper needles, ... nothing. The ground was clearly visible. The clouds were clearly visible. No glass. What is a rational adult to think?

Spongy Iris wrote: But maybe you can help me understand more about how the radar works.

A radar emits an electromagnetic signal, somewhere in the range of megahertz to hundreds of gigahertz (lower frequencies are for longer distances and the higher frequencies work best for shorter distances where greater precision is desired) and that signal bounces off the target and returns to the radar system that uses the time delay from emission to reception of the return signal to calculate the distance of the target. Doppler radars check the amount of red/blue shift in the returned signal to calculate velocity and vector.

Spongy Iris wrote: I'm not sure radio altimeters work to measure an altitude more than 12 km...

Altimeters are not what we are discussing. An altimeter is a device inside a vehicle, e.g. airplane, space shuttle, Goodyear blimp, etc., that tells its altitude.

The space shuttle was tracked by a ground radar system that used multiple radars to "triangulate" and precisely track the space shuttle's position, as well to track the ISS (which is always precisely tracked every time there is something going into orbit). The space positioning system can track any vehicle on any path between earth and the moon ... and it has never registered any glass.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:The camera cannot accurately measure altitude, as you should know.

This is a pivot on your part, and an unnecessary distraction. The camera verifies the ascent from ground to low earth orbit, from liftoff to main tank separation. To any rational adult, you cannot claim that what occurred in the video somehow didn't actually happen.

Also, yes, altitude can certainly be accurately assessed from video ... not very accurately by mere human judgement I admit, but the intelligence community has software that uses known sizes and distances and positions to accurately establish distances and sizes within imagery. This is not to say that either you or I have this software at home, but all it takes is for one human to apply this software to the video to accurately assess the altitude of the space shuttle at any point, or at all points, in the video. So altitude can be assessed from video, but for our purposes, and for purposes of any rational adult, the video confirms the reaching of main tank separation. All that is needed at this point is to examine the details of the original "flight plan" because that was what was successfully achieved, as confirmed in the video, i.e. all systems performed as intended, functioned as designed and achieved main tank separation at 75 miles as planned. Are you claiming that the space shuttle, despite being engineered to achieve main tank separation at 75 miles altitude, and despite experiencing an error-free flight, nonetheless by the miraculous grace of God achieved a successful main tank separation below 60 miles altitude and entered a sub-60-mile altitude orbit, avoiding certain death from crashing into the invisible glass that no one can see? Did you notice that the glass never once appeared in the video, despite the obvious altitude and the clear view above? No glare, no copper needles, ... nothing. The ground was clearly visible. The clouds were clearly visible. No glass. What is a rational adult to think?

Spongy Iris wrote: But maybe you can help me understand more about how the radar works.

A radar emits an electromagnetic signal, somewhere in the range of megahertz to hundreds of gigahertz (lower frequencies are for longer distances and the higher frequencies work best for shorter distances where greater precision is desired) and that signal bounces off the target and returns to the radar system that uses the time delay from emission to reception of the return signal to calculate the distance of the target. Doppler radars check the amount of red/blue shift in the returned signal to calculate velocity and vector.

Spongy Iris wrote: I'm not sure radio altimeters work to measure an altitude more than 12 km...

Altimeters are not what we are discussing. An altimeter is a device inside a vehicle, e.g. airplane, space shuttle, Goodyear blimp, etc., that tells its altitude.

The space shuttle was tracked by a ground radar system that used multiple radars to "triangulate" and precisely track the space shuttle's position, as well to track the ISS (which is always precisely tracked every time there is something going into orbit). The space positioning system can track any vehicle on any path between earth and the moon ... and it has never registered any glass.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Well then their ground radar is lying if they say they are tracking a rocket from launch into orbit. Impossible.

What the ground radar should be tracking is that rocket plummeting back into the ocean.

When satellites first began to appear in the skies in the 1950s, national space programs began as a means of plausible deniability that there was a more advanced technology circling Earth.

Spongy Iris wrote: Well then their ground radar is lying if they say they are tracking a rocket from launch into orbit. Impossible.

Spongy Iris wrote: What the ground radar should be tracking is that rocket plummeting back into the ocean.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Well then their ground radar is lying if they say they are tracking a rocket from launch into orbit. Impossible.

Equipment doesn't lie. Equipment can be inaccurate, but all radars used are calibrated just prior to use. They are accurate to within a few feet.

Also, the equipment did not track Endeavour from "ground" to "orbit." The equipment precisely tracked Endeavour from 48 feet (launchpad elevation) to 68.9722 miles at main tank separation and beyond (I know, I know, I have been saying "75 miles" because that was the highest altitude for any space shuttle main tank separation, but Endeavour's main tank separation occurred at 68.9722 miles).

So yes, it is absolutely possible ... and there was no glass, and there was no glass above that point either.

Maybe the glass was there at some point in our history but is now gone.

Spongy Iris wrote: What the ground radar should be tracking is that rocket plummeting back into the ocean.

What the radars track, among other things, is the debris of the main tank burning up on reentry, confirming its destruction.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Well then their ground radar is lying if they say they are tracking a rocket from launch into orbit. Impossible.

Equipment doesn't lie. Equipment can be inaccurate, but all radars used are calibrated just prior to use. They are accurate to within a few feet.

Also, the equipment did not track Endeavour from "ground" to "orbit." The equipment precisely tracked Endeavour from 48 feet (launchpad elevation) to 68.9722 miles at main tank separation and beyond (I know, I know, I have been saying "75 miles" because that was the highest altitude for any space shuttle main tank separation, but Endeavour's main tank separation occurred at 68.9722 miles).

So yes, it is absolutely possible ... and there was no glass, and there was no glass above that point either.

Maybe the glass was there at some point in our history but is now gone.

Spongy Iris wrote: What the ground radar should be tracking is that rocket plummeting back into the ocean.

What the radars track, among other things, is the debris of the main tank burning up on reentry, confirming its destruction.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Well then their ground radar is lying if they say they are tracking a rocket from launch into orbit. Impossible.

Equipment doesn't lie. Equipment can be inaccurate, but all radars used are calibrated just prior to use. They are accurate to within a few feet.

Also, the equipment did not track Endeavour from "ground" to "orbit." The equipment precisely tracked Endeavour from 48 feet (launchpad elevation) to 68.9722 miles at main tank separation and beyond (I know, I know, I have been saying "75 miles" because that was the highest altitude for any space shuttle main tank separation, but Endeavour's main tank separation occurred at 68.9722 miles).

So yes, it is absolutely possible ... and there was no glass, and there was no glass above that point either.

Maybe the glass was there at some point in our history but is now gone.

Spongy Iris wrote: What the ground radar should be tracking is that rocket plummeting back into the ocean.

What the radars track, among other things, is the debris of the main tank burning up on reentry, confirming its destruction.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

My guess is the 1st layer of glass starts around the Karman line (62 miles) and the second layer starts around 90 miles.

I doubt the first layer is higher than 75 miles, but perhaps it is.

If it is higher than 75 miles, than a rocket could go that high, then hit the brakes, fall apart, and begin falling back to earth.

Exact altitude estimates aside, a couple things to be sure of, the rocket is not going to break through Heaven, nor is it going to get into orbit.

The double sun image proves the sun is reflecting on 2 layers of glass.

On a separate note, an artifact on the camera lens proves we never even see the actual sun, just it's reflection on glass.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Another picture for IBdaMann:



That was taken from an amateur rocket that had just broken in half. It was falling and spinning around. I'm guessing it was about 50 miles high.

Just before the white reflection of the sun was about enter into the camera view, you can see the light shining through Heaven, which caused the yellow hue of this picture.

The false view as to why the sky appears yellow at sunset, is that the light is passing through more atmosphere, and this somehow changes the light from blue to yellow. But there is no air 50 miles high. So why did the sky appear yellow in this picture?

Spongy Iris wrote:
And in case you want to see the video I got the yellow sky in space from, link below:

https://youtu.be/001IXnp0ogc?si=ZwDYulrAy0wAUeQw

Spongy Iris wrote:My guess is the 1st layer of glass starts around the Karman line (62 miles) and the second layer starts around 90 miles.

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun image proves the sun is reflecting on 2 layers of glass.

Spongy Iris wrote: On a separate note, an artifact on the camera lens proves we never even see the actual sun, just it's reflection on glass.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:My guess is the 1st layer of glass starts around the Karman line (62 miles) and the second layer starts around 90 miles.

* How do you explain the glass layer(s)' complete invisibility?
* What makes you think there is invisible glass there if it is invisible?
* What prevents you from performing your due diligence and falsifying the glass enclosure theory by verifying the existence of the international space station in orbit at roughly 240 miles altitude (notice that the question involves what prevents you from performing your due diligence).

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun image proves the sun is reflecting on 2 layers of glass.

Nope. You just hosed your entire argument. The glass can't do that; all of your assertions at this point rest on your glass being completely invisible. But now you want to say that the glass will be visible. This means that all of those images and videos that clearly show no glass above the earth ... confirm that there is no glass above the earth.

Spongy Iris wrote: On a separate note, an artifact on the camera lens proves we never even see the actual sun, just it's reflection on glass.

Then we all should be able to see the glass' glare, night and day, wherever we are by jut going outdoors and looking up into the sky.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:My guess is the 1st layer of glass starts around the Karman line (62 miles) and the second layer starts around 90 miles.

* How do you explain the glass layer(s)' complete invisibility?
* What makes you think there is invisible glass there if it is invisible?
* What prevents you from performing your due diligence and falsifying the glass enclosure theory by verifying the existence of the international space station in orbit at roughly 240 miles altitude (notice that the question involves what prevents you from performing your due diligence).

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun image proves the sun is reflecting on 2 layers of glass.

Nope. You just hosed your entire argument. The glass can't do that; all of your assertions at this point rest on your glass being completely invisible. But now you want to say that the glass will be visible. This means that all of those images and videos that clearly show no glass above the earth ... confirm that there is no glass above the earth.

Spongy Iris wrote: On a separate note, an artifact on the camera lens proves we never even see the actual sun, just it's reflection on glass.

Then we all should be able to see the glass' glare, night and day, wherever we are by jut going outdoors and looking up into the sky.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:My guess is the 1st layer of glass starts around the Karman line (62 miles) and the second layer starts around 90 miles.

* How do you explain the glass layer(s)' complete invisibility?
* What makes you think there is invisible glass there if it is invisible?
* What prevents you from performing your due diligence and falsifying the glass enclosure theory by verifying the existence of the international space station in orbit at roughly 240 miles altitude (notice that the question involves what prevents you from performing your due diligence).

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun image proves the sun is reflecting on 2 layers of glass.

Nope. You just hosed your entire argument. The glass can't do that; all of your assertions at this point rest on your glass being completely invisible. But now you want to say that the glass will be visible. This means that all of those images and videos that clearly show no glass above the earth ... confirm that there is no glass above the earth.

Spongy Iris wrote: On a separate note, an artifact on the camera lens proves we never even see the actual sun, just it's reflection on glass.

Then we all should be able to see the glass' glare, night and day, wherever we are by jut going outdoors and looking up into the sky.

I've explained many of the visible indications of Heaven's glass with you in other posts over the years.

The unique blue color of most of the sky which doesn't match the color of the earths atmospheric oxygen.

The yellow sky at the horizon at sunset.

The white sky at the horizon when the sun is high.

The disc of the moon behind it's reflection doesn't align with its reflection.

The double sun in my signature.

The artifact that shows up on camera lens when you photograph the sun at an indirect angle.

The Libyan glass fields indicating the sky did fall in the ancient past.

Spongy Iris wrote:I've explained many of the visible indications of Heaven's glass with you in other posts over the years.

Spongy Iris wrote: The unique blue color of most of the sky which doesn't match the color of the earths atmospheric oxygen.

Spongy Iris wrote:The yellow sky at the horizon at sunset. The white sky at the horizon when the sun is high.

Spongy Iris wrote: The disc of the moon behind it's reflection doesn't align with its reflection.

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun in my signature.

Spongy Iris wrote: The artifact that shows up on camera lens when you photograph the sun at an indirect angle.

Spongy Iris wrote: The Libyan glass fields indicating the sky did fall in the ancient past.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I've explained many of the visible indications of Heaven's glass with you in other posts over the years.

Nope. You have explained the visibility of other things but claimed they were somehow evidence of a planetary glass enclosure that remains totally invisible. It's that invisibility that you have never explained.

Spongy Iris wrote: The unique blue color of most of the sky which doesn't match the color of the earths atmospheric oxygen.

Nope. That's the sky which exactly matches the color it should be. This, in no way, shape or form, explains the invisibility that a planetary glass enclosure should not have.

Clean, transparent glass that is curved will always be clearly visible.

Spongy Iris wrote:The yellow sky at the horizon at sunset. The white sky at the horizon when the sun is high.

Nope. Those are atmospherics that are visible and does not explain the invisibility of your glass.

Spongy Iris wrote: The disc of the moon behind it's reflection doesn't align with its reflection.

What reflection?

Spongy Iris wrote: The double sun in my signature.

That's the effect of the lens of the camera that took the picture and the angle of the photo. The photo itself was probably taken from behind a layer of glass, e.g. a sliding glass door.

Spongy Iris wrote: The artifact that shows up on camera lens when you photograph the sun at an indirect angle.

That's called a lens flare. It too is well understood and is a feature in most graphics packages. Anyway, the name tells you that it is an effect of the lens.

This is from Photoshop Essentials:

This is from a GIMP tutorial on lens flares:

Spongy Iris wrote: The Libyan glass fields indicating the sky did fall in the ancient past.

Nope. Glass falling from the altitude you specify will burn up on reentry. The Libyan glass fields show you what happens when lightning strikes in the desert.

Swan wrote:Two choices for you

1. You are arguing with a lunatic
2. You are being played the fool by an undercover attention seeker

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Two choices for you

1. You are arguing with a lunatic
2. You are being played the fool by an undercover attention seeker

You forgot choice #3: I am a fool who likes to go undercover as a lunatic playing hide-&-seek.

Olly-olly-oxen free-free-free [Alle, alle auch sind frei-frei-frei]