# 'Vanilla' skies



## mifletzet (Sep 14, 2020)

Why are the skies in old photos "vanilla skies" i.e. whited out: is this deliberate to hide something in the sky, such as pre-1900 aerial vehicles as the clip claims, or an artifact of their old film process?



Are there any pre-1900 photos of clouds, sprites, tornadoes, the moon, the sun etc?





> Note: This OP was recovered from the Maxine archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP: 'Vanilla' skies


----------



## Wee Warrior (Sep 14, 2020)

So glad this thread made it through the purge, it is one of my favorites and one that was developing a lot of interesting theories.

I am over in the PNW and while watching the skies during these wildfires, I've begun to wonder if what we think are Vanilla Skies are actually just smoke filled skies? Especially all this smoldering smoke, it would totally look vanilla if I took a B&W picture. 

Given the amount of burning of cities and clearing of land going on in the Americas during colonization it could make sense. Doesn't necessarily explain the Vanilla Skies in other parts of the world, unless it was that widespread.

Anyway, food for thought, hope this thread picks up momentum.


----------



## Sapioit (Sep 15, 2020)

What if that's the result of something like nuclear winter (since, depending on the type of nuke, the fallout could be gone in less than 100 years), or caused by constant wars everywhere against the survivors of the now-fallen tartarians? I mean, it could also be some sort of a force-field or intentional atmospheric anomalies used to make aerial scouting ineffective. 

One of the best ways to have the airplanes inoperative in the official story of the world wars is to have bad weather, especially strong winds turning dust and sand into fog-like clouds near the ground.


----------



## wild heretic (Sep 15, 2020)

I actually quite like the blimp theory. At least it has a chance to explain those domes and antennas on top of the late 19th century buildings.


----------



## Wee Warrior (Sep 15, 2020)

wild heretic said:


> I actually quite like the blimp theory. At least it has a chance to explain those domes and antennas on top of the late 19th century buildings.


Yeah, I like the blimp theory myself and don't necessarily think one train of thought derails the other. The continuous burning could account for the lack of detail in the skies while the photo-shopping in these old pics could be masking out signs of the aerial traffic. 

Someone on the SH forum found a bunch of inconsistencies in this pic of the US Patent Office.






https://weewarrior.wordpress.com/2020/07/31/up-up-and-away/


----------



## wild heretic (Sep 15, 2020)

I like the find in the op video of aerial travel starting in... was it 1495 as stated by that old book. It was air balloons it seems. We've been taught they were invented in the 1700s, but it seems they date back much earlier. That would explain the detail in old maps of the continents inland, such as south america in the 1500s and the really detailed maps of the wilds of the US in the 1890s (blimp). The timeline also matches the non-detail coastlines of medieval maps also. Islands are like blobs compared to 1500s' maps.

I tried to insert a 1.5mb .png image here but failed.


----------



## Wee Warrior (Sep 15, 2020)

wild heretic said:


> I like the find in the op video of aerial travel starting in... was it 1495 as stated by that old book. It was air balloons it seems. We've been taught they were invented in the 1700s, but it seems they date back much earlier. That would explain the detail in old maps of the continents inland, such as south america in the 1500s and the really detailed maps of the wilds of the US in the 1890s (blimp). The timeline also matches the non-detail coastlines of medieval maps also. Islands are like blobs compared to 1500s' maps.


I agree that lighter-than-air travel has been around much longer than conventional history explains. I have learned through my research, however, that balloons are terrible for drawing and photography, they lurch around too much. That makes me think they were also using blimps at an early stage, they are much more stable and are still used for aerial photography.


----------



## wild heretic (Sep 15, 2020)

Wee Warrior said:


> wild heretic said:
> 
> 
> > I like the find in the op video of aerial travel starting in... was it 1495 as stated by that old book. It was air balloons it seems. We've been taught they were invented in the 1700s, but it seems they date back much earlier. That would explain the detail in old maps of the continents inland, such as south america in the 1500s and the really detailed maps of the wilds of the US in the 1890s (blimp). The timeline also matches the non-detail coastlines of medieval maps also. Islands are like blobs compared to 1500s' maps.
> ...



I reckon it must have been a balloon contraption hybrid or something like that, not exactly a blimp of the late 19th century filled with hydrogen or helium.

If you flick through the pages of that French document, you can see quite a few strange balloon/blimpesque contraptions.
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/b...escription des experiences aerostatiques.zoom


----------



## Wee Warrior (Sep 15, 2020)

wild heretic said:


> Wee Warrior said:
> 
> 
> > wild heretic said:
> ...



What a great book! Thanks for sharing. It certainly re-affirms my theory that 18th century flying machines were much more extravagant, and common, that we have been lead to believe.

So I've noticed in my research that the French seem to lead the way in aerostatic (my new favorite word) innovations. 

I really wonder why...

Hmmm...

 Why were the French the first to try to master the skies? 

Did they still have access to flying devices from the ancient empires? Were they trying to recreate ancient tech?

They did establish the world's first Air Force, the French Aerostatic Corps in 1894 for three roles: reconnaissance, signalling and the distribution of propaganda. Apparently they were deemed ineffective on the battlefield and the Corps was disbanded in 1897.

Really? 

Funny, that's like the Union Army's aerial corp that ended with balloonist Prof. Lowe being pressured out of the military by cutting his pay and belittling his efforts.

Got a feeling there was a concerted effort to discourage the use of blimps and balloons, at least in the public's mind...I suspect their true capabilities have been edited out of our history and we only see clumsy attempts at imitating what used to be floating around in the skies.


----------



## dreamtime (Sep 16, 2020)

wild heretic said:


> I tried to insert a 1.5mb .png image here but failed.



This problem has been solved now. Uploading should work now.


----------



## Gold (Sep 16, 2020)

I don't remember the exact explanation but I know someone on the old forum in this thread explained certain types of photo produced vanilla skies organically. 
That said, a bunch of people started searching old photos for artifacts in the sky and found lots of them IIRC


----------



## Wee Warrior (Sep 16, 2020)

Gold said:


> I don't remember the exact explanation but I know someone on the old forum in this thread explained certain types of photo produced vanilla skies organically.
> That said, a bunch of people started searching old photos for artifacts in the sky and found lots of them IIRC


You are correct, there were some interesting discussions about the photographic equipment that might be creating the Vanilla Skies effect, but as you say there was also plenty of evidence that skies (and backgrounds) had been photo-shopped for no obvious reason. I've been looking at a lot of the San Francisco earthquake/fire pictures and suspect many of them are tampered with, especially one with people on the streets and the destroyed city in the background. Some of the smoke looks really fake, too!




source​


----------



## JohnNada (Sep 16, 2020)

Wee Warrior said:


> Gold said:
> 
> 
> > I don't remember the exact explanation but I know someone on the old forum
> ...


----------



## Sapioit (Sep 16, 2020)

Wee Warrior said:


> I agree that lighter-than-air travel has been around much longer than conventional history explains. I have learned through my research, however, that balloons are terrible for drawing and photography, they lurch around too much. That makes me think they were also using blimps at an early stage, they are much more stable and are still used for aerial photography.


To get from a hot air balloon to a blimp, you only need to flatten or elongate the balloon. And since ships also existed, it is likely that at least some blimps back then were made able to land on water, or even as flying boats which could go either by wind or by water.

As for the hot air balloons and also blimps, one way to make them more stable is to tether them to multiple locations, ideally at least 3. That way, the only motion you would get would be up and down.

Though, now that I think about it, they could have also used hot air balloons to get taller skyscrappers, which would allow for at least some of the maps to be drawn. And you can tether the skyscrappers, too, so they don't fall in strong wind. Especially if you have them in the center of the city, with the tethers connecting to the city walls, or if you made a city of interconnected buildings, pyramid-shaped or cone-shaped, to withstand strong winds and even earthquakes.

Also, keep in mind that you can use both buoyant gases, and heat them, for even better lift coefficient (for better lifting efficiency).



Wee Warrior said:


> aerostatic (my new favorite word)



It's now one of my favorite words, as well. Aerostat (wikipedia).


----------



## Broken Agate (Sep 16, 2020)

Wee Warrior said:


> So glad this thread made it through the purge, it is one of my favorites and one that was developing a lot of interesting theories.
> 
> I am over in the PNW and while watching the skies during these wildfires, I've begun to wonder if what we think are Vanilla Skies are actually just smoke filled skies? Especially all this smoldering smoke, it would totally look vanilla if I took a B&W picture.
> 
> ...



I believe that it was that widespread. Just as today, governments then were probably in collusion with one another to hide real history. Reading our standard textbooks, we get the impression that the nations of the world were constantly fighting each other. Maybe some of that, if not all of it, was simply for the sake of appearance, and the real goal was to get rid of some excess population by orchestrating all these disasters. Destroying or altering photos would have been part for the course, as the saying goes; just part of the plan to keep the survivors in ignorance for generations. There was probably a lot more going on than that, but whatever it was, I no longer see the world as a collection of separate nations; more as a collection of bickering, and probably related,  factions.


----------



## Sapioit (Sep 16, 2020)

If the same people controlled all those countries, then the wars would be not necessarily to kill normal people, but to kill those who are open-minded and those who still have a chance of knowing things from the times erased from history. After all, in most countries which took part in the world wars, conscription was mandatory, not optional.


----------



## Chince (Sep 16, 2020)

The power one has in holding a monopoly over a resource is insane. I always found it funny that we narrowed down all forms of flight to ones that use oil/gas around the same time the oil/gas boom really took off and certain players really started to take control of the economy. Sure on it's own that doesn't say much, but I would be surprised if the big money players didnt try to shut down any form of aerial transport that couldnt run on fuel. Need to get in on those returns, or just shut down competition. Oh you can travel cross the Atlantic with hardly any fuel costs? Not anymore you cant

It really does fill the missing link of quality of maps at that time, some of the detail on those maps were crazy, would be alot more fitting if they had some form of air travel

	Post automatically merged: Sep 17, 2020

Forgot to mention something but couldn't figure out how to edit the post... sorry, have had a few beers lol. but to stay on topic, 

When i hear the term 'vanilla skies', my brain almost always jumps to something fire-related. Funny actually, i am on the west coast of canada, we have had almost a week or more of pure grey\white skies and the red sun etc. Considering how much of a problem fires are today, i feel the weight of that problem is soooo high scaled back a hundred years or two. I feel like a lot of past major civilizations that, 'lasted the longest' or whatever, all seemed to be really good(comparative to the field at the time) at preventing or stopping fire related issues. Of course nobody can avoid them completely, we cant even achieve that today lol.

From my limited understanding i think the timeline for a lot of these tends to line up with periods where there was a lot of colonialism going around as well

Another area my brain jumps to is volcanic activity. I really havnt the best memory of the comparison between that activity from then vs now but would be interesting to compare these with the others.

I need to do a bit more research before i totally derail this post, but food for thought. Always loved these topics.
Ill be back when i can to dig up some sources


----------



## Sapioit (Sep 17, 2020)

Chince said:


> colonialism going around as well


If the enemy uses air travel, widespread fires would not only make it a lot more difficult and chaotic (due to no line of sight), but also endanger the places surrounded by forests (like many cities and villages). And considering that after fire often rain comes, in places with medium and high air humidity, then maybe that heavy rain created a chemical reaction resulting in volcanic eruptions, or was followed by induced seismicity by means of carpet bombing, which would submerge the attacked settlements in mud, or in the mountainous regions even cause land slides and rivers of mud.



`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvTbdaStw_g`



`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDJ5ea6jNc4`


----------



## mifletzet (Nov 12, 2022)

Is Awaranon and Wooden Nickels explanation for vanilla skies correct?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5oK1rqezCo_


----------



## sekito (Nov 13, 2022)

Thank you for boosting this post back up

regardless of whatever the reason for the sky manipulation,
the “airship theory” is fascinating!

I was digging for a bit more info, and came across the following photograph; photo artifact? Or actual electricity
The forgotten era of the Airships in rare photographs, 1900s-1940s - Rare Historical Photos


----------



## usselo (Nov 14, 2022)

sekito said:


> the “airship theory” is fascinating!
> 
> I was digging for a bit more info, and came across the following photograph; photo artifact? Or actual electricity
> The forgotten era of the Airships in rare photographs, 1900s-1940s - Rare Historical Photos
> View attachment 26383


Can't speak for the alleged electrical discharges. However, the dangling lines may help interpret some features in this image of Sloup Castle in the Czech Republic:



_1712 depiction of Sloup Castle (Bürgstein), Czech Republic. __Source_​
Sloup Castle (Google Maps), (Google Streetview), (OpenStreetMap), (Flickr images)

If Sloup Castle was an airship/dirigible handling facility, what was the role of the six rectangular arrangements visible on the upper left of the rock?


_Detail from above Sloup Castle image._​
The image of the Norge airship in the post above suggests some airships flew with dangling handling lines. A guess is that the six rectangular affairs with low corner towers on the top of Sloup Castle were 'stables' in an earlier sense of the word. It's possible that horizontal lines were strung at roughly head height between each stable's corner towers. When an airship came in, the airship's dangling handling lines were grabbed and then clipped (or tied) to the horizontal lines between the towers.

It's a simple arrangement that would keep the tethered airship stable. More stable than the USS Los Angeles tethered to a single mooring post:


_USS Los Angeles achieves lift off - with the help of the wind. __Source_​
There is plenty of evidence that Sloup Castle handled airships. You can see just some of the evidence in this image:

_Aerial view of Sloup Castle today. __Source_​We're looking at *airship handling* facilities. *Gas production* facilities can also be found among the other images in Sloup Castle's image galleries. Especially images of its Royston Cave-like 'famine pit' and images of the vaulted 'church' roof with a hole into the lighthouse.

Equally, if less excitingly, Sloup Castle's six rectangular affairs my have been vegetable gardens. In which case the corner towers may have been supports for the net apparently laid out nearby:
​
A disappointing alternative interpretation, for sure. But it doesn't detract from the evidence that Sloup Castle's below ground facilities were bio-gas digesters.


----------



## Pathfinder (Nov 14, 2022)

mifletzet said:


> Why are the skies in old photos "vanilla skies" i.e. whited out: is this deliberate to hide something in the sky, such as pre-1900 aerial vehicles as the clip claims, or an artifact of their old film process?
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any pre-1900 photos of clouds, sprites, tornadoes, the moon, the sun etc?




Sometimes verification, or possible verification, can be found in other ways.  While we may not have photos of airships or other aircraft going back very far, way back in the late 1400s Leonardo da Vinci "invented" the parachute, or so we are told. There's a drawing said to be from 1485 of the da Vinci parachute, in his _Codex Atlanticus_.

Where would a parachute be tested from?  The narrative doesn't say, and leads people just to conclude that it was only a concept sketched up by da Vinci, as part of another narrative about his acclaimed super genius.  It could be, if editing of the past took place as many of us contend, that while keeping the narrative about da Vinci for whatever reason, the Editors thus may have overlooked this parachute.

Interestingly, in 2000, according to an _Encyclopedia Brittanica_ a British balloonist constructed a parachute based on da Vinci's drawing, and bailed out of a balloon 10,000 feet up, and the da Vinci parachute, of course, worked.

Britannica article on da Vinci's parachute

While this invention is not at all direct evidence of airships back in the 1400s (regardless, for the moment, of whether da Vinci himself actually existed, or if the 1400s existed as we're told), it does suggest a certain consistency with the possible existence of airships, and thus of a later need for erasing out anything artificial in the skies in photos taken much later on.


----------



## TruthIsOnlyDelayed (Nov 14, 2022)

usselo said:


> dangling handling lines


When I saw that picture I wondered if the lines tethered down to the buildings (think of all the antenna like objects we all see in the old pictures). Think Ben Franklin kite/key.


----------



## mifletzet (Nov 22, 2022)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_QYVFymQw&t=3s_


----------



## Safranek (Nov 23, 2022)

mifletzet said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi_QYVFymQw&t=3s_



I like this YT comment to the above video by StedeGrooves;

_"Now wooden nickels and ewar owe us a "sorry, we were wrong about being wrong" video.  Great work my friend, bravo!"_


----------



## mifletzet (Dec 1, 2022)

Aeawar and Wooden Nickels respond to Mind Unveiled's claims of 19th century photographic hocus and vanilla skies


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFT6QLMTk4E_


----------



## sekito (Dec 1, 2022)

mifletzet said:


> Aeawar and Wooden Nickels respond to Mind Unveiled's claims of 19th century photographic hocus and vanilla skies
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFT6QLMTk4E_



Watched the video, a shame that the creators turned the comments section off (seems they don’t do this for every video, so I guess there’s some kind of backlash already)

Personally, I agree more with ”Mind Unveiled”’s stance than theirs, i.e. “all photographs are fake(manipulated)” and therefore photographs ALONE cannot be relied on to make arguments.

I disagree that throwing out the photographic evidence leaves “nothing” - for example, we know in the official history of the Chicago World Fair, two buildings are built to be permanent(Palace of a Fine Arts/Museum of a Science and Industry, and the Art Institute of Chicago), and were completed in a timeframe of 2 years. AND the photographs of the Palace of Fine Arts DO look like the building that still exists today. So the photographic evidence now combined with the actual building we have now, and the official narrative all together raises the question of how believable the narrative is. The counter-argument that “there are construction photos” now becomes invalid because it relies on photographic evidence ALONE.

The point here is: “if the photographs are inadmissible”, then is the narrative believable/trustworthy by itself?

I do agree with their point that “empty street photographs” should not be taken to be evidence (I’m not sure whether they are actually arguing this point or being hyperbolic?); since 1. the photo could have been manipulated 2. The photo could have been taken at dawn so no one is out in the streets yet 3. The photographer could have waited for the exact time when no one is in the streets etc. So, indeed, photographs should not be taken as the definitive evidence of anything

***
edit:

the fact that ”photographic evidence”(including videos) alone should not be taken as evidence of an event is not only applicable to “historical narratives”, but modern events - things you see on the news, today, tomorrow -  as well.
Indeed, very little people are open to the possibility that news media or clips on YouTube are not guaranteed to be real. In fact, in my experience, they are more likely to be fake than real!


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 1, 2022)

sekito said:


> I do agree with their point that “empty street photographs” should not be taken to be evidence (I’m not sure whether they are actually arguing this point or being hyperbolic?); since 1. the photo could have been manipulated 2. The photo could have been taken at dawn so no one is out in the streets yet 3. The photographer could have waited for the exact time when no one is in the streets etc. So, indeed, photographs should not be taken as the definitive evidence of anything



If the exposure time was extremely high it is also possible no one appeared in the photos because they weren't standing still long enough.  Typically this will leave some artifacts like ghostly figures, but sometimes it doesn't.

However, long exposure times do not explain the vanilla skies in old photos.  There was a discussion buried somewhere on this site where researchers were able to find a few old photos with clouds intact, but it is the exception and not the rule.

Photographs are a tricky subject in this line of research - because I can see both sides of it.  Photographs of old structures are often the only way we know these buildings existed, since many are gone now.  That said - using photos as the only line of evidence in a post or a YT video to make a claim isn't very strong.  The more you dive into the history of photography the more you realize that photo manipulation has been there from the start ( @Timeshifter can attest to this).  It is a fallacy to assume that photo doctoring has only really been an issue since computers were able to digitally edit photos, however a majority of 19th and 20th century photos were physically edited and doctored in the time they were created, not after the fact. 

On a related note - it is unsurprisingly difficult to research old photography techniques because internet search result are completely inundated with modern photoshop and other software tricks to achieve similar effects.

Matte (filmmaking) - Wikipedia
How Digital Matte Painters Work



> Film matte painting grew directly out of this special effects tradition. In 1905, a man named Norman Dawn was working as a still photographer in Los Angeles. He was disappointed when one of his shots came back partially blocked by a telephone pole. A colleague told Dawn to go take the picture again, but this time to bring along a piece of glass with an image of a tree painted on it. *Hold the piece of glass between the camera and the building and use the fake tree to cover the pole. It was a simple old photographer's trick, but proved a convincing illusion* [source: Cotta Vaz].
> 
> An aspiring filmmaker, Dawn soon developed a system for applying glass matte painting to the exciting new world of motion pictures. The *Dawn Process* or *in-the-camera matte shot* works like this:
> 
> ...



This trick can be used for live action photography (videography) or still photography.  The point being that if a photographer wanted to conceal the sky in the photo, they could even do it inside the camera before the image is developed.  

The million dollar question is "Why matte the skies in old photos?"  There are a few explanations I can speculate on:


For a cleaner, less busy image
It was a popular photography trend at the time (photography is, at the end of the day, a commercial business.  Trends in photography have come and gone as often as cameras have been around)
There are things in the sky they did not want people to see in the images
Regarding that last one - which is potentially the most "conspiratorial" - theories have ranged anywhere from attempting to obscure the ubiquity of airship travel to atmospheric energy tech.  Of course this is the most difficult theory to "prove", and in order to do so one would have to find images with these things intact.  We definitely have photos of airships, though finding "proof" of atmospheric energy harvesting has proved a much more difficult task.  Of course - speculation as to how the atmospheric energy grid operates has been theorized in great detail here on this site (The Lost Key: Part 1) but all we have is the structures themselves, without explicit proof of this tech in action.  However, in my opinion the argument for an old world atmospheric energy grid is much stronger on its own without needing photographic evidence of it in action (though of course it would be useful).  

Of course I do not entirely discredit the idea that these photos were doctored digitally after the fact in certain circumstances - however this is a risky move because those who know what to look for can easily determine digital chicanery (JPEG compression, artifacting, various pieces of software that analyze images).  I also don't discount the idea that the original printing of these photos were destroyed, and the negatives were re-developed with the masking of the skies.  The reason this is difficult to accept is twofold:


Basically every still life photographer who took photos of buildings in the 19th and 20th century were "on the take" to ensure their photos had the sky masked out (assuming it wasn't done due to a particular popular trend)
Alternatively - there was a concerted effort to destroy any remnant of the original photos, get access to all the negatives, and redevelop with the sky masked out.  

There is supplemental evidence to support a more concerted effort to obscure the reality of the world that may have been present in photos - primarily that many older photos often have people or other items in the background physically drawn in.  Again this is a technique that is still employed today digitally, and you can find it on many older photos too.  

All of that to say I agree that it is impossible to make any concrete arguments that solely rely on images to prove, regardless of when the photos are taken.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 1, 2022)

An experienced photographer on this forum said that the exposure difference between normal outdoor daylight subject matter and the sky is four stops.  Film a hundred years ago had limited dynamic range so the sky was automatically whited out by the limitations of the medium. I experienced this with my first digital DSLR camera back in 2009 - there wasn't enough dynamic range to capture everything in the shot.  Depending on how you set the exposure, you could get detail in the highlights but shadows were completely blacked out; or you could get detail in the shadow but the highlights were completely whited out.   

Having said that, I've seen plenty of old photos where you can easily see that erasure has taken place above the line of the buildings. I've also seen a lot of photos from the 1800s, before radio was supposedly invented, in which there are elaborate antennae systems on the roofs of many buildings.

Here are some of the best photos of the atmospheric energy lights in daylight so you can see the relative brightness between the sky and the lights. I've no idea if these were taken during normal daylight or around dusk, I think these are from late 1800s or possibly early 1900s.

I think this is probably dusk.








I think this is San Franciso world's fair site.  My opinion - at dusk.







This is from coolguitargear YT channel. These glowing orbs look like nothing I've ever seen in my life.  A lot of the old photos of cities have these kind of glowing orbs on the apexes of buildings. 








The things on these towers look an awful lot like lightbulbs.  However the devices on the tops of the towers look like an unknown technology. I guess this is at dusk.


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 1, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The things on these towers look an awful lot like lightbulbs. However the devices on the tops of the towers look like an unknown technology. I guess this is at dusk.



I think the standard explanation for this type of tech (which I don't necessarily disagree with per-se) is that these are Mercury Arc/Vapor lamps.

The Mercury Vapor Lamp - How it works & history



> The mercury vapor lamp is a high intensity discharge lamp. It uses an arc through vaporized mercury in a high pressure tube to create very bright light directly from it's own arc. This is different from fluorescents which use the mercury vapor arc to create a weaker light that mainly creates UV light to excite the phosphors. The "Merc" as it is known has been a workhorse for society; lighting streets, factories and large areas for over 100 years.
> 
> *Advantages:*
> - Good efficiency (lamps after 1980s have a high lumen per watt rating)
> ...


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

sekito said:


> Thank you for boosting this post back up
> 
> regardless of whatever the reason for the sky manipulation,
> the “airship theory” is fascinating!
> ...


Negative decay not electricity.
Probably celluloid. Find similar 'stretch marks' on old family photos and negatives.


----------

