|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
 Thu Mar 13, 2003 5:38 am
|
 |
|
quote:
"Can you provide any example of atmospheric conditions where one would NOT expect to see persistent trails using your same line of reasoning?"
CANEX --> Huh? you'll need to clarify that one.
Let me make it REALLY SIMPLE for you Canex.
It seems to me you've never experienced a day where persistent contrails wouldn't be expected and reasonable. So let's do this.
Let me know the next day when the conditions are just right so that one would NOT expect to see persistent contrails in the SF Bay Area. I happen to have a panoramic view from my office, so it's very easy to observe what's going on in the sky throughout the day.
You look at the data, I'll provide the ground truth.
Absent those "Bone Dry" conditions, and given the humidity bias at altitude, as well as all those international flights overhead, it seems to me you position is that it is entirely reasonable that we will see these persistent trails virtually EVERY DAY.
So let's together look for that unique combination of atmospheric conditions where a scientist skill in the field would NOT expect to see any persistent trails.
Like I said, I'm happy to provide the Ground TRUTH.
Let's work this out...we should be able to get to the bottom of this quickly.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 03-12-2003] |
| |
|
|
canex
Joined: 26 Oct 2000
Posts: 164
Location: USA |
|
Thu Mar 13, 2003 6:42 pm
|
|
|
Throat,
You seem to have a hard time reading what I've written. The bone dry days, I have clearly defined for you: the darkest areas on the WV imagery. As I hav said before, you find substantial contrails in those areas and I'd be interested in looking at the data. By my logic, those are the only days I would not expect to see contrails. The other cases, where the sounding says no contrails, but the water vapor imagery says maybe, are definitely ambiguous. THe ones where the WV imagery and sounding says contrails are days when I would definitely expect contrails. Thus,
there are three categories:
1) Definite contrails
2) ambiguous (large fraction of cases)
3) Most likely no contrails
#3 case is the one where you would be in the dark portion of the WV imagery (brown in your images)
That is the challenge I laid out for you and this board many months ago and on two recent threads. If you are interested, you know what to look for. I have put enough time and effort into this posting and really have no more to offer other than to remind you to look at the dark areas in the March 8 WV imagery and notice that there are no contrails in Southern California, but only up there around youse guys.
Have fun. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:35 am
|
|
|
How smugly secure they must feel,
lurking in the ambiguity
grasping the illusion of plausible deniability.
The Truth will surface,
perhaps from their own "dark areas",
and they will ultimately be held accountable,
with ignominious notoriety.
History does not forget.
|
| |
|
|
X marks the spot
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Posts: 13
|
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 11:59 am
|
|
|
What do you want to bet that if the truth ever DOES get forced to come out ( I doubt it), that all these debunker idiots just totally VANISH. The very ones that have been ridiculing "chemmies" all this time, will just vaporize, without a trace.
But, of course that will never happen, because our government has already proved to itself, just how stupid and unobservant your average American is. They will continue to deny forever, or until all those responsible are dead, or out of office.
------------------
A deceived person does not know that they are deceived. If they did, then they wouldn't be deceived. A deceived person may be sincere, but sincerely wrong. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:23 am
|
|
|
a cigar is sometimes just a cigar....
|
| |
|
|
X marks the spot
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Posts: 13
|
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:11 am
|
|
|
Yes, and sometimes a deceiver really IS a lying sack of sh-t.
------------------
A deceived person does not know that they are deceived. If they did, then they wouldn't be deceived. A deceived person may be sincere, but sincerely wrong. |
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:57 am
|
|
|
Why is it that when somebody disagrees with you, they are lying? Please explain.
F.K. |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:09 pm
|
|
|
Well FK, one of the reasons may be your continued denial of just who you work for.
You have stated you are not government when, in fact, you are. NOAA to be specific.
We hear constantly about how the chemtrail activists are deceptive, not truthful, etc, etc, when all along it is YOU people who are not being the least bit truthful, especially when it comes to where or for whom some of you REALLY work.
Canex is another, he is Dr Patrick Minnis of NASA but will not admit it, lies about it and denys it.
And one of our ever vigilant moderators calls some of us chemtrail activists, dishonest, deceitful, liars and worse when all along it is the debunkers on this board who are guilty of all the above and she knows it.
Who is really being deceived here, who are the real liars?
|
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:26 pm
|
|
|
Please show me where I ever said who I do or don't work for. Anyway, I don't think it is appropriate for you or anyone to press others about their identity or their employer. This is the internet, my friend. All kinds of sickos may be reading. And just because canex does not want to reveal "who" he really is does not make him dishonest either. IMO.
F.K. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:39 pm
|
|
|
F.K.,
I think David is on to something here. By your response, it seems like you might be .gov
canex could be Minnis.....hmmmm.....that's interesting. Explains a lot.
Man, you robots are really trying to convince us "believers" that we are idiots. Must be on to something, since none of you debunkers, save Seeker a little, are caring people, so you couldn't be convincing us from "the bottom of your hearts." |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:42 pm
|
|
|
>>And one of our ever vigilant moderators calls some of us chemtrail activists, dishonest, deceitful, liars and worse<<
I call it like I see it David...er...I mean poate!
>>save Seeker a little<<
heehee Sawamp Gas, I think "save seeker a lot"
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Lulu on 03-19-2003] |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:43 pm
|
|
|
You do? I mean you do, Terry
And, BTW, did I ever once deny I was posting on other boards as poate???????????????????
And Lulu, dear, you certainly shouldn't be over at mavericks discussing IP's from this board.
You are no better than you accuse others of being.
You are not fit to wear the title of 'moderator'.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by David on 03-19-2003] |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:36 pm
|
|
|
Thermit thinks I'm fit enough to wear the title of Administrator.
Pisses you off eh poate?
 |
| |
|
|
PHXPilot
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA |
|
Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:48 pm
|
|
|
You are not fit to wear the title of 'moderator'.
Because Lulu isnt an over the top, hard-core, extremist chemmie? Most of you seem to think that you can only search for the truth if you buy into all the ridiculous theories put forward and block out all other opinions. If im trying to find out whether music affects the growth rate of plants, I do not automatically say "Music MUST affect the growth of plants, it is quite obvious, and anyone who says differently is stupid and is not searching for the truth!". I would not be searching for the truth very effectively if I researched that way, now would it? To find out whether the music affects the growth of plants, you have to take in evidence from both sides, and look at the problems of both sides to make an informed, accurate decision pertaining to the experiment. Only letting in info from one side, and changing all observations to support that one side, is not how you find the truth. It is how you make yourself believe you have found the truth, regardless if you actually have or not.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by PHXPilot on 03-19-2003] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 9:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
