>>4388463

I don't know if this is related to what happened at Gatwick Airport, but I recently found someone's interesting analysis of drone incidents around airports worldwide. Especially since it mentions the subject of drone swarms, and apparently Gatwick was about multiple drones (?)

https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2018/12/drone-collisions-what-did-i-tell-you.html

From article:

Quite apart from terrorists using small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's, or drones) to carry explosives or other weaponized cargo, I've been warning for years that they may be used to try to deliberately collide with airliners while landing or taking off. The sheer volume of such incidents (most, thanks be to God, near-misses or close encounters so far) convinces me, from a statistical perspective alone, that all of them can't possibly be accidental or unplanned.

…

I continue to believe that deliberate attempts to crash a drone into a jet airliner have occurred, are occurring, and will continue to occur. If the Aeromexico incident is included, there have already been at least four recorded incidents of drone mid-air collisions of which I'm aware, including one in Canada and one in New York. I can easily imagine terrorists planning to fly multiple drones into the landing pattern of a major airport, to "swarm" an airliner as it was too low and slow to maneuver easily. That's not a happy thought - and the damage shown above illustrates the danger. What if that drone had hit an engine, or multiple engines, rather than the nose cone? What if it had struck the cockpit windows instead of the radome?

Food for thought.

>>4388538

Good writeup.

> The notable says it was a Noctilucent Cloud. Technically it was not but the smoke trail was illuminated for the same reason as noctilucent clouds…..very high in the atmosphere.

Also - this is the same reason the exhaust trail behind a rocket launch is so bright, when a rocket is launched shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset. Way up in the atmosphere, the sun is still visible, so anything in the air really shines from the perspective of an observer on the darker ground. Airplane contrails, rocket exhaust, meteor trails, etc.

Seeing contrails shine this way at this time is very common and everyone has experienced it, so that analogy is a good way to clue people in. With this event, since people were watching to see a rocket launch, that was on people's minds. Even so, when a rocket launches out of Vandenberg in evening twilight, everyone freaks out because the trail lit by sunlight is so brilliant. Everyone goes "what was that!!!"

Question for lawfags …

Something I've wondered about Flynn. Last year, Meganon said that Flynn needed to be charged in order for him to have the opportunity to get certain testimony on record, with the implication that getting charged was a strategic move so that the evidence Flynn provided in his own defense could be used in some other judicial context. This puzzled me, because if Flynn knew something and wanted to testify about it, why couldn't he just provide the testimony? Tell a prosecutor, testify at a trial, whatever. I didn't think that the subject matter being classified would be a strong barrier; there must be ways for people with evidence to use official channels. (We know many official channels were cabal infested, but Meganon's writing made it seem like a procedural issue, not circumventing some particular bad actor.) So that specific part of Meganon's info made no sense to me, but the concept has been supported since then elsewhere. Example, Q 1280:

Why would Flynn plead guilty to something untrue?

Define testimony.

Define ‘on record’.

Who knows where the bodies are buried?

Flynn is safe.

Expand your thinking.

Q

I think there may be another strategic reason for Flynn to have gotten charged. What better way for certain gray hats to establish their bona fides to the dark hats, than participate in the very public removal of such a prominent white hat from the administration?

But the core issue remains. What about being charged lets Flynn legally provide testimony, that was not possible in more direct ways (such as being subpoenaed by a prosecutor, or walking in somewhere to say he has evidence of a crime, or whatever?)

I've seen discussion about the interaction between classification and the judicial process, with testimony providing some back channel way for classified information to be released or disclosed (because it was necessary for a judicial reason.) But even in that case, why did it have to revolve around Flynn being charged, instead of Flynn providing exactly the same on the record testimony in a context focused on whatever cabal crime Flynn wants to testify about?

I feel like we're missing something here, and it would take some detailed knowledge of the legal process (and its interaction with classified materials) to make headway.

>>4388692

Meteors come in on a straight line. But there are air currents, and the air affected by the meteor's passage will bend, twist, and curl over time.

The same phenomenon is visible with contrails and rocket exhaust trails. What starts out as straight, will shift and become not straight.

Visibility of the meteor trail depends on the size of the meteor (how much it affects the air) and the time of day (whether you can see it.)

>>4388731

I should add something …

When people think of meteors and what they look like, what they're picturing is the GLOW. That's a quick phenomenon, usually fades instantly, on rare occasions it will last a few seconds.

What was seen is something different. The air that the meteor passed through was ionized and that seeded a small cloud. (I'm not an expert and I may get the terms incorrect.)

A lingering cloud is different from a glowing streak on impact. The cloud is not "a meteor" but it was "caused by a meteor".

But for nearly all meteors, we never see a cloud. Because we usually see meteors in full darkness (hard to see small clouds then) and meteors are usually too small to leave a visible cloud. Seeing a lingering cloud takes a big meteor near twilight.

Not sure this was worth the space here, since the California event was not related to the Great Awakening. But I can understand people saying "that's not what a meteor looks like" and becoming suspicious. When a little more explanation would help it click into place.