|
|
Sceptic
Joined: 19 Dec 2000
Posts: 46
Location: Ireland |
Carnicom site - losing the plot?
 Mon Jan 22, 2001 5:52 pm
|
 |
|
I've just been over to Carnicom to see how things are going over there.
Its more of the usual stuff.
Loooookinup is dubious about Dubya, and cites that renowned authority David Icke in support of his view. To go into David Icke's claims, even in list form, would take some time. I don't propose to do this, but suffice it to say that he is quite obviously a delusional self-publicist with an eye for exploiting those of a similar mindset. One claim might suffice to demonstrate his inverted (and perverted) thinking: this is the claim that he makes on his website to the effect that AIDS/HIV is *caused* by AZT treatment rather than eased by it.He was a celebrity on this side of the pond before he went deolali, and now he is merely a figure of derision, pity, contempt and ridicule.
One correspondent is troubled by a red sunset (hasn't she ever heard the rhyme 'Red Sky at Night'? - it predates 'planes. For her further education, I will provide the full text:
Red sky at night,
Shepherd's delight.
Red sky at morning,
Shepherd's warning.
Woah! What's that? There were red skies about before the spraying started? Well, slap my thigh. There goes one of the oft-cited arguments of the chemmies.
All this and another correpondent bleating about harrassment by the agencies. The problem with his story is that he claims that its been happening for months. What's the deal? If he's being followed, as he claims, and if he is being sprayed (from car exhausts in a targetted manner), as he claims, then how is he still alive? Are the chemicals in the sprays so weak as to require continued exposure for months before taking effect? He even throws in an ad for the disgraced ex-doctor Hulda Clarke, a woman who is as adverse to proving her claims as are most chemmies.
And while the malcontents rattle off their mantra about the powers-that-be (what a nonsensical phrase - what's wrong with "The Powers That Are", "The Powers That Prevail", or "Those in Power"? The "be" in this case is a very redundant subjunctive), the roving troubadour of the Chemtrail Business - Mark Sky - continues his therapy by composing (should that be "decomposing"?) his trite angst-ridden semi-literate effusions. Like a weeping wound, there is annoyance in his presence, but a macabre fascination in examining his eristic eructations.
Sedona, meanwhile, has dusted down her best copybook, and has written an f-grade analysis of the current situation. Her audience; His Royal Highness Cliff E. Her reward, as she performs tricks as his feet: a pat on the head, and a round of applause from the other inmates.
Now, I know that some people are very concerned at what they think is happening. I know that some of these people are also very sincere in their beliefs. However, there is also a side to this debate which attracts the complete wackos. Think about it logically:
If I discover that there is a worldwide conspiracy, and I create a website to publicise it, I may get support. I will also get - and this is an absolutely inevitable result of starting the website - the attention of every deranged conspiracy freak who has access to a keyboard. These people are also inclined to be the most vocal, as they are invariably attention seekers. Accordingly, they end up taking a leading role in the debate. The Carnicom site is the clearest example of this at work.
Now, I know that all of this must come across as being a major rant, but there was one sentence in Sedona's homework which galled me to a great extent; this was her contention that:
"In this respect alone we are, I believe, looking at the largest criminal act in the history of the human race." I am being charitable when I suggest that she may have been missing on the days in school when the following were covered: The Holocaust; The Inquisition, Stalin's purges. I presume that she was ill on those days when the rampant and bloody colonisation of the New World was being taught. I imagine that she was too tired to take in the economic famines which have been a feature of history since time immemorial. I can also accept that she was otherwise occupied when massacres such as Amritsar, Tiananmen Square or St Bartholomew were mentioned. And as for the apartheid and the institutionalised slavery that was endemic in Africa - well, maybe she couldn't hear the teacher.
The facts are:
No single fatality as a result of 'chemtrails' has been presented.
Not a single causal link between trails and sickness has been established.
Not one. Compared to the millions killed in the events mentioned above, this issue is as significant as a sneeze in a blizzard. The fact that a leading proponent of chemtrails can lose perspective in such a spectacular manner sort of casts doubt on her credibility and on the credibility of the board, don't you think?
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Sceptic on 01-22-2001] |
| |
|
|
The Military Lies
Joined: 10 Jan 2001
Posts: 90
|
|
Tue Jan 23, 2001 5:10 pm
|
|
|
Seems to me that your rant just went a long way towards making an excellnt case as to just how corrupt and evil most governments thoughout history have been, and what they are very capable of doing to their very own people. Besides the obvious reality of chemtrail spraying, your analysis adds even more credibility to the reality of such a program. Seems to me that according to your insightful logic, that we can pretty much expect exactly what is happening. Especially from a government that is absolutely drunk with corruption. No? Joe Stalin would be proud. |
| |
|
|
BEE
Joined: 13 Dec 2000
Posts: 23
|
|
Tue Jan 23, 2001 6:27 pm
|
|
|
What "obvious reality of chemtrails"??!!! Contrails are an obvious reality because we can see them in the sky. However, there has been no proof offered anywhere that I've seen that any of these contrails are anything other than a phenomenon produced by the normal exhaust of aircraft. There is only uninformed speculation that if a contrail persists or demonstrates the normal refractive properties of water and displays pretty colors that that means they are "chemtrails." Anyone who takes the time to look into the physics of dispersion and what would happen to a material sprayed at that altitude (See the "Fun with Math" posting) sees how absolutely ludicrous the idea that "chemtrails" exist is. More people are noticing contrails now because there are more to notice with the ever-increasing air traffic and also because of the scare tactics of "chemtrail" proponents. |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Tue Jan 23, 2001 6:41 pm
|
|
|
Sceptic...ever hear this one?
pink skies at night
chem-saturated all right
pink skies at morning
dire chemtrail warning |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
|
Tue Jan 23, 2001 8:05 pm
|
|
|
BEE states "There is only uninformed speculation that if a contrail persists or demonstrates the normal refractive properties of water and displays pretty colors that that means they are "chemtrails."
BEE, Since I have been looking at the sky for almost 5 decades, living an outdoor lifestyle, and I have only come to see these "pretty colored" "clouds" that are formed from "normal contrails" in the last two years, then what has changed BEE about the atmosphere or the jet fuel, or the engines, or whatever else, to make these pretty clouds?
Why were these "pretty clouds" never seen before? If it is just "normal water vapor"
why have they not been seen before?
I have a long hobby of nature photography, I would have taken a picture of a cloud like this, IF I HAD EVER SEEN one before.
Or if as you say, "they are normal" then I would not have bothered taking this picture, cause as you say, "clouds have always looked like this". |
| |
|
|
LTC8K6
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State |
|
Tue Jan 23, 2001 8:28 pm
|
|
|
Why is my anecdotal evidence of having seen these things all of my life worth less than your anecdotal evidence of not having seen them except for the past couple of years? |
| |
|
|
speakingwind
Joined: 22 Jan 2001
Posts: 22
|
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 5:02 am
|
|
|
Let's see,
Bee speaks of this phenomenon as normal contrails being composed of nothing but water vapor casting pretty rainbows.
Bit of a curiosity how her "normal water vapor" remains in a liquid, non-frozen state at those altitudes and sub-zero temperatures, isn't it? |
| |
|
|
The Military Lies
Joined: 10 Jan 2001
Posts: 90
|
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 7:08 am
|
|
|
Or how her "normal water vapor" accidentally gets sprayed into giant X's, O's, S's, U-turns, skywriting entire messages, perfectly parallel lines covering whole cities, Tic-tac-toe patterns, Abrupt ons and offs, ONLY for the last two years, but NOT before. I, and many of my friends see this stuff on a regular basis. C'mon Bee, let's be intellectually honest here. It's too obvious. No amount of lying on your part can keep the obvious from being seen right over our heads. Now run along Bee. Go take care of Andy and Opie before you become so senile that you can't even do that right. |
| |
|
|
marcinko
Joined: 09 Jan 2001
Posts: 31
Location: orlando, fl, usa |
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 7:36 am
|
|
|
military lies,
"..ONLY for the last two years, but NOT before."
you may want to get your facts straight. i have been flying for many years. i havent seen anything, either in pictures or from my own observations, in the last 2 years that i didnt see 20 years ago. thats the point. and if i hear one more person say "its obvious to anyone who opens his eyes" ...
my eyes are open everyday. its kind of hard to be involved in aviation and not have your eyes open.
you can believe me or not. your choice.
dont you think it is kind of funny that of all the commercial pilots in this country, who like it or not are probably better trained observers than you, none have come to this board to support chemtrails. none? (at least none that i know of. thermit correct me if i am wrong) if you want to believe that pilots and military folks are evil as a whole, thats fine, but not even one of the many thousands?
d.m. |
| |
|
|
speakingwind
Joined: 22 Jan 2001
Posts: 22
|
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 8:07 am
|
|
|
If you'll look in the picture album of this message board you'll see some pictures taken by "Alcon" who far as I can tell appears to support the chemtrail theory. He takes the picture from his cockpit and points them out. Maybe Thermit can post these here. But Marc, are you saying that you agree with Bee that contails are normal liquid water vapor? Are you saying that Xs and Os are normal? Are they playing tic tac toe?
Penny for your thoughts on these things, Mr. Pilot. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 8:16 am
|
|
|
Here's a screen capture of Flight Explorer, maybe you could tell us why x's and grid pattern look strange to you ?
There's a lot of potenial and existing ones pictured :
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
marcinko
Joined: 09 Jan 2001
Posts: 31
Location: orlando, fl, usa |
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 8:41 am
|
|
|
the above explains alot.
what you see as a "x", i see as two aircraft whose paths have crossed. what you see as an "o" i see as either a holding pattern or military training maneuvers. you see a "tic-tac-toe" is see multiple aircraft in a high density traffic area on multiple crossing airways. all my explanations are facts. for the "x"'s, "o"'s and tic-tac-toes to be anything else, then you have to first eliminate the known.
i would be interested to see any photos taken by a pilot from the flight deck that show chemtrails.
d.m. |
| |
|
|
speakingwind
Joined: 22 Jan 2001
Posts: 22
|
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 8:48 am
|
|
|
Very interesting, the Seeker!
Ok, then maybe you can answer my questions since I'm just a lazy chemmie:
What do the numbers represent? Are the first three or four digits the last digits in the aircraft call sign? Does the arrows direction mean climbing or descending? Are the last digits altitude or heading? I'm assuming altitude since aircraft heading in different directions have the same numbers. So would 170 mean 17,000 ft for example?
Ok once you answer these simple questions, can you tell me if this is just one of several Flight Explorer modes?
Next answer me how often FE updates and if you can tell that the aircraft you are seeing are leaving contrails or not. Does it show you transponder codes. Can you tell if they are IFR or VFR? Would a military spray plane show up? Would a Piper Cub show up? WHere are the airways? Do you know if the aircraft depicted below certain altitudes are flying on airways? Do you know their destination or if they plan to change course?
Basically I'm trying to ask what information you think this Flight Explorer would give you that distinguishes normal airtraffic from sprayplanes. I never got that one. Maybe I'm just a dumb chemmie from down under. What info are you seeking from Flight Explorer, Seeker? Help me out. |
| |
|
|
marcinko
Joined: 09 Jan 2001
Posts: 31
Location: orlando, fl, usa |
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 8:57 am
|
|
|
wind
i think the point is this. obviously, no covert, black project aircraft on some secret mission is going to show up on flight explorer or any other flight tracking software. the point is that if you see a strange contrail or contrail pattern above you and then you look on flight explorer and see United 762 and American 1256 in the same spot on the tracking map, then you can safely say that it is not a chemtrail (i hope) this is the value of F.E.
however, its not the end all to everything. if you see 10 trails above you and nothing on flight tracker, then you still have to eliminate military traffic and computer error. a lot of work and effort i know, but its required to prove anything.
d.m. |
| |
|
|
speakingwind
Joined: 22 Jan 2001
Posts: 22
|
|
Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:10 am
|
|
|
Well from what Seeker has posted, unless there are other modes, I'm not sure I see anything on that screen that would help me positively ID what type of aircraft we are seeing on FE.
So let's say we see what we consider a chemjet flying over head, and we go look on the computer to see what it is, and there is no information to ID if the aircraft is an airliner or not. I'm still not sure I see the value in Flight Explorer,in that situation especially since the type of aircraft we would expect to see would be military anyway, given that most tankers are military, and would show up overhead but not on the FE software.
I guess once this were to happen, and we rule out commercial airliners, FE wouldn't give us much help beyond that, then. Would it? Anyway, this is all I was trying to find out. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 11:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
