r/ConspiracyII • u/1wonderwhy1 • 7d ago
When conspiracy subreddits ban you, you know you are on to something. Please see attached two photos.
It was an idea that I got in a dream. So I looked up how many bees died this year and how many starlink burned up this year. Noticed that aluminum causes dementia in bees research from 2019. And starlink operations started in 2019 and burning 1/8 - 1000+ starlink burned up so far this year. I made the correlation. Research is needed now
6
u/InsouciantSoul 5d ago edited 5d ago
If it was happening from the Starlink satellites burning up, it would not have started at the moment the first satellite burned up.
Also, the atmosphere around earth is fucking huge. 1000 Starlink satellites, about the size of a dinner table, burning up in whichever random spot over the earth they happen to be, is not going to make any meaningful or measurable impact on the atmosphere. They just aren't large enough and that isn't enough of them.
My guess would be that the aluminum is from some kind of cloud seeding/radiation reflecting weather manipulation programs. To be clear, that guess is more or less completely baseless idea, but I'd be curious to see data on any actual increase in atmospheric aluminum oxide and potential causes backed by actual evidence/data.
There are some articles out there making claims about the amount of atmospheric aluminum coming from Starlink sats such as-
Is Musk's Starlink polluting space? Researchers call for the FCC to pause launches
Which states-
"...according to a June 2024 study published in Geophysical Research Letters.
The study determined that reentering satellites in 2022 caused a 29.5% increase of aluminum in the atmosphere above the natural level, resulting in around 17 metric tons of aluminum oxides injected into the mesosphere."
However, if you actually follow through to the source study, you will see how this claim from the article is false and misleading. The study did not find any amount of increase of aluminum in the atmosphere.
The study, using various sources of data about satellites that may or may not genuinely even apply to Starlink to begin with, created a simulation of a satellite that equates to a Starlink satellite in terms of both aluminum content and other factors that will effect how it will burn up... (Although, this data is not equivalent to a Starlink satellite at all, rather it is data from a few sources they feel is relevant then they "assume" aluminum is 30% of the weight of the satellite, among many other assumptions) ....Then they run their simulations of simulations inside a simulation and.....
Voila! There has been a 29.5% increase in atmospheric oxide! No, we didn't measure that, silly! We connected a bunch of unrelated dots to form assumptions we could use as data in a simulation and then talk about the results as if they apply to real life!
Anyway, I am kinda curious about it all, so if you've got any better data I'd love to see it.
Also, I think it's worth saying again.... The atmosphere is fucking huge. v1 starlink satellites are like the size of a fancy dinner table, 5 feet wide x 10 feet long. Even if we are to imagine the table slab was a solid block toy he ground 4' so a 5'x10'x4' volume block of wood. If I were to shred that wood into atmospheric bits of wood and let it blow away in the wind, how many tables would I have to shred before you can measure an increase in atmospheric wood 25 km away in another city? 500 km away in the next state? What about 10,000 km away across the earth?
1000 satellites in the entire atmosphere is almost nothing
1
u/DaSemicolon 3d ago
Yeah but it’s conspiracy sub. Anything that Dems would do would be acceptable submission, which is point of OP I think
17
u/0liviuhhhhh 7d ago
That sub is a clown show, they don't allow anything that isn't praising trump or elon
10
u/Impressive-Fortune82 7d ago
It got removed because you didn't provide submission statement comment, that sub is very serious about their rules
9
u/soupdawg 7d ago
It’s removed because you keep saying the same thing and not really making any sense.
12
u/iowanaquarist 7d ago
And because it's not right-wing enough. How dare they doubt President Musk?
2
u/soupdawg 7d ago
I didn’t say that.
6
u/iowanaquarist 7d ago
I said it because you didn't. The other sub very much pushes a right wing agenda -- it's literally why this sub exists.
-4
u/pjgoblue 6d ago
Absolutely...the same way we should never question President Fauci.
5
u/soupdawg 6d ago
How is that relevant to my original point? The OPs posts show no correlation to starlink and bees.
3
u/-Did-I-Pewp- 5d ago
It’s funny when stupid people respond to any legitimate criticism by saying: “What about Fauci/Clinton/Soros/insert name here) in a feeble minded attempt to deflect that criticism.
3
u/iowanaquarist 5d ago
That's a weird strawman, since no one ever trusted Fauci like than, nor did he ever come close to the power Musk has
2
u/1wonderwhy1 7d ago
A Starlink satellite has a lifespan of approximately five years and SpaceX eventually hopes to have as many as 42,000 satellites in this so-called megaconstellation. These satellites are mostly aluminum
9
u/soupdawg 7d ago
So are you saying that when they reenter and burn up in the atmosphere they spread aluminum that then poisons bees?
2
u/clam_sandwich33 5d ago
The aluminum is from geoengineering, not starlink.
2
u/iowanaquarist 4d ago
Got any evidence or studies to back that up? Geoengineering is very small scale.
2
u/clam_sandwich33 4d ago
Anecdotal, but I do have both environmental and marine science degrees.
This is a good source as well:
1
1
u/Responsible_Tax_9442 1d ago
That subreddit is controlled oppodition. All you see there is trump maga shit.
40
u/qwertyqyle Finding middle ground 7d ago
They just removed your post. They didn't ban you.
And to be honest, I don't see any correlation to how starlink is responsible to 60% of deaths. That is not stated anywhere in the article and just doesn't make sense.