They screwed up letting us see this... I mean a conspiracy is a conspiracy but this.. This is passed conspiracy this is a very very dangerous reality... We need to unite.
(Usual) Reactions to
• Is in the “Too Hard Box”
• Not being done yet by anyone, therefore, will
not be done
• They would not do that
• We have to Hope they would not do that
• Why go there, cannot defend against it
• Some Disbelief, but agreement there is too
much there to disregard
Very old news. If memory serves correct it was a powerpoint presentation on future issues and concerns.
Do you really think this would be in YouTube if this was legit?
Originally posted by smurfy
Originally posted by butcherguy
I did a google search, he is a real NASA scientist.
He seems to do a lot of thinking about the future and global warming.
Yes I know he is a real person, what I meant was if he really was the author of the PDF.
I did some research and can not confirm he is the author of the PDF in the video. I also can not say if the PDF is even based on his report because I can not find a full copy on the internet.
What I can say is; there is a document I found that lists the slides from a PDF presentation cited to Bushnell. Some of the slides seems to be the same, some are entirely different.)
CAUTION, .mil url - Slides cited for Bushnell's report here. It is all from 2001. And it is all based on technology that could be available in 2025 based on 2001's current tech.
In short. The report Bushnell created is 12 years old. All sources seems to indicate the PDF in the video is a hoax because:
1. It was written 12 years ago & was not based on current usable tech. (As the video would have you believe)
2. With only the cited slides from the actual report to go by (again 12 years old), there is no way to attribute the presentation to Bushnell.
(and as a side note, this is the same lady that declared a planet the size of Jupiter was next to our Sun, and is headed straight for us.edit on 28-6-2013 by OneisOne because: drop punch
I doubt this should just be... overlooked.. And lol why is my post in skunkworks...
I also can not say if the PDF is even based on his report because I can not find a full copy on the internet.
With expanded industrial-scale production of nanomaterials fast approaching, scientists are reporting indications that dust generated during processing of nanomaterials may explode more easily than dust from wheat flour, cornstarch and most other common dust explosion hazards. Their article in ACS' journal Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research indicates that nanomaterial dust could explode due to a spark with only 1/30th the energy needed to ignite sugar dust — the cause of the 2008 Portwentworth, Georgia, explosion that killed 13 people, injured 42 people and destroyed a factory.