Your Life On The Internet Is About To Change, Big Brother Says So…

Those who grew up with the internet always suspected that things would go awry some day, and now it is about to happen. We need to band together and fight for what is ours, but sometimes even the best end up losing the battle.

This appears to be one of those times…

There’s nothing more to see, no more links to visit.
You’ve done it all.
This is the very last page on the very last server at the very far end of the internet.

You should now turn off your computer and go do something useful with the rest of your life. *


  • Read a book
  • Do some public service
  • Personally interact with your neighbors that you’ve probably only met online
  • Plant a tree
  • Introduce yourself to those other people who live at your house (your family).*

Please don’t forget to turn off the lights on your way out.

In order to save time, we will now start downloading the internet to your local drive.

Comment, and share on Facebook and Twitter at the bottom of the page…



Follow: The Roediger Report

{The America First Network} on Facebook!

Image result for america first


The Lying Liberal Press Has Been Spreading #FakeNews About The Cost Of The MOAB. Surprised?

The giant bomb U.S. forces dropped Thursday on an ISIS training camp in Afghanistan did not cost $314 million to develop, or $16 million per unit as reported by multiple news outlets. Far from it, barely a fraction of that.

The bomb U.S. forced dropped Thursday on an ISIS training camp in Afghanistan cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $170,000 per unit in 2003, but the Pentagon does not have an exact cost, according to an Air Force statement.

The Air Force’s cost estimate for the MOAB — the largest non-nuclear bomb ever detonated in combat — includes parts, labor, and contracted components, according to “an estimate put together at the time” MOAB was produced, Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The first MOAB bomb was made leading up to the Iraq war in 2003, and $170,000 spent that year would be closer to $227,000 today, adjusting for inflation.

Multiple news outlets reported Thursday that each Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), or Mother of All Bombs, bomb cost $16 million, with a total program cost of $314 million. Those figures were likely gleaned from a misreading of an Los Angeles Times article about a different bomb, and a questionable military asset website, The DCNF reported Thursday.

Every news report about cost of the “Mother of All Bombs” relied on a misreading of a 2011 article or a dubious internet website that InfoWars once linked to with a “healthy bit of skepticism.”

The actual cost of the bomb is unknown. The actual cost of the program isn’t publicly available because the Mother of All Bombs, officially known as GBU-43 or the Massive Ordinance Air Blast (MOAB), is manufactured by the military and not a private defense company.

In fact, the Air Force doesn’t even keep track of the per unit cost, nor the cost of the program as a whole, because it is not manufactured privately.

“We don’t have a cost per unit” for the MOAB, Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “These munitions were produced in-house so we don’t have a standard procurement cost associated with them.”

The Air Force mostly used existing technologies and hardware for the first MOAB prototypes and never contracted out the full production of the bomb, so they did not need to itemize and add the cost of each weapon component, Stefanek told TheDCNF.

Many reports Thursday, including USA Today, the Washington ExaminerCNBC and others, claimed the MOAB cost $314 million to develop, citing a 2011 Los Angeles Times report.

The cost estimates in that article, however, only refer to the cost of the Air Force’s biggest bunker busting bomb, the 5,300 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or GBU-57, which is built by private defense contractor Boeing Company. “At a total cost of about $314 million, the military has developed and ordered 20 of the GPS-guided bombs, called Massive Ordnance Penetrators,” the LA Times report says.

(Via AP) A strike by the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat by the U.S. military killed 36 Islamic State group militants and left no civilian casualties, hitting a tunnel complex in the remote mountains of eastern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Friday.

While the two bomb types are related, they serve different functions — the MOP is designed to destroy underground bunkers as deep as 200 feet below the surface, while the MOAP crushes everything on the surface within a wide radius. The MOAB, like its Daisy Cutter predecessor, can only be dropped out of a C-130 built by Lockheed Martin, and the MOP is deployed from the B-2, a Northrop Grumman aircraft.

Many news organizations, including TIME and CNBC, also cited, a site with extensive lists of weapons assets owned by multiple countries, which claims the MOAB costs $16 million per unit, the same amount as the reported cost of the MOP.

Deagel links to no source to verify its information. The site’s IP is registered to an address in Spain, and the most press they’ve received was for a 2015 prediction that the U.S. population would drop by more than 80 percent by 2025 due to an economic and cultural collapse. “The American collapse is set to be far worse than the Soviet Union’s one [sic],” the forecast said.

InfoWars wrote this disclaimer when it wrote up Deagel’s report: “…we publish this report with some hesitation and a healthy bit of skepticism, yet find it compelling enough given the current global environment that it may be of interest to readers.”

The Air Force did award at least one contract in the development of the bomb to Dynetics, a defense contractor headquartered in Huntsville, Ala., for design of the bomb’s guidance system for the relatively low sum of $35,000.

The MOAB replaced the Vietnam-era bomb known as the “Daisy Cutter,” but is far more powerful and boasts greater navigation capabilities than its predecessor.

Like the Daisy Cutter, the MOAB delivers a pressurized blast a few feet off the ground that crushes everything in a wide radius.

“What it does is basically suck out all of the oxygen and lights the air on fire,” Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Air Force Times. “It’s a way to get into areas where conventional bombs can’t reach.”

The Air Force Research Laboratory ordered design concepts for “a 21,000-pound weapon system called the Massive Ordnance Air Blast” in April 2002, according to a 2014 report Dynetics delivered to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Dynetics then partnered with the Air Force to build and test three prototypes of the MOAB on March 11, 2003. Anyone within 20 miles of Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that day would have been able to see a giant mushroom cloud on the horizon at 1 p.m.

Dynetics partnered with the Air Force laboratory to build three prototypes of the MOAB, one of which was tested on March 11, 2003. Anyone within 20 miles of Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that day would have been able to see a giant mushroom cloud on the horizon at 1 p.m. The Air Force conducted a second test later that year.

After the test, the Pentagon ordered the bombs, and Dynetics helped produce “more than 10 weapons and delivered them between April and May,” rapidly turning around the weapon just nine weeks after the first successful test.

The process happened so fast that technicians painted the MOAB John Deere green because that was “the only color available in the amount we needed,”said Robert Hammack, AFRL Munitions Directorate Munitions Fabrication Facility.

“Every technical glitch or roadblock we encountered was worked out,” Robert Hammack, who lead the design team for AFRL, said in an Air Force post about the history of the MOAB. “Our team was filled with engineers and other people with deeply important skill sets necessary to pull this off.”

The fact that the bomb was never used during the Iraq war doesn’t mean they didn’t have an effect, according to the Air Force. “The most amazing thing about MOAB is it’s the most powerful bomb ever built and has done its job — deterring the enemy — simply because they know about it,” Hammack said.

Source: The Daily Caller, et al via Google

Comment, and share on Facebook and Twitter at the bottom of the page…


Follow: The Roediger Report

{The America First Network} on Facebook!

Image result for america first

RUSSIAN HACK? Vibrator Makers Secretly Tracked Users Activities! Do You Own One? {VIDEO}


The Internet of Things That Can Be Hacked grows daily. Lightbulbs, trucks, and fridges all have computers inside them now, and all have been hacked by someone. But at least you don’t put those inside your body.

The makers of the We-Vibe don’t admit any wrongdoing. But they will pay $3.75 million after allegations that the app was collecting user’s “highly sensitive information.”

Two years ago, someone had the good idea to put a bluetooth connection inside a vibrator, and the We-Vibe 4 Plus was born. The vibrator can connect with a smartphone app that its makers say “allows couples to keep their flame ignited – together or apart”: that is, it can be controlled remotely, while, say, making a video call.

Other vibrator manufactures are also using the vulnerable app, but have yet to be targeted by legal actions. If you own any bluetooth connected device, beware!

Smart Sex Toys Are Great Ways for Hackers to Get in Your Pants

At the Def Con hacking conference in Las Vegas, two independent hackers from New Zealand, who go by the handles goldfisk and follower, revealed that the way the vibrator speaks with its controlling app isn’t really secure at all – making it possible to remotely seize control of the vibrator and activate it at will.

In their talk, Hacking the Internet of Vibrating Things, Follower argued that despite titters at the back of the room, the security of a sex toy should be taken seriously. “The company that makes this vibrator, Standard Innovation: They have over 2 million people using their devices, so what’s at stake is 2 million people.”

“A lot of people in the past have said it’s not really a serious issue,” he added, “but if you come back to the fact that we’re talking about people, unwanted activation of a vibrator is potentially sexual assault.”

Potentially worse still, the pair discovered that the app itself was phoning home, letting the manufacturer discover some very intimate information about users.

And, oh boy, did they collect some sexy details, the Register reported — like what time and how intense you like it and the temperature of the device. They even found the vibration modes you prefer: With the We-Vibe 4 Plus, there are 10 modes, but you can also create your own custom vibe. Your personally blended mix of pulse, wave, wave, pulse, tide, bounce, cha-cha-cha could be in the hands of hackers.

The lawyers for the anonymous plaintiffs contended that the app, “incredibly,” collected users’ email addresses, allowing the company “to link the usage information to specific customer accounts.”

Customers’ email addresses and usage data were transmitted to the company’s Canadian servers, the lawsuit alleges. When a We-Vibe was remotely linked to a partner, the connection was described as “secure,” but some information was also routed through We-Connect and collected, the lawsuit says.

The unhappy users allege in their lawsuit that they never agreed to the collection of this data. Standard Innovations maintains that users “consented to the conduct alleged” — but instead of taking the case to court, the company agreed to settle.

An estimated 300,000 people bought the Bluetooth-enabled devices.

Under the terms of the settlement, anyone who bought an app-enabled vibrator can receive up to $199 dollars; anyone who actually connected it to the app can collect up to $10,000. The actual amount paid out will depend on how many people file claims; the company estimates people who bought the app will get around $40, and people who used the app around $500.

The high-end vibrators cost between $119 and $199, if purchased through the We-Vibe website.

Standard Innovation also agreed to stop collecting users’ email addresses and to update its privacy notice to be clearer about how data is collected.

In a statement, Standard Innovation called the settlement “fair and reasonable.”

Getting off while plugged in? You might want to make sure your hardware is protected. 

One Source, et al: Vibrator Maker To Pay Millions Over Claims It Secretly Tracked Use : The Two-Way : NPR

Does the Second Amendment Protect Laser Guns?

Since its inscription, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has proven problematic. Weapons are not what they were in the 18th century and neither are people — at least in the lifestyle sense. Thankfully, we have an entire branch of government dedicated to resolving intractable questions into incomprehensible answers. The court has routinely ruled that the Second Amendment does not grant an absolute right to weapon ownership, but that it does grant Americans the right to — within statutes determined by states — own guns. But what about laser guns?

If that sounds like a flippant question, it isn’t. Last month, engineers from Lockheed Martin shot a hole in a Ford F-150 from a mile away. They were working on hardware to compete in the nascent laser weapons market against other offerings from Northrop Grumman. These weapons are certainly traditional in their point-and-shoot forms, but things are never simple when it comes to what are arguably the 27 most controversial words in American law.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That’s not exactly a well-crafted sentence by modern standards, and so not exactly a perspicuous principle. It’s not clear whether it’s intended to grant members of a militia the right to keep and bear arms, or, instead, to grant all U.S. citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There is no mention of lasers. Let’s see if the justices can clear it up.

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided a case that directly informs our current inquiry. District of Columbia v. Heller sought to settle whether a D.C. “prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home” was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled, with five votes against four, that the prohibition was unconstitutional. The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority’s opinion to explain the decision, and now-retired Justice John Paul Stevens penned the dissent.

The majority opinion broke down the amendment into a prefatory (introductory) clause and an operative clause. The operative clause states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” while the prefatory clause introduces and accounts for that dictum. In short, then, the majority opinion argued that “the people” was intended to mean all U.S. citizens, just as elsewhere in the Constitution “the people” represented all U.S. citizens.

The dissent disagreed, arguing that this so-called prefatory clause limits who “the people” of the operative clause encompasses. In other words, “the people,” insofar as they are connected to the well regulated militia, may “keep and bear arms.”

So far, so simple. Now let’s talk about arms.

Scalia’s written opinion argued that our interpretation of what constitutes “arms” can be no different than what the Founding Fathers intended. “The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today,” Scalia wrote. “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.” No matter that the weapons of today do not resemble the weapons of yore: Scalia argued that we cannot pick and choose which constitutional rights remain applicable in modern times and which do not.

“We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications… and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search… the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

No less, Scalia agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, a 1939 case that ruled sawed-off shotguns — being, as they are, inessential to the maintenance of a well regulated militia — were not protected by the Second Amendment.

“Miller said… that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Sawed-off shotguns were designated as Title II weapons — along with machine guns and crazy explosives — under 1968’s Gun Control Act, which made them strictly regulated. People who wanted to own these highly destructive weapons still could own them, but had to register them with the federal government, pay a tax, and be approved.

Later, he goes on:

“It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

Not looking good for laser guns. Though laser guns are militarily effective, and would be extraordinarily “useful against modern-day bombers and tanks” — cf. Air Force fighter jets equipped with laser guns to burn through targets — they’d definitely fall into the “M-16 rifles and the like” category. They’re most certainly “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and, as such — unlike handguns — could still be prohibited.

In addition, laser guns would likely be classified as Title II weapons after some legal tinkering. The relevant U.S Code definition, 26 U.S.C §5845, states that a shot can be “discharged through the energy of an explosive” within “any other weapon” not subjected to additional restriction. Lasers are not discharged from explosions — not as such.

Title II weapons, even in originalists’ eyes and despite their military applications, can be broadly controlled and outright restricted. The Second Amendment may federally uphold your right to arm yourself, but you still can’t own a sawed-off shotgun and, unless things go south in a hurry, you’ll probably never own a laser gun.

Laser cats, however, will be fine.

Source: Inverse

New Concealed-Carry Gun That Looks Like a Smart Phone

“That’s where Ideal Conceal comes in, smart phones are EVERYWHERE, so your new pistol will easily blend in with today’s environment.  In its locked position it will be virtually undetectable because it hides in plain sight.”

Gun promo

Will we not have cops drawing their weapons when someone pull out a smart phone to “shoot” a video of them? The implications are staggering!

Ideal Conceal CEO Kirk Kjellberg told the us that the lightweight invention aids gun owners hoping to avoid a Second Amendment debate.

“Part of what this allows people to do is carry a weapon without engaging in that conversation,” Kjellberg said. “This way, you don’t have to have a .38 or .44 strapped to your waist, you can carry it in your front pocket.

The smart phone shaped gun can hold two bullets. It cannot be fired while in the closed position.

CEO Kirk Kjellberg tells NBC affiliate he got the idea for the gun at a restaurant, after getting his permit to carry — and quickly realizing he’d like to be more concealed.

“This little kid says, ‘Mommy, Mommy, that man’s got a gun,’ so the whole restaurant looks at you like you’re about to shoot the place up,” Kjellberg said. “So I thought to myself there’s got to be another way to be able to carry without bothering other people.”

The company tells us the gun will cost $395 when it goes on sale later this year. Kjellberg says he’s already received 2,500 emails from people who want to buy one.

Critics of the gun argue that a regular smart phone is already much more useful, and that there are already several apps if one wants a pocket-friendly means of killing.


German Medical Records Reveal Adolf Hitler Had a ‘micro-penis’ {VIDEO}

London: New German medical records, which have been unearthed 93 years after they were originally recorded, claim that Adolf Hitler had a micro-penis.

Historians think that this embarrassing penis deformity of Hitler may be the reason behind his rage and lack of sex life during his 56 years, the Daily Star reported.

Medical records following the Nazi Party leader’s arrest in 1923 suggest that he suffered “right-side cryptorchidism,” the medical name for an undescended testicle and that his genitalia may have been more deformed than first thought.

New records show the fascist leader also had a related condition called Hypospadias, which can leave the sufferer with a “micro-penis.”

Hypospadias sufferers may be forced to urinate out of a small hole at the base, or shaft of the penis, rather than at the tip.

Historians Jonathan Mayo and Emma Craigie said in the new book ‘Hitler’s Last Day: Minute by Minute’ that the Nazi leader, who was well known to have a fear of people seeing him naked and never became a father, kept the dark secret close to him.

They noted that Hitler himself is believed to have had two forms of genital abnormality, an undescended testicle and a rare condition called penile Hypospadius, in which the urethra opens on the underside of the penis.

Personal doctor Theodor Morell, who prescribed Hitler amphetamines, hormones and cocaine on occasion, to hike the leader’s libido, is also said to have recorded the Fuhrer’s penis deformity.

Nazi architect Albert Speer, who was responsible for designing colossal buildings for Hitler, said the leader’s absent sex drive was very noticeable following the war, adding that in the case of Eva Braun in particular, aside from occasional passionate episodes, there was no sexual activity at all for long periods of time.

Rumour has it that during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War, a flying piece of hot shrapnel sliced into Fuhrer’s testicles.

Source: German medical records reveal Adolf Hitler had ‘micropenis’ |

Put Away The Tin Foil, Here’s the REAL Story On The Russian Bombers Off Our West Coast, and It’s Not Good…


Remember those multiple ocurrances of Russian “bombers” that came within 50 miles of out Western Coast, that we took no apparent action against?

How about the earthquake “swarms” that have been taking place in that half of the country, supposed caused by “fracking?”

Quite possibly the end of the world as we know it?

Well, it appears they are connected, and our Government totally lied to us again about what was going on. They were in on the mysterious Soviet “invasion or our airspace” incident.

A grim report prepared by Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force Lieutenant-General Viktor Bondarev on the just completed scientific mission of North America carried out by 4 Tupolev Tu-95 strategic aircraft and 2 Ilyushin Il-78 aerial refueling tankers that “electronically swept” for “magnetic anomalies” from Alaska to California warns that a “catastrophic event” may be nearing for this region.

US officials, it should be noted, characterized this purely scientific mission as a “bombing run” that came within 50 miles of California, but which their Air Forces were able to repel by their launching of F-15 fighter jets.

This report, however, states that this scientific mission was necessitated by a “severe mysterious magnetic anomaly” detected by the Kosmos 2473 satellite on 3 June occurring in the Yellowstone region of the Western United States which resulted in what is called an “earthquake swarm.”

Most important to note about the 3 June Yellowstone “magnetic anomaly”, this report continues, are that satellite measurements show it being precipitated by the mysterious earthquake swarm hitting the Brooks Range mountains in Alaska, and which seismologists are still at a loss to explain.

The information relating to the linking of these two “events”, this report says, was further verified by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) magnetic anomaly maps and data for North America showing a strange magnetic “disturbance/ripple” emanating from Brooks Range and ending at Yellowstone on 3 June, both of these areas, it is important to note, being part of the Rocky Mountains that stretch more than 4,830 km (3,000 miles) from the northernmost part of British Columbia, in western Canada, to New Mexico, in the southwestern United States.

Of grave concern to Russian military authorities relating to these “events”, General Bondarev says in his report, was the “catastrophic effect” they had on the advanced “magnetoceptioninertial navigation systems employed by many US-NATO-Russian warplanes which use these highly sophisticated aircraft flight devices.

Though no Russia military aircraft were near the “disturbed magnetic zone” emanating our from Yellowstone on 3 June, this report says, two US military aircraft were at its “boundaries” in the Southern California region on 4 June while this “event” was still “active” causing them both to crash.

The two US fighter jets crashing on 4 June, this report continues, were identified as a US Navy F-A-183 that went down when the pilot was attempting to land aboard the carrier Carl Vinson, and a US Marine Harrier AV-8B jet that crashed into a residential community in Imperial, about 90 miles east of San Diego, both of them occurring within hours of each other.

This report notes that no civilian aircraft would have been affected by this “magnetic anomaly” as only the most advanced military aircraft employ these “geomagnetic-satellite” coordinated flight systems which enable them to “hug the terrain” not unlike the magnetic systems used by birds and insects to navigate.

Russian concerns relating to “magnetic anomalies”, it is important to note, are related to the rapidly shifting north magnetic pole which since 2005 has been moving at a rate of 40 kilometers (25 miles) a year from Arctic Canada toward Siberia.

Frightening independent research from last year (2013) further warns that this shift is still picking up speed and according to this researcher should reach Siberia in at least within 2 years. [See video HERE(banned in US)]

One of the effects of the rapidly shifting magnetic north pole being noticed the most, this report notes, are the airport runway systems being disrupted because of it, and as we can read one such 2011 example which occurred in the US:

“Tampa International Airport was forced to readjust its runways Thursday to account for the movement of the Earth’s magnetic fields, information that pilots rely upon to navigate planes. Thanks to the fluctuations in the force, the airport has closed its primary runway until Jan. 13 to change taxiway signs to account for the shift, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

The poles are generated by movements within the Earth’s inner and outer cores, though the exact process isn’t exactly understood. They’re also constantly in flux, moving a few degrees every year, but the changes are almost never of such a magnitude that runways require adjusting, said Paul Takemoto, a spokesman for the FAA.”

The most chilling aspects of General Bondarev’s report relating to these “events” are the equations he uses in postulating that what is now occurring in North America with these “mysterious magnetic anomalies” occurring over a large expanse of the Rocky Mountains, and when combined with the rapidly shifting magnetic north pole and growing evidence of global climate change, give “huge credibility” to what is called “The Expanding Earth Theory”.

The expanding Earth or growing Earth hypothesis asserts that the position and relative movement of continents is at least partially due to the volume of Earth increasing and stands in contrast to that of plate tectonics, but which new findings relating to “aether theories” and dark matter, General Bondarev summarizes, means “grave consideration” must be given to the words of University of California, Davis, cosmologist Dr. Andreas Albrecht who warned: “We’ve hit some really profound problems with cosmology Ð with dark matter and dark energy, that tells us we have to rethink fundamental physics and try something new.

Or in simple terms, this report ends, “We may be on the verge of a catastrophic North American “event” that could possibly change the world forever, we should be prepared.”

And besides the fault lines running up and down the West coast, here is the primary concern, the Yellowstone Supervolcano!

Yellowstone National Park is actually an active supervolcano? Yes, it is, and it is HUGE!

As you walk around the park you may think: “I don’t see any volcanos?!” That’s because much of the entire park is a volcano – and the bubbling geysers and hot springs are an indication of the churning activity below the surface.

Yellowstone Supervolcano

The term “supervolcano” implies an eruption of magnitude 8 on the Volcano Explosivity Index, indicating an eruption of more than 1,000 cubic kilometers (250 cubic miles) of magma. Yellowstone has had at least three such eruptions: The three eruptions, 2.1 million years ago, 1.2 million years ago and 640,000 years ago, were about 6,000, 700 and 2,500 times larger than the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State.

Yellowstone Caldera

Map of Yellowstone Calderas

The last time the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted was 640,000+ years ago. The Yellowstone eruption area collapsed upon itself, creating a sunken giant crater or caldera 1,500 square miles in area. The magmatic heat powering that eruption (and two others, dating back 2.1 million years) still powers the park’s famous geysers, hot springs, fumaroles, and mud pots.

Here’s the kicker, recent discoveries have shown us that Yellowstone’s magma reserves are many magnitudes greater than previously thought, say scientists from the University of Utah.

Underneath the national park’s attractions and walking paths is enough hot rock to fill the Grand Canyon nearly 14 times over. Most of it is in a newly discovered magma reservoir, which the scientists featured in a study published on Thursday in the journal Science.

It may help scientists better understand why Yellowstone’s previous eruptions, in prehistoric times, were some of Earth’s largest explosions in the last few million years.

Even if the next explosion is many thousands of years away, Yellowstone’s cavernous heat tanks poke up an occasionally surprise. The last lava flow was some 70,000 years ago, USGS says.

But more recently in 2003, ground temperatures rose high enough to dry out geysers and boil the sap in some trees. A few inches under the surface, thermometers recorded a temperature of 200 degrees Fahrenheit — nearly hot enough to boil water.

So, national park authorities closed Yellowstone to keep people from burning their feet — or basting their tires on melting roads.

Beneath the spectacular beauty of Yellowstone National Park lies a ticking time bomb, a supervolcano that’s overdue for its next eruption. When that day inevitably comes, it will trigger the end of civilization as we know it. See how recent earthquake swarms and other signals of activity have put scientists on high alert for a large-scale super volcanic eruption. Then, witness the worldwide effects of this cataclysmic eruption, which experts predict will produce energy equivalent to the detonation of 1,000 nuclear bombs.

What’s the catch to this story? Here’s where it gets not good!

It appears that the Russians had ulterior motives in using their equipment to help study this and share the information.

The Russian president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems outlined two geophysically weak US regions to attack in order to combat NATO’s aggression toward Russia.

In his article, Konstantin Sivkov justifies the option of “complete destruction of the enemy” because NATO has been “moving to the borders or Russia.”

Sivkov, listed as a “Docter of Military Sciences,” described scenarios that involved dropping a nuclear weapon near Yellowstone’s supervolcano or the San Andreas Fault.


Source: Russia Issues Grim Report On North American Magnetic Anomaly |

Source: Yellowstone Volcano & Supervolcano

Source: Yellowstone Supervolcano | Smithsonian Channel

Source: Magma expanse under Yellowstone supervolcano more vast –

The Russian president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems outlined two geophysically weak US regions to attack in order to combat NATO’s aggression toward Russia.

In his article, Konstantin Sivkov justifies the option of “complete destruction of the enemy” because NATO has been “moving to the borders or Russia.”

Sivkov, listed as a “Docter of Military Sciences,” described scenarios that involved dropping a nuclear weapon near Yellowstone’s supervolcano or the San Andreas Fault.

Catalyze the eruption of Yellowstone’s supervolcano


In the past 2.1 million years, Yellowstone’s volcano has violently erupted three times and “blanketed parts of the North American continent with ash and debris,” according to the US Geological Survey.

Some scientists argue that Yellowstone’s active supervolcano is long overdue for a colossal eruption.

“Geologists believe that the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode at any moment. There are signs of growing activity there. Therefore it suffices to push the relatively small, for example the impact of the munition megaton class to initiate an eruption. The consequences will be catastrophic for the United States, a country just disappears,” he said, according to atranslation by Sydney Morning Herald.

Triggering the Yellowstone Caldera, which hasn't erupted in 640,000 years, would spread ash across the country. Above, a map from the United States Geological Survey predicts the amount of ash from the blast

According to a Discovery Channel Documentary, an eruption of this magnitude would bury North America, drape the atmosphere in a sulfur haze, dim sunlight, and plunge the world into a volcanic winter.

Trigger a mega tsunami to ruin America’s infrastructure

mega tsunami

Another option would be to drop a nuclear bomb near California’s San Andreas Fault. “A detonation of a nuclear weapon there can trigger catastrophic events like a coast-scale tsunami which can completely destroy the infrastructure of the United States,” he said, according to the Sydney Morning Herald’s translation.

Putin Once Casually Said He Could Destroy America In A Half-Hour

Putin hosted a lavish banquet at New Century, Moscow’s richest equestrian club, for members of the Valdai Club and distinguished academics and journalists from around the world.

Putin addressed his guests on topics ranging from the “Russian government’s loss of public trust to his own indispensable leadership.”

He later directed his focus on the US and addressed the Americans in attendance, “You ask me whether we are going to change,” he said. “The ball is in your court. Will you change?”

He went on to express his disapproval of US plans to build a missile-defense system that he believed would pose a deliberate threat to Russia’s national security.

Putin then added that the only reason the US had any interest in relations with Moscow was that Russia was the only country that could “destroy America in half an hour or less.”

Schoen and Kaylan conclude, “It would be a difficult to find a statement more revealing about Putin’s true position regarding the United States.”

The Largest Nuclear Bomb Ever: 

Russian Tsar Bomba

Nuclear Weapons: A Time-Lapse History in 4 Minutes…

Striving for Armageddon–The Increasing Danger of a Possible Nuclear World Extinction

“The fact of the matter is that it is completely impossible to fight and win a nuclear war because the effects of nuclear weapons are so large and so indiscriminate that the only possible outcome of any strategy would be indistinguishable from attacks aimed at killing as many people as possible. It doesn’t matter what your strategy is, if you use these things that’s the outcome.”

Professor Ted Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy at MIT. [From the MIT Science, Technology and Global Security Working Group page: Prior to coming to MIT in 1989, he worked as an analyst at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and as a science and policy advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations. He has received the American Physical Society’s Leo Szilard Award in 1990 for “incisive technical analysis of national security issues that have been vital for informing the public policy debate” and the Hilliard Roderick Prize in Science, Arms Control, and International Security from the American Association for the Advancement of Science for “outstanding contributions that advance our understanding of issues related to arms control and international security.” In 2001 he received the Norbert Wiener Prize from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility for uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses and in 2005 was awarded the Whistleblower Award by the Federation of German Scientists and the German Section of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms. His current research includes work on ballistic missile defense technologies, fraud in the U.S. missile defense program, and reducing nuclear dangers in South Asia as well as those due to the deteriorating Russian nuclear infrastructure.

Introducing  Professor Ted Postol:

Slide show included in text below.

The question I am raising today is whether or not the danger of an accidental nuclear war between The United States and Russia is higher today than it was at most times during the Cold War. The answer to this question is unknowable using quantitative means, but I believe the information we have points strongly to the conclusion that the danger of nuclear war is now considerably higher than it was during most of the time we now call the Cold War.

The reasons for this are both immediate and historic. If we are to be able to reduce the chances of an event that could well result in the complete destruction of the world we know, we need to confront and understand why we are now in our current predicament so we can begin to find ways to back away from this brink.

Although I will focus here on the technical aspects of this dangerous situation, the circumstances that have led to it have both political and technical dimensions.

On the political side, the relationship between Russia and the United States is spiraling downward creating tensions that are higher than at most times during the Cold War. A large part of this downward spiral is due to the unwise Russian reaction to what has certainly been a much more unwise 25 year long period of hostile US actions towards Russia.

Basically, the United States has treated Russia like a defeated and reviled foe during this 25 year period—and I have many personal experiences I could share with the audience on this. Although the analogy is far from perfect, it is as if the mistakes that are widely ascribed to the Treaty of Versailles after the end of the First World War have been repeated as if there is no memory of the consequences.

In addition, US and Western diplomacy has treated legitimate Russian concerns about security in the area they call the “near Russia” region (or “near Russia” zone) as if none of Russian concerns have any merit.

If you disagree with this assessment—and I know a lot of people who do, partly because of the circles I move in—consider how the United States would react if Russia mounted a major effort to influence the domestic politics of Panama, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Mexico by forming military alliances that were accompanied by commitments to sell arms and to provide military support to the governments of these countries.

There are experts who have a far better knowledge of the political ins and outs of Russia’s relationship with the West than I do, and since I am a technical expert I want to focus on the technical problems that clearly and unambiguously greatly increase the chances of an accidental war that could lead to the US and Russian central strategic nuclear forces becoming engaged. So this is where I will focus my basic remarks.

First of all, I need to make it clear to everyone in this audience that the Russians have an extremely fragile early warning system. Unlike the United States, they have been unable to build a working space-based early warning system. They simply do not have one.

The lack of a capable Russian early warning system is one of the greatest dangers to the United States. You don’t have to be worried about Russia—you ought to worry about the United States. Yet the US government—and I have had many, fruitless attempts to try to get this matter addressed—has done nothing at all to think about the ways to address this problem. In fact the US government has mostly spent its effort, at least during the Clinton Administration—now they don’t even think about it—making believe that they were doing something about it, when in fact they weren’t. And I have lots of proof of that.

The ability to see the launch of ballistic missiles from space makes it possible to have the longest warning time of ballistic missile attack that is possible. It is a general misconception that the extra warning time, provided by these space-based early warning systems, is the most important contribution to US security that these systems provide. This is actually not the case.

The most important contribution of space-based early warning systems is general information about the launch of ballistic missiles on the global scale.

The only country in the world that has some capability to destroy parts of US nuclear strike systems is Russia. Any attack from Russia aimed at destroying, or trying to destroy, US counter strike capability would have to be executed as a massive coordinated strike. Our current space-based infrared systems would make it possible,within less than a minute, to know whether or not such a strike is underway. So basically it’s situational awareness.

Since the Russians have no space-based early warning system, they can only observe events with radars. And the Russians have worked very hard on their radar early warning system.

Radars are limited to line-of-sight.

Since the Earth is round, line-of-sight limits severely constrain what these radars can see. That is, the line-of-sight limitation does not allow the radars to see events that occur below the earth horizon. This was exactly the limitation that led to a false alert of the Russian early warning system in 1995. [See “False alarm, nuclear danger – The radar and satellite networks meant to warn Russia of the imminence of a missile attack are breaking down, heightening the risk of accidental nuclear war,” by Geoffrey Forden, Pavel Podvig and Theodore A. Postol, IEEE Spectrum, March 2000, V37, Number 3.]

The character of that false alert made it appear that the United States might have been making a nuclear precursor attack against Russia. At the time of this potential precursor attack, there was no tension between Russia and the United States. However, because the Russians could not see over the horizon, they had to guess that what they were observing was not what it appeared to be.

If such an event occurred today, especially if there were an intensified crisis over the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia, or whatever, the assessment of Russian military and political leaders that no attack was underway would be much more difficult to settle on.

Making matters worse, the United States Nuclear Forces Modernization Program has been doing everything possible to increase the killing power of US nuclear warheads against Russian land-based ballistic missiles and command centers. [See: “U.S. Nuclear Modernization Programs,” Arms Control Association, January 2014; and “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues,” March 18, 2015, archived at Congressional Research Service Reports on Nuclear Weapons, Federation of American Scientists]

One can be sure that the Russian military is closely following this US technical effort. In fact I have had direct communications with a former chief of the general staff of the Russian strategic rocket forces, directly confirming that there is an active area of research and monitoring by Russian military analysts. This, of course, is absolutely of no surprise.

The products of these analyses are certainly sent up to the highest levels of Russian government. In particular, Russia now has a leader who has a very substantial background in security matters. Whether or not one dislikes or admires Mr. Putin, it is undeniable that he has an extensive interest and concerns in Russia’s security posture.

As such, it would be the height of folly to think that he is not fully apprised of thevulnerabilities in Russia’s early warning system.

This should not make us feel comfortable.

So we now have a situation where the political relationship has spiraled downward, the US relentless preoccupation with building nuclear war fighting machines is well analyzed and understood by the Russian political leadership, and the Russian early warning system is wholly inadequate for providing the kind of reliable and unambiguous data that could assure Russian political leadership that they are not under attack in certain ambiguous situations.

Hence, I conclude that the chances of an accident that could lead to the launch of Russian nuclear forces is now at least as likely as it was during the Cold War, and in my view, it is probably higher than it was during most, although not all, of the time we call the Cold War.

I would like to finish this discussion by changing direction a bit, and show you how US and Russian nuclear war planners see the world relative to the actual realities. This is of vital importance that I think all of you should understand.

The US is striving for greater accuracy in delivering nuclear warheads. The question a reasonable person might ask is, Why? These weapons are so destructive.

The first problem is that nuclear war fighters treat nuclear weapons as if they are instruments of conventional warfare that can be used in scaled up versions of conventional wars.

This conventionalization of nuclear war planning is a product of the Cold War and is still being pursued by the technical efforts within the United States, and with less success, but with energy, within Russia as well. It is derived from a profoundly false belief that a nuclear war would have military objectives no different from that of a conventional war.

In conventional warfare each adversary tries to take advantage of confusion and chaos to isolate and destroy an enemy’s forces piece by piece. By concentrating superior forces against weaker enemy forces, one can destroy the enemy forces so quickly that they cannot do nearly as much damage in return. So you really want to isolate the force and just chomp them up.

In order to achieve this goal when fighting an adversary who is roughly the same size and capability, military planners try to find ways to concentrate their forces so that they can locally have numerical and firepower superiority. In order to do this, it is critical to be able to disrupt or destroy an enemy’s command structure, communications, and mobility. This is generally achieved by attacking command and control nodes, bridges, railheads, and the like.

If this goal is achieved, it is then possible for a skillfully commanded military force to take advantage of the chaos and disorder so as to crush an equally capable enemy force by destroying it piece by piece.

Could I please have the first slide, please?

Warfighting Attack Plan - Targets and Lethal Ranges Against ``Urban-Industrial,'' ``Command,'' and ``Leadership'' Targets

Let me show you what a Russian nuclear war-fighting plan might look like, which is simply a mirror of US nuclear war plans. This is a notional plan. This is by no means real. Although it could be certainly real and worse.

This slide shows how a nuclear war fighter might think about a target area like New York City. The war fighter would first identify targets that are important for paralyzing the enemy’s ability to fight. These targets would include bridges, communication centers, railheads, political and military leadership and command centers.

What the planner would do is to identify these targets they want to destroy. Bear in mind they’re thinking of these weapons like they are conventional instruments of conventional war. Particular targets can be very hard to blast if you’re talking about destroying them physically in terms of just breaking them up into pieces. You may not need to do that but that’s what the planners think in terms of.

So for example if you had some port facilities here you might put a nuclear weapon on this port facility because docks, dock facilities require tremendous amounts of over-pressure—blast pressure—to destroy them.

You might have a Command Center under the World Trade Center; you see that little circle there shows the lethal range from the point of view of the war planner because this shelter is underneath the Trade Center and you need to bring tremendous amounts of blast to collapse the internal structure. I’m not saying this is realistic, I’m just telling you…

Then you have all these bridges—the bridges of course are points where mobility would allow your enemy to move forces in some kind of fictitious conventional war. You might have a railhead, for example, at Grand Central Station. You might have a political leadership target at Gracie Manor. And so on.

So you could have a whole bunch of targets that you could well find you need to service (in the words of the way the nuclear planners think) relative to the situation we actually face.

Within the mythology of nuclear war fighting, the elimination of these targets would reduce the enemy’s ability to move equipment, communicate, coordinate, so you can basically eliminate their ability to fight back.

The net result is that many additional warheads need to be targeted for redundancy since some of the number of warheads can be expected to fail during flight. All in all it is easy to see how a large number of warheads could be needed. Basically you need to destroy these targets, they’re very hard. And also you need to assure that they’re destroyed which means you have to have redundancy.

This is why targets need to be specifically identified and often attacked with individual nuclear weapons. In the case of targets that are very hard, individual weapons need to be targeted on each installation of concern.

To give you a concrete example that is anchored in history, Hiroshima was destroyed by a single nuclear weapon that had a yield of roughly 12.5 kilotons. In 1960, George Kistiakowsky (who was then a science advisor to President Eisenhower) went out to Strategic Air Command and looked at what they were doing. One of the things he did was he asked for information about how the US was targeting a Russian city that was about the size as Hiroshima, just to get an example.

At that time the nuclear war plans called for a single 4.5 megaton bomb followed by three 1.1 megaton bombs for the attack on this Hiroshima-size city.

To put this in perspective, they committed 7,500 kilotons to an attack on a city that had been destroyed only 15 years earlier by a single 12.5 kiloton weapon (600 times more ordnance). That’s where the idea of overkill begins to make sense.

Now part of the rationale for all the extra ordnance, was to gain assuredness that the target would be hit by at least several of these nuclear weapons.

Another part of the rationale was to assure that each of the individual targets of interest within the city were adequately damaged. Having a high damage level is an extremely important part of nuclear war planning psychology. This leads to these very large numbers. The next slide is aimed at showing the actual physical scale of events.

How Small Are the Miss Distances Achieved by the Trident II Ballistic Missile? How Do These Miss Distances Compare with the Lethal Distances Achieved by Modern Nuclear Weapons?

In order to get a sense of the reality of the situation, I have put together a diagram—you’ll see this (probably Steven will show the same one)—I chose an 800 kilton warhead because Steven Starr, wisely, chose a warhead that is standard in the Russian arsenal. [See: “What would happen if an 800-kiloton nuclear warhead detonated above midtown Manhattan?” by Steven Starr, Lynn Eden, Theodore A. Postol, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, February 25, 2015] And basically the scale is about a mile. Steven will be giving a talk on nuclear weapons effects later, so all I want to illustrate here is scale.

Notice here—these lines show you the accuracy—the upper line shows you the accuracy that’s currently achievable with US Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs)—it’s a circle of diameter about 600 feet. They are working very hard to get down to a circle of about 400 feet with the nuclear modernization program.

Approximately One Second After the Detonation of an 800 kt Nuclear Weapon

The next slide shows the fireball from a nuclear explosion. The fireball from an 800 kiloton warhead is simply a bubble of superheated air created by the energy initially deposited into the surrounding air by a nuclear explosion. In this case the fireball is shown at about one second during its evolution. It is roughly 1 mile in diameter and it is radiating light and heat at a rate roughly 3 times that of the equivalent surface area of the sun.

To give you a sense of the actual physical effects, this shows you the fireball from a nuclear explosion of 800 kilotons over this area. Down here I’ve just shown a white, semi-transparent cloud to emphasize that the light and heat coming out of this fireball is tremendously large. It’s about 2.5 to 3 times the light and heat coming out of the equivalent surface of the Sun. Of course the Sun heats the Earth from 90 million miles pretty effectively and of course this detonation is very close.

What happens is, the amount of light and heat from the fireball is so intense that stone surfaces literally will shatter from the heating rate. It will thermally disintegrate—not necessarily burn, but thermally disintegrate. Metal and roads will melt or evaporate and essentially set anything combustible on fire within a few miles of the detonation point. Of course you would not be able to see through this haze in this depiction. It is just there to highlight the surfaces on Earth underneath the blast.

It will be intense enough that at five or six or more miles from the detonation point, it will set so many fires that a firestorm in all areas will follow.

Approximately 30 to 40 Seconds After the Detonation of an 800 kt Nuclear Weapon

Here is a depiction of what happens 30 or 40 seconds after the fireball shown previously. The fireball hasn’t begun to rise yet—it will buoyantly rise to a tremendous height. What happens is the fireball initially acts like a fast moving piston—it is simply super-heated air from the deposition of energy from the exploding nuclear weapon. It acts like a fast moving piston on the surrounding air, causing a shockwave.

Approximately 2 Minutes After the Detonation of an 800 kt Nuclear Weapon

[In this next slide] The shockwave reaches the ground and then is reflected from the ground. So you have a reflected and primary shock. You have a pressure wave of enormous intensity and physical length, physical width, and you have very high winds that knock down structures and lift large amounts of target debris into the air. You can see this debris carried into the air in the form of the pedestal and the debris cloud.

Two Minutes After the Detonation of an 800 kt Nuclear Weapon

[next slide] Eventually, a counter-intuitive process happens. Eventually the fireball will rise buoyantly to an altitude of maybe five miles before it stabilizes. During the process of rising it creates gigantic after winds on the ground of roughly 200 to 300 miles per hour, internal, just from the sucking action of this rising fireball that move inward rather than outward.

So these are the effects associated with a single nuclear weapon – which raises the question why do you need all this accuracy?

Let me bring you back to the first slide.

Warfighting Attack Plan - Targets and Lethal Ranges Against ``Urban-Industrial,'' ``Command,'' and ``Leadership'' Targets

It shows the objectives of the US nuclear force modernization program. The force modernization program is almost solely aimed at making it more feasible for the war fighters to execute their imagined attack plan against New York City.

Effects of One of the Warheads - Blast Ranges Shown for 800 kt Warheads - Area Destroyed by Fire and Blast by One of the Attacking Warheads

Blast Range Shown for One 800 kt Warhead
Area Destroyed by Fire and Blast by One of the Attacking Warheads

If this has the appearance of being completely insane and disconnected from any plausible reality, I have achieved my goal here today.

The fact of the matter is that it is completely impossible to fight and win a nuclear war because the effects of nuclear weapons are so large and so indiscriminate that the only possible outcome of any strategy would be indistinguishable from attacks aimed at killing as many people as possible. It doesn’t matter what your strategy is, if you use these things that’s the outcome.

Yet US nuclear war planning treats this totally fraudulent theory of war fighting as if it is the goal of US forces.

So this brings us back to the question of deterrence. And I’ll end here.

If the only realistic hope of deterring potential adversaries is by threatening them with the physical and socially mortal consequences of reprisal, then although this option may be extremely uncomfortable for many of us, it is all that we have. That’s what it boils down to.

Striving to be able to do more only creates the appearance that you think you can fight and win a war against a potential adversary – in this case we’re talking about Russia.

The net result is that the Russians have no choice but to wonder what the United States might do in a crisis. The Russians have a substantial fraction of vulnerable nuclear forces, and they do not have the early warning capability to assure themselves that these forces are not being attacked.

This is not a situation that should make anybody in this room comfortable.

It increases the chances that a horror beyond existential experience could result from simple human error.

The idea that by continuing to raise the level of threat against Russia via the kinds of improvements that are now being implemented in the US nuclear force modernization program might well be counted as possibly the most dangerous insanity in human history.

Sources: Theodore Postol: Striving for Armageddon, et al.

NASA Investigated Kansas Skies at Night to Study Strange Phenomenon 

NASA joined a multi-agency field campaign studying summer storm systems in the U.S. Great Plains to find out why they often form after the sun goes down instead of during the heat of the day.

The Plains Elevated Convection at Night, or PECAN, project took place from June 1 and continued through July 15. Participants from eight research laboratories and 14 universities collected storm data to find out how and why they form.

“We’re hoping to collect measurements that will be used to characterize the atmosphere ahead of these storms,” said Richard Ferrare, senior research scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Division at NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. “If we can map the water vapor that goes into these storms, we’ll be able to improve computer models that represent these conditions and better predict the storms.”

“We’re hoping to collect measurements that will be used to characterize the atmosphere ahead of these storms,” said Richard Ferrare, senior research scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Division at NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. “If we can map the water vapor that goes into these storms, we’ll be able to improve computer models that represent these conditions and better predict the storms.”

The NASA DC-8 and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) P-3 Orion research aircraft supporting the PECAN mission was temporarily based at the Salina Regional Airport.

Unlike other parts of the United States, summer thunderstorms across the Great Plains are most common after sunset. Much of the rain comes from medium-size weather systems and resulting thunderstorms known as mesoscale convective systems. These nighttime storms can produce heavy rainfall that contributes a significant portion of the yearly precipitation in the region.

Scientists understand that thunderstorms that form during the day result from a vertical “convective” circulation driven by rising warm air from the heated Earth’s surface and falling air cooled at higher altitudes in the atmosphere. Less well understood are the mechanisms that cause thunderstorms after the sun has gone down and the land surface has cooled.

The DC-8 carries atmospheric science instruments and investigators from Langley; NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; and several universities and research labs. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, provided a ground-based Doppler radar system.

PECAN is funded by the National Science Foundation with additional support from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and the Department of Energy.

In addition to the NASA and NOAA aircraft, researchers will receive data from a University of Wyoming King Air plane, ground-based instruments, weather balloons and mobile radars. Storm information will continue to be gathered from multiple agency ground and air instruments across northern Oklahoma, central Kansas, and south-central Nebraska through July.

The DC-8 is based at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Facility in Palmdale, California, and supports NASA’s Airborne Science Program under the Science Mission Directorate. The extended range, prolonged flight-duration capability, large payload capacity, and laboratory environment of the DC-8 make it one of the premier aircraft available for NASA Earth science investigations.

Check out the pilot’s only visual references during one of these flights:

NASA researchers collect and study data from space, air, land and sea to tackle challenges facing the world today, including improved environmental prediction and natural hazard and climate change preparedness. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth’s interconnected natural systems with long-term data records. The agency freely shares this unique knowledge and works with institutions around the world to gain new insights into how our planet is changing.

Results should be analyzed and released by early 2016.

Steve Cole
Headquarters, Washington

Chris Rink
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.

Source: NASA Jet Propulsion Labratory