Rickendiver

You are correct, I am against mandates & lockdowns as they do not ultimately change the trajectory of a pandemic, but have severe unintended consequences. I am NOT against people wearing a mask if they choose to. I am concerned that people in high risk groups for ANY virus to be fatal thinking that a cloth mask will protect them when they should be taking more effective means. (i.e. sequestration, PAPR). I am retired & have nothing to gain here except for this. I don’t think you will find any information readily available on the internet that predates COVID. I do remember finding some studies on cloth masks that were conducted in the 1950’s, but that was part of some research that I did back in the 2000’s when my life/health depended on things like that. That info may still be somewhere, but probably buried on page 200 on a search engine. Some points I was trying to make are that the internet is not always a panacea of answers, particularly during a contentious time period. Government agencies are not always trustworthy (keeping in mind I have a lifetime there). Probably 90% of the data and findings that I worked on are not published to the public, which is representative of most work done for them. We assayed thousands of atmospheric samples for organic & non organic material, conducted hundreds of experiments examining how a bio strike might be implemented at mass transportation centers and high rise buildings, how pathogens and toxins can propagate through HVAC systems and filter material. Some with live agents and some with surrogates. A virus is able to transmit astonishingly well, and not just through droplets. Maybe a FOIA request to DHS or DOD would work, but I wouldn’t count on it

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. As there is no point in continuing a discussion, I’ll leave you with some technology to consider. Enjoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_detection_system https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Thomas-R-Metz-39550427

It’s not just me. There are about 70,000 scientific, medical & health care professionals that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration attesting to it. There is an incredibly tiny percent of the population that has hands on experience in a BSL3 or 4 laboratory working with this nasty stuff, so it’s easy to lie about it. There isn’t a “conspiracy” per se. it’s just the way science is controlled in this country. Honest questions to ask oneself- Do I have the background to recognize what an expert looks like? If so, how would I know if they are lying? Do I have the expertise necessary to parse out a journal publication to separate BS from good science? Is data being accurately represented? The answer for the vast majority of people is NO. Most of the “experts” that show up on TV dressed in Armani suits or sparkling clean lab coats are administrators- suits, pencil necks. I call them PowerPoint scientists. They have science degrees from the right schools (and usually an MBA as well). They have their name prominent on papers & patents and probably have not spent one hour in a lab other than for photo ops. They control funding & can enable easier publication is why they get away with it. I have a lot of direct experience with this, sadly. Most (OK, some) government agencies and national laboratories have well deserved reputations for honesty, integrity, and doing all things nice & necessary, as is their charter. Institutional & programmatically funding comes largely through Congress, which is funneled through a network of entrenched, unelected bureaucrats. Directors of these agencies & laboratories are appointed, and serve at the pleasure of these bureaucrats (as well as internal boards). If there are billions of $$$ at stake, senior administrators are expected to do or say whatever is necessary to give credence to the otherwise obvious BS, or be replaced by someone who will. Oh, and next years budget just got cut. I have personally witnessed this happen. In other circles this is known as extortion. I should also point out in the research world, studies are not “proof” of anything other than that someone funded them. Normal descriptors that I’m used to seeing are “Interesting, suggestive, supportive “ on the positive side to “Sketchy, dubious, load of crap” on the negative side. Normal peer review process is difficult at best under these conditions. Good luck getting funding, good luck getting published, good luck getting press coverage. Hope this explanation helps.

Doctors and dentists wear them to mitigate bacterial transmission. They are not PPE. Humans are constantly shedding skin cells and hair follicles that often contain bacteria. Ever work in a Class 100 clean room? Ever do any SEM or AFM imaging? It’s clearly visible. N95’s are designed to mitigate inhalation of particulates greater than 0.3 microns in size when fit tested and worn on a clean shaven face. They do not block mist. Both offer zero protection for the eyes. Virus was first postulated in the late 1800’s & directly observed in the 1930’s. So… nobody ever found out if masks worked until just now? Absurd. My training and experience was about 40 years at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia Livermore National Laboratory, Dugway Proving Grounds, Ft Detrick. i am coauthor on 16 scientific journal papers, have several patents, an R&D 100 Award, was a principle developer on BioWatch Gen 2&3, a principal operative for field deployment, testing and incident response, and worked as a member of the NEST/ARG community. I also worked as a consultant for DHS & Northrop Grumman. I was responsible for personnel safety which included PPE selection and use appropriate to the hazards. if you still stand by your assessment, that’s fine with me, but you might look up Dunning-Kruger effect.

In my professional training and experience working with aerosolized pathogens both in both research laboratories & in the field for national bio defense, (DOE, DOD, DHS), cloth masks are ineffective at preventing virus transmission. This has been in the knowledge base for about 100 years.

You could try a self-burble technique. Bring your hands to the center of your chest a few inches off of it. Join the hands in a fist, or clasped together in a kind of praying position. This will increase your fall rate without driving you forward. It will reduce your stability, so you'll have to be ready for and compensate for that.

The essential mission of the National Ignition Facility is to study the physics of fusion as part the stockpile stewardship program that replaced the underground nuclear testing program at Nevada Test Site. Since the last US test was conducted in 1992, and we no longer have that capability, the success of NIF is critical to ensuring the safety of our nuclear arsenal. But it also is used for much, much more- to enable further understanding of our universe and for continued research into fusion reactor power development. This link is more explanatory, (and less blatantly pandering for congressional funding) https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif

FWIW, I did not particularly like the way the article was written, either. I was more focused on the accomplishment from my alma mater. Did not intend this to become a political grenade. Mods, please move this to Speakers Corner, if appropriate.

Practical fusion energy is still a long ways off, but this is a significant accomplishment. https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-achieves-fusion-ignition

Exactly- Besides being VERY easy to track, there’s the problem of what happens if it gets shot down, or blows up on the launch pad. Nevada Test Site back in the 1980’s & 1990’s was like a time capsule of forgotten Cold War projects just lying around in the desert. Pluto, Plowshare, MX train system, etc. I worked there occasionally on the underground nuclear test program, and the subcritical tests after the Cold War ended.

Sorta been done before. A bit before my time, but I knew people that worked on this project. REALLY stupid things require government funding. I've visited the remnants of this project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

Bay Area Skydiving in Byron is also a good option. Great aircraft and great vibe. I've jumped at all 3 and you really can't go wrong at any of those 3 DZ's,

Pacific Skydiving Center ( the one in the middle). Two Supervans, good operation. No FBO’s on the field that I could tell. Army still owns the airfield so no alcohol allowed🤨 Numerous vacation rentals across the road, but not sure about camping facilities.

Give it a shot! I started at age 55, and am nearly 700 jumps in. You'll have tons of fun

We do them every year at Byron, too. Normal jump run at 13k offset by an "average" tracking distance. No tracking suits allowed, everyone under an open canopy by 3k (IIRC), novice class & open class. We draw exit order by lot, and jumpmaster sends us out 1 at a time with a couple of seconds in between. Judges are positioned on the ground to spot. It helps to note canopy colors prior to contest.

That album is "Bloodshot". Still have mine! Peter Wolf vocals, Magic Dick on harp

From this link, it looks like there were 2 DC-3's used in the movie. The one painted white is clearly not Southern Cross. Southern Cross has Wright R-1820 engines & not the P&W R-1830's that the one in the movie has. The pictures of the one in camo aren't clear enough for me to tell http://www.impdb.org/index.php?title=Drop_Zone

I loved watching his "Energy Management" routine in the Shrike. Dead stick aerobatics followed by landing and taxi up to the announcer stand without using power or brakes.

Flying legend has flown west today http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/10/bob-hoover-one-of-nations-greatest-pilots-dead-at-94/

No SAS landings are a hoot

That looks like the "City of Chicago" a Stinson Detroiter fitted with a 300 HP Wright J6 radial engine, during it's endurance record flight in 1930. He is greasing the rocker arms on each of the 9 cylinders. In-flight refueling was accomplished by another aircraft lowering gas cans to them. They stayed airborne for more than 500 hours! Yeah, pretty bad ass

Engines on light twins are routinely shut down during training. With centerline thrust, there aren't the usual single-engine controllability issues normally associated with conventional twins due to assymetrical thrust/drag. As long as judicial use of cowl flaps, power and mixture settings are used it shouldn't be too detrimental to the engine. Besides, the air baffling on the rear engine of a Mixmaster is so poorly designed, it rarely makes it to TBO anyway

Not to mention it's proven ability to ruin a perfectly great Scotch

DOM on my canopy was 05/29/2012.