|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
 Wed Jul 17, 2002 7:00 am
|
 |
|
"Instead, they spend the majority of their time 5-6 miles away on the ground gaping through the tiny lenses of a cheap set of binoculars and video cameras"
And you would explain the very low flying planes spewing trails how? This is what we get here in N. Calif a good portion of the time, not 5 or 6 miles up. |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:08 am
|
|
|
I didn't ask for some lame accusation regarding the origin of that photo, Pacer.
What I did ask was whether you underwent sleep deprivation during your initiation into the United States Air Force.
The person who posted that photo has given me little reason to doubt their integrity.
You, on the other hand are quite another story and I am quickly growing tired of your unsubstantiated accusations and insinuations. Rense is a liar (because you say so). Alcon is a liar and a thief (because he's savvy enough not to waste his time in a dialogue with someone whose only claim to fame thus far is being the most inept and deceptive 'debunker' to yet appear on the scene).
I've watched 'people like Pacer' come and go for the last three years. You'll wind up going off the deep end like Reynolds or erasing all of your posts in a childish act of defacement like Kunz or spending your time ranting and raving like some deranged five-year old like Maverick.
There is absolutely no evidence that Alcon or Jeff Rense has engaged in any type of intnetional deception, Pacer.
Spare me your insincere apologies for 'poor research' in the future, please. You have been given ample opportunity to clean up your act and all I'm seeing out of you is more vicious, unsubtaniated mental sewage.
Your deceptions have been documented, Pacer. Now they will be disseminated.
Buy the ticket, take the ride...
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 07-17-2002] |
| |
|
|
PHANTOM911
Joined: 31 Oct 2001
Posts: 341
|
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 3:41 pm
|
|
|
Yo Pacer, WAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUPPPP?
Just reading through this all too interesting thread whence I came upon your reference to PHANTOM911's video.
QUOTE:
"I reviewed Phantom911's video, and lo and behold it looked just like any regular contrail I've seen coming from a Continental 757 or some other aircraft."
Just curious as to which of the four videos on my site you were referencing. Was it the "First Video", the "How low can they go?" video or the "Why people ask questions" video?
I'm even more curious as to your critique of these videos, if you care to respond, concerning possible altitudes of the aircraft filmed. Please go to the existing threads at this site to read all I've had to say concerning the videos if you care to know what I thought as the one taking these videos.
Also note that I do not have any idea what might be being emitted from these aircraft. However, I do not believe the trails I've filmed to be normal contrails as I've filmed those too, on the same days and even times as the persistent ever-expanding ones. What they are I don't know. What I and many others do want to know is exactly that. Not such a big thing to ask really is it?
 PEACE |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:27 pm
|
|
|
David:
aircraft flying at cruise altitudes are 5-6 miles away from you directly overhead. I've always spent my life with an eye turned towards the sky....as a kid I wanted to fly, and as an adult I do fly. But I have yet to see anything that I would qualify as "low flying" emitting a contrail of any kind. Point me to a photo, one with something in it for scale, of a "low flying" chemtrail-emitting aircraft and perhaps I'll believe your claim. Until then, all I can go on is my experience. And all the "low flying" photos I've seen to date are actually showing aircraft at typical cruising altitudes of 25-40,000 feet.
Alpha-Theta:
There were a number of future technologies that were discussed in that bill, none of which have been shown to exist. There has been legislation to ban human cloning in the US....doesn't mean that it has already happened.
Chem11:
You post so predictably. No REAL info to debate about, just ranting and raving about what kind of waste you feel I am. You can tell me that you feel I'm a pile of feces a mile high....I don't particularly care. I've addressed the inaccuracies and mistakes I've made in the past, and if you feel that's all you've got to go on, fine. But when I posted my photos of persistant contrails on the net, I posted who I am, and what I do. It's called a qualifying statement. Like someone on the Carnicom board said...anyone find a photo and post it on the internet. ALCON may very well be a pilot....I didn't say he wasn't. But the very fact that he refused to engage in dialogue with people that I know to be real pilots has me wondering.
As far as Rense lying, he may not be the original liar, but by posting that info on his webpage, without any other frame of reference (i.e. something saying that this may or may not be true, etc), he's essentially perpetuating the lie.
Look Chem, obviously I disagree with you on the main point: I feel chemtrails do not exist, at least not in the capacity touted by the chemtrail believers. And for that you view me as some kind of arch-enemy, to be resisted at all times.
It doesn't matter if my information is even painfully, and obviously correct. You'll still attempt to discredit that information by discrediting me. One minute I'm a Neanderthal who can't write. The next, you're saying I'm a know-it-all who spends too much time writing about useless facts. The next minute you throw past mistakes in my face. All your energies are directed at slinging mud, but you don't spend a whole lot of time discussing chemtrails. You're like the attack dog. You don't bother yourself with the details, but you'll tear away at my heels just because I'm "the enemy".
Phantom911:
I viewed the one where someone says "Sum Bitch" in it. I watched it, and I'd estimate the altitude as fairly high, probably above 25,000 feet. As for the trails "turning on and off", that's pretty common. I see it all the time with the various airliners and biz jet traffic flying over and under me. There are a number of reasons why the contrails would do that, and it's really situationally dependent. If the pilot reduces engine power to slow or descend, it may then reduce the amount of exhaust low enough to where the moisture can't condense. Likewise, if the micro-climatic conditions in that specific area are sitting right on the dewpoint necessary for condensation, the airplane might fly temporarily into a section of the air mass where it is slightly below that required to form a contrail.
Speaking of which, I just watched an interesting documentary on B-17 bombing runs on Discovery Wings. It showed the bombers creating contrails, and many of the bombers had that same start-stop-start contrail thing going on. The show obviously didn't get into the specifics of contrail formation, but it did mention that the bomber crews hated their contrails because it led the enemy fighters and AAA guns to their aircraft. Otherwise, it would be hard for the naked eye to pick out the aircraft without the contrails pointing to them. |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:29 pm
|
|
|
The fact that the word "chemtrail" appeared in a proposed bill to ban certain types of future weapons technologies doesn't go very far to show that the Air Force is in some way complicit in some kind of spray operation.
I use the human cloning proposal as a case in point. Just because they are going to ban such technology doesn't mean that there's an underground conspiracy producing people like Ford Model Ts. |
| |
|
|
Ellyn
Joined: 16 Jul 2000
Posts: 4406
|
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 12:30 am
|
|
|
I have been a close observer of what is in sky all of my life. As a child I loved to watch the contrails behind the aircraft. They always disappeared. I remember thinking: I wish they would last a little longer because they were fun to watch.
At the beginning of 2000 in Eastern Washington, I began observing what I call chemtrails--a very different phenomena from that which I had ever observed prior to that time.
Since 2000 I have observed a very great amount of spraying in the Inland Northwest and many chemtrail-created "clouds." Often during this time I have observed aircraft flying around spewing horizon to horizon trails, while at the same time I have observed other aircraft flying in the same area with only their traditional short traditional dissipating contrails behind them.
I have observed aircraft with only a short contrail showing for sometime begin to spew out the long horizon to horizon trails. I have also watched the long horizon to horizon trails which an aircraft was spewing out suddenly end while the aircraft continued on its way showing just the normal, short, comet-like contrail behind it.
I have observed aircraft spew out chemtrails, then stop for awhile, then begin to spew out more chemtrails, so the pattern looks like this: trail space trail space, etc.
Here is an article which might interest some.
http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm
CHEMTRAIL CRIMES & COVER-UP DOCUMENTED
copyright 1999,2000,2001, 2002
by Clifford E Carnicom
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Ellyn on 07-17-2002] |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 2:46 am
|
|
|
Alpha, do you honestly believe that there is such a thing as "tectonic" weapons? Hell, I'm a geologist by education and the best geologists out there haven't figured out the details of tectonics, but now because the term "tectonic" weapons is in the bill, this infers that perhaps some wild-haired scientist in a government black room has got it all figured out now?
And a ban on "strategic, theater, tactical" weapons? Well, that about outlaws every weapon known to man, because in some form or another, they all fall into those categories. Please, that bill is a joke...typical political banter. I wouldn't be suprised at all to find out that a chemtrail believer was able to get someone to sneak it in under the table.
Ellyn:
Contrails that are irregular are not abnormal. I have watched them all my life too, and have been seeing them close up, and it's just the way it is...they sometimes do that. |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 2:55 am
|
|
|
quote:
It doesn't matter if my information is even painfully, and obviously correct. You'll still attempt to discredit that information by discrediting me.
Sorry Pacer, but that simply isn't the case... the information you have posted is painfully incorrect. I am not privvy to your personal life so I have no way of (and no interest in) discreditig you or slinging mud. Ultimately, The only person who can discredit Pacer is Pacer.
You didn't see me starting threads entitled "Pacer Lies" did you? On the other hand, I have no problem calling you on your own deceptions when you attempt to go after an influential person who is making a good-faith effort at raising environmental awareness.
We are sick of seeing our atmosphere being despoiled by the forces of destruction. We are tired of watching decent people's names dragged through the mud because they have the 'audacity' to actually give a damn about something other than developing more ingenious and cost-effective ways to kill other human beings.
I have no 'enemy', Pacer... I know that such a non-homicidal philosphy may be alien to your training and the resulting mindset that you have chosen to adopt.
I do, however, reserve the right to defend myself and to defend those I belief to be persons on of honor and sound-character.
But you won't see me on the other side of the planet bombing a wedding party into a pile of human debris because I have bought into some self-serving idealogy that these men, women and children are 'the enemy'.
War is the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy. Ineptitude is the the enemy. Hypocrisy is the enemy.
Some guy whos fly helicopters and thinks he knows it all (and makes a hobby of proving otherwise to all and sundry) hardly qualifies as 'the enemy', I'm afraid.
And to further illustrate my sincerity, I'm going to give you a little advice, Pacer...
I envy you, Pacer. I envy your naivete. I envy your ability to trust the unknown. And truth be told, my continued inolvement in this issue has given me a 'mental agressivness' (you would make the analogy of my being 'an attack dog') that I could easily learn to live without.
Consider this, though; I do what I do because I am 110% convinced that the citizens of this country have been subjected to covert aerial spraying. In fact, this point has proven time and time again. I am equally convinced that this program (whatever it's true size actually is) has resulted in adverse health effects for those involved. And I am absolutley certain that the citizens of a deomcracy should (at the least) be informed as to what they are being exposed to.
Call me crazy.
But what, do tell, do the people that engage in at least equally 'mentally agressive' behavior that do not believe in the reality of the situation possibly have to gain?
Sound and fury.. signifying nothing.
Here's my advice; go read some of Maverick's latest offerings on his forum. He didn't used to 'write' like that. His personality has undergone the same change that John Reynolds and Chickie Deb's has.. bitterness for the sake of bitterness.
If that is where you want to wind up, then you are on the right path. If not, then perhaps you should take alook down the road and see where those who have gone before have eventually arrived.
If you do not believe there is a problem here, then get on with your life. Nothing you say is going to make the slightest difference to the people invloved in this issue.
Perhaps it is this eventual realization that accounts for the bitterness and pointless, unrelenting negativity that emenates from the debunker camp. These same personality changes are manifest in persons engaged in semi-conscious denial, but I will leave the amateur psycho-analysis to those better qualified to probe the intricacies of the human mind (like F-16 pilots and aeronatical engineers).
I've known plenty of people expressing plenty of skepticism on a whole plethora of issues. None of them bear the slightest intellectual or emotional resemblance to the now-almost sterotypical chemtrail-debunker.
Something to think about.
|
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 3:36 am
|
|
|
"the information you have posted is painfully incorrect"
So, you're saying that my information that the C-21 cannot carry 17 generals, but can only carry a maximum of 8, is false? And my assertation that Kiowa 71 did not "blow up" due to sabotage, but crashed because of a fuel imbalance, is also false?
I've posted alot of OTHER information besides the Yampert case, Chem. I don't know if you READ any of it, but that's your loss.
"they have the 'audacity' to actually give a damn about something other than developing more ingenious and cost-effective ways to kill other human beings."
Please, spare me the whole "the military only likes to blow things up" mentality. I flew medevac helicopters, and I'm an airlift pilot now. In that capacity, I've done far more to help people than to kill them. Take a look at your country, Chem. Where's the bulk of the rescue aircraft concentrated? The military. Who is the largest airborne mover of humanitarian aid and relief supplies? The US military.
I'm not going to sit and tell you that the military is some great benefactor of the world, but while part of our military is engaged in warfare, a large portion of the military is likewise engaged in positive events.
"I know that such a non-homicidal philosphy may be alien to your training and the resulting mindset that you have chosen to adopt"
Ah, I've run into this stereotype before on other message boards (political/current events, not chemtrails). The stereotype that military folks are over-aggressive robots programmed for the kill. Sorry, but you've watched "Full Metal Jacket" one too many times.
"But you won't see me on the other side of the planet bombing a wedding party into a pile of human debris because I have bought into some self-serving idealogy that these men, women and children are 'the enemy'."
First, let's put that whole thing in perspective. An AC-130 crew is engaging the REAL enemy, and they are firing back. Ground troops have called in air support. A few miles away, a wedding party decides it's smart to start shooting their guns (with tracer rounds) into the night sky. The AC-130 crew, which isn't the most maneuverable aircraft in the world, spots tracer rounds coming from a new direction, but at them. So they query the ground troops as to their position. Well, that gunfire isn't coming from the good guys, so the AC-130 fires back.
I don't know Chem. It's a bad situation. I certainly feel sorry for those people who were on the ground, but at the same time, you can't really blame the Spectre crew. Just a bit of common sense, I'd think, would be NOT firing your weapons en masse while a battle is going on nearby.
Your rhetoric is particularly insulting, because I can guarantee you that those AC-130 crewmen don't view the innocent as "the enemy". Had they known what was shooting into the night air, they wouldn't have fired back.
"War is the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy. Ineptitude is the the enemy. Hypocrisy is the enemy."
You're correct. But because war is a bad thing, doesn't mean we turn our backs to those who would wage war against us. Please tell me that you're not someone who feels that if we all dropped our guns and gave each other a big bear hug, the world would suddenly be a great place to live?
"Some guy whos fly helicopters and thinks he knows it all (and makes a hobby of proving otherwise to all and sundry) hardly qualifies as 'the enemy', I'm afraid"
FLEW helicopters is more correct, although I do have a commercial helicopter license. And no, I have no intention of being your enemy, although instead of entering into a dialogue about chemtrails and discussing the matter, you spend most of your energy climbing onto your podium, gazing down upon me and lecturing me, insulting my intelligence, and the list goes on. I only respond to you because it's impolite to ignore someone. And hey, there's always hope...
"I envy your ability to trust the unknown"
I trust until I have a sincere reason not to trust. Without trust, nothing would ever get accomplished. No one could look upon another without wondering. And your hope for world peace would not be possible.
It may be a bit weird for you to picture that someone in the military doesn't want to go to war. I mean, you'd think that if I didn't want to fight a war, then why be in uniform, right? Well, it's not so simple.
I certainly don't want to go to war. It means taking something from my family. It means taking something from me. When the towers fell on 9-11, I was getting ready to taxi. We shut down. They told us about the towers being hit, and I was simply shocked. When I saw them fall on television, I was stunned. We knew that we'd be going to war, in some capacity. It was about that point I had to go to the restroom, where I literally cried my eyes out for a few minutes. Lots of people had suffered. And many more would suffer in the coming months or years.
Chem11, don't sit there and lecture me with your intellectual ideas of what kind of person I probably am, and notions that military folks are somehow feeble minded war dogs. Maybe someday you'll reach across that gulf and realize that we're just as human as you are, and trying to position yourself on the morally higher ground, as if you're cutting in line to get to heaven, doesn't make you any better than anyone else.
"If you do not believe there is a problem here, then get on with your life"
I'm here because essentially, I see accusations against people I know. I'm a pilot. I fly high-flying jets. My friends fly the same jets...tankers even. And even though I know most of you are dead-set in your belief, it's the concept of a balancing act...I'm speaking out as the dissenting voice, defending my honor as well as those who you accuse of doing this.
"I've known plenty of people expressing plenty of skepticism on a whole plethora of issues. None of them bear the slightest intellectual or emotional resemblance to the now-almost sterotypical chemtrail-debunker"
Perhaps some in their frustration get a little carried away. I have attempted to refrain from that. Nothing here is worth getting THAT upset about. So you can stop telling me where I should go based on your stereotype of me. I'll go where I see fit.
|
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 4:35 am
|
|
|
Sure you will, and you obviously don't give a damn who you falsely accuse or insinuate of being a liar or a thief.
I find this particular personalty trait to be the most despicable of any I have encountered on the net, and where one stands on the CT issue has got nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned (as anyone whose been around will testify to).
There used to be debunkers whose posts I used to read, simply because they presented largely factual information. In the last year the truth (even in it's most distorted and irrelevent forms) seems to have has been judged to be an inadequate weapon in the debunker arsenal.
I'm sorry to say that your recent contributions have done little to reverse this rather telling trend, Pacer.
You have attributed statements to Jeff Rense, when no such statement by him was ever made.
You have asserted a connection between chemtrails and the Yampert case when no such connection was present.
And you have insinuated that Alcon lifted the photos he has posted on this website from another pilot (if you go to his website you will see the man in the cockpit holding signage that reads CTTUSA.. which pretty much invalidates your latest mental excercise).
This... is the voice of 'dissent'?
Well, I suppose I could spend every waking moment trying to validate or dismiss what you see fit to post as facts on the internet, but your batting average speaks for itself.
You'll get no more grief from me, Pacer. Henceforth I will simply skip anything preceded by your name based on my repeated experience that there is at least a 75% chance that whatever information you care to 'share' has absolutely no basis in reality.
Even Rense's webamster manages a signifigantly better average than that.
And please don't hesitate to post further explorations of disinformation and shoddy research as it applies to this new medium. I'm sure other reader's will learn as much from you as I have...
|
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 4:58 am
|
|
|
I stated that Rense is a liar because his website, with his name on it, perpetuates false information, without any attempt of putting in proper context or checking its validity.
"ALCON may very well be a pilot....I didn't say he wasn't. But the very fact that he refused to engage in dialogue with people that I know to be real pilots has me wondering."
That was my stance on ALCON. I always didn't really know what to think about him, because he never talked to me or any other pilot for that matter. I never accused him of being a thief. I simply pointed out that it's possible that he may not be a real pilot.
"my repeated experience that there is at least a 75% chance that whatever information you care to 'share' has absolutely no basis in reality"
Again, my issue with Rense was the story his website ran concerning the supposed conspiracy involving a C-21 accident. So you're saying that 75% of my information about that accident is false?
And when I was debating with dj over at Cliff's concerning Flight 587, I was wrong about thrust reversers?
Come on Chem. You might not be able to admit it, but my most serious error was the Yampert case, and that came from suspicious source documentation. I stand by my assertation that Rense is propagating lies on his website. I never did accuse ALCON of stealing anything. I simply stated that his photos were suspect, in my opinion, and he seemed suspicious because he refused to talk about anything.
|
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 5:35 am
|
|
|
I was unaware that ALCON had a website. What's the address? |
| |
|
|
WiseQuakker
Joined: 21 Aug 2000
Posts: 141
Location: Wherever I happen to be at the time |
|
Fri Jul 19, 2002 9:34 am
|
|
|
quote:
Chem11:
There's a banner on the top of that board.
It's an official USAF banner.
It would seem that the USAF has been traded in for an Onion...
|
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sat Jul 20, 2002 2:25 am
|
|
|
Sounds like a fair trade to me. |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:25 am
|
|
|
Hey, what's ALCON's website address? |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
