Search results

Minor accuracy point: At least for the major airports in the UK they generally don't use fuel bowsers, the fuel is connected to an underground pipe system. You might be confused by the pump units that hook into the pipe system and pump the fuel into the planes.

A minor accuracy note most major airports use pipelines for fuel, not tankers, because tankers only hold 40,000 litres, not gallons. Aveatry misread the Google summary and ignored the units. Sloppy as always.

No it hasn't, definitely not your thoughts on to topic. What do you believe?

That's not really answering my question, ignore your Chemtrail nonsense, weather conditions can mean that they might form at, for example 36,000 feet but not 30,000?

Medicine says that.

So all contrails are long, except the ones that aren't. Also, 30,000-39,000 feet typically includes a 12 degree range of temperature. Just because of altitude. That can easily be the difference between forming any contrail or none at all. You do agree that on some days some planes above 30,000...

You're still making up this two planes at the same height nonsense. Do you understand that planes at different heights can and will have different contrails? Some won't have any (low level), some more (higher altitude or different engine settings or mKe/model), some longer lasting (high...

England is more than you can see from your patio.

The global economy is tanking because of the US/Israeli war and the knock on repercussions. And petrol prices drive inflation, if you want to know why food costs more right now that's why.

Yeah! We need to sort out the massive rise in petrol prices, it's insane how unaffordable it has gotten all of a sudden for no apparent reason!

The pictures were already available for years. I linked to them. What has been newly released is copies of the pictures that were used as part of a silly UFO investigation. The original images themselves have been up for years/decades.

All the NASA footage was released decades ago. This UFO stuff and the wider moon landing conspiracies are emblematic of a lack of understanding or knowledge of the history of space flight.

Also these images haven't been ''classified'. They've been available for years/decades. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6842 It takes a while but you can page through all the photos taken to find the various ones that were later marked up with fancy boxes.

Since you bring up Farage and therefore Reform Seriously Doncaster?

You posted them in a thread you titled. UFOs

That's not how light works. You're just wrong on this. The flare is at 90 degrees to the light source where it intersects the spherical lens surface. For those blue marks you can see them in thousands upon thousands of ground based photos. Anyone who is still arguing they are inexplicable...

Yeah, that's the blue bit in the three images in the second post. The rest of the artifacts do look like film damage through now you mention it. I guess that photo doesn't show anything after all.

No, until now we've been talking about cameras. You might have meant only still cameras but I was answering the message you wrote down.

Aveatry doesn't know much about the Apollo program, which is fine. The book 'A man on the moon' by Chakin is excellent and gives a really good overview of the Apollo program. Worth reading. If he had read about it he'd know about the camera issue when Bean broke one and other trivia about...

The only* light on the moon is reflected from the lunar regolith. As such the light source is entirely from the front and side for that photo. This is the same reason you can get lens flare with flash photography. Here's an example where a photographer gets blue light flare with a light source...