Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
17 Techniques for Truth Suppression

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Conspiracy

Author Thread
KrissaTMC2





Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 472
Location: Greenwich, CT, USA
PostSat Mar 16, 2002 4:42 am  Reply with quote  

That's a good question FLKook. These are tanker type craft and have a pretty good range and can probably stay in the air for a long time. They probably have their tanks divided in half with half for the fuel and the other half for the chems.

Most would probably not land at any commercial airports, though since they are not marked as military craft, could possibly land in those places. I know Dan has put the word out to a few of his friends on their basic color scheme and the visible markings that they do have and is waiting for a response.

Around sunset, the ones that we've seen all seem to be heading either west or southwest, so it probably wont be too hard to find any military bases that they might be landing at.

I know there's a few bases in some areas that have special restricted areas on them where special duty craft land and only certain personnel have access to. These areas are usually heavily guarded and tucked in places where it is nearly impossible to photograph any craft that might be stationed there. It is rumored that they are not under military control but other government agencies.

Our best bet is to find someone who lives near a suspected base and keep an eye out for these type of craft. We've seen anywhere from 4 to 8 in the sky at a time and usually they fly in pairs or groups of 3 and probably all land at the same time.

 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostSat Mar 16, 2002 6:55 am  Reply with quote  

Well I did put out a few feelers for reports of any tanker jets with certain markings but haven't heard anything back yet. Krissa's right about there being some real high security areas at certain military bases too.
I'd have to do some digging through some files I have one account somewhere of one of these places and some unusual activity of unmarked transport jets that occurred a few years ago. Nothing connected with the chemtrails though, but I wouldn't be surprised if these tankers were using the same type of restricted areas on certain military bases. If the runways were big enough to accomodate transport jets, they're sure big enough to handle tanker jets too.

They probably either have had their tanks split in half or have two smaller tanks. I'd have to look up their spec sheets to see how much fuel they carried originally and cut it by half and try to estimate their fuel consumption rate to figure out their range.

There was a definite mechanical sound when the jets I spotted turned their sprayers on and off and a definite change of the sound of their engines, perhaps re-routing part of their exhaust into the spraying mechanism to make the trails. The mechanics of the spraying mechanism is probably similar to those mechanisms that fire trucks use to make foam to put out fires with. With fire trucks a valve is opened and the concentrated chemical is inducted into the water stream to make the foam.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostSat Mar 16, 2002 7:14 am  Reply with quote  

Just for the hell of it, let's just look at the specs of a KC-135 StratoTanker.

Primary Function: Aerial refueling and airlift
Prime Contractor: The Boeing Company
Power Plant: KC-135R/T, CFM International CFM-56 turbofan engines; KC-135E, Pratt and Whitney TF-33-PW-102 turbofan engines
Thrust: KC-135R, 21,634 pounds each engine; KC-135E, 18,000 pounds each engine
Wingspan: 130 feet, 10 inches (39.88 meters)
Length: 136 feet, 3 inches (41.53 meters)
Height: 41 feet, 8 inches (12.7 meters)
Speed: 530 miles per hour at 30,000 feet (9,144 meters)
Ceiling: 50,000 feet (15,240 meters)
Range: 1,500 miles (2,419 kilometers) with 150,000 pounds (68,039 kilograms) of transfer fuel; ferry mission, up to 11,015 miles (17,766 kilometers)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 322,500 pounds (146,285 kilograms)
Maximum Transfer Fuel Load: 200,000 pounds (90,719 kilograms)
Maximum Cargo Capability: 83,000 pounds (37,648 kilograms), 37 passengers
Pallet Positions: 6
Crew: Four: pilot, co-pilot, navigator, boom operator. Aircraft equipped with PACER CRAG do not have a navigator on most missions. The Air Force procured a limited number of navigator suites that can be installed for unique missions.
Unit Cost: $39.6 million (FY98 constant dollars)
Date Deployed: August 1956
Inventory: Active duty, 253; Air National Guard, 222; Air Force Reserve, 70 http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/KC_135_Stratotanker.html

Certainly big enough to perhaps put another tank in without doing any modifications. especially if it can carry 83,000 pounds of cargo as well as the 150,000 to 200,000 pounds of transfer fuel.
It has a range from 1,500 miles to 11,000 miles so it could land anywhere.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger
FLKook





Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida
PostSat Mar 16, 2002 1:27 pm  Reply with quote  


quote:
I know there's a few bases in some areas that have special restricted areas on them where special duty craft land and only certain personnel have access to. These areas are usually heavily guarded and tucked in places where it is nearly impossible to photograph any craft that might be stationed there. It is rumored that they are not under military control but other government agencies.


This may sound cliche but when I read that Krissa "Area 51" came to mind. If these tankers have no problem with distance then, that is even a plausible base for FL or CT?

 View user's profile Send private message
KrissaTMC2





Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 472
Location: Greenwich, CT, USA
PostSat Mar 16, 2002 8:30 pm  Reply with quote  

Very possible, but there is one base somewhere in NY State with such an area. There's also supposed to be a covert base somewhere in the mid-west that was rumored to be the new area 51.

Dan, back-track a minute. Now hypothetically couldn't the chem-jets now have once been those very same unmarked cargo jets? - If you think about it for a moment, it kind of makes sense. KC-135's are duel purpose long range jets capable of carrying 83,000 pounds of cargo as well as the 150 to 200,000 pounds of fuel. - You'd better check out the info and see exactly what those cargo jets were, but I'm pretty sure that they were modified KC's.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostSun Mar 17, 2002 12:11 am  Reply with quote  

Not sure but I think you're right Krissa. I didn't have time to look up the information yet, but if I can't find it for some reason, I can always check with the source. The jets weren't supposed to exist and the pilots were all supposed to work for some government agency if I remember correctly. Someone tried to get an up close look at them and was detained for quite a while and had his camera was confiscated and the film was destroyed.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostMon Mar 18, 2002 10:03 pm  Reply with quote  

OK, I found the information.

Back in the 1980's during the whole Hudson Valley UFO wave besides reporting the UFO sightings, a number of people were also reporting flights of small airplanes flying in formation(0-2 meduim duty craft to be exact). After a while, it was found that these small planes were flying out of Stewart International Airport in New Windsor, NY and landing in a restricted part of the airport that was supposedly under the control of one of the government agencies.

After a little probing by certain individuals, it was discovered that the agency in question would neither admit or deny that they controled this section of the airport or the flights of these planes. During an investigation of the restriceted area, it was discovered that a number of large C-5A transports were flying in and out of there and several of them could be seen on the ground at any given time.

The restricted area was a large isolated fenced-off airfield tucked away from the main landing strip. The area was closed off with a number of signs indicating that it was a security area and that access to it was restricted.

One of the members of the local media got wind of the story and decided to take a look around. Within a matter of minutes of entering the restricted area, he was taken into custody by 3 MP's and taken to an area where he was interrogated by 2 men in dark suits for a few hours.

To the reporter's surprise, one of the men had a computer printout that had his name on it that had a lot of information about him. After a few hours of interrogation, the reporter was then taken to a public area where a cab was already waiting for him and was told not to say a word about what he had seen there or what had happened to him and that it would be better for him to forget about the entire incident.

I'm not exactly sure when this incident took place and no one is exactly sure why the C-5's were using the airfield. I am not sure if that airfield is still in operation, but it shouldn't be too hard for me to find out and if it is, what type of jets are using it.


C-5A /B Galaxy

General Characteristics

Primary Function: Outsize cargo transport
Prime Contractor: Lockheed-Georgia Co.
Power Plant: Four General Electric TF-39 engines
Thrust: 43,000 pounds, each engine
Wingspan: 222.9 feet (67.89 meters)
Length: 247.1 feet (75.3 meters)
Height: 65.1 feet (19.84 meters)
Cargo Compartment: height , 13.5 feet (4.11 meters); width, 19 feet (5.79 meters); length, 143 feet, 9 in (43.8 meters)
Pallet Positions: 36
Maximum Cargo: 270,000 pounds (122,472 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: C-5B 769,000 pounds (348,818 kilograms) (peacetime), 840,000 pounds (381,024 kilograms) (wartime)
Speed: 518 mph (.77 Mach)
Range: 6,320 nautical miles (empty)
Crew: 7 (pilot, co-pilot, two flight engineers and three loadmasters)
Unit Cost:C-5A - $152.8 million (FY98 constant dollars)
C-5B - $179 million (FY98 constant dollars)
Deployed:C-5A - 1969, C-5B - 1980
Inventory: unavailable

Notice that there are no inventory records on how many C-5's that are currently in operation.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger
KrissaTMC2





Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 472
Location: Greenwich, CT, USA
PostTue Mar 19, 2002 5:24 am  Reply with quote  

Those little planes were the infamous Stormville flyers if I'm not mistaken and kind of disappeared in the mid 80's. I think that the C-5's were still stationed there as of 1997 but had been flying in and out of there since the 70's and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they still used that strip. However, I think that they're using more than one type of tanker. A few of the ones I've seen seem to be smaller, like those used for forest fires. Could it be possible that they may have retrofitted a few of those types of fire tankers with jet engines to be used to cover smaller areas?
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostTue Mar 19, 2002 6:47 am  Reply with quote  

I'm looking into that possibility now. The two that I saw pretty close were nearly identical eccept for the number of engines on their wings. One had 4 engines and the other had 2 and they were definitely smaller.
I think that they might use the smaller ones to mark the locations for the larger ones to spray.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostTue Mar 19, 2002 7:41 pm  Reply with quote  

I was listening to one of the local radio talk shows and the host mentioned KC's in the same sentence as Stewart Airforce base, so my guess is that they still use that field.

I have also found a good site with a lot of pictures of jets that you all might want to take a look at.


The Aviation Zone
Unofficial Home of the Heavies

Welcome! The Aviation Zone is a comprehensive online resource for military transport aircraft, aerial tankers and fixed-wing gunships. This site contains over 2,700 high-quality photo images, detailed fact sheets with aircraft diagrams, and numerous video and sound files. Over 100 different planes are represented here, most having distinguished service records and a significant presence in the annals of military airlift history since 1940. Featured aircraft include the C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster III, C-130 Hercules, C-141 Starlifter, V-22 Osprey, KC-10 Extender, KC-135 Stratotanker, AC-130 Spectre and many others. http://www.theaviationzone.com/index.html

 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostSun Mar 31, 2002 7:25 am  Reply with quote  

Along with the 17 techniques of truth suppression, we must also include some information on the debunking process.

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING (Abridged) by Daniel Drasin

In the course of my research activities I have made it my business to collect particularly egregious examples of the art of *debunkery* -- the substitution of scient*istic* propaganda for scient*ific* method. A few years ago I began to analyze what makes debunkery tick, and wrote several papers on the subject that catalogued literally dozens of manipulative tricks and techniques with which generations of debunkers have successfully achieved the arrest or suppression of a broad range of discovery and innovation.

To provide additional assistance and inspiration to the novitiate and seasoned debunker alike, I have carefully combed my extensive collection and assembled below a modest primer on the how-to's of debunkery. Properly understood and applied, these principles may be instrumental in delaying rational inquiry into the question of extraterrestrial life by decades, perhaps centuries.

General Debunkery

* Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

* Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshiping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.

* Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

* Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral to subject matter and that only the investigative process can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")

* Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

* Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts " which are "stated."

* Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear.)

* If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here." If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

* Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy. subjective or metaphysical terms.

* Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals *reductionism*. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

* Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science.

* At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is *familiar* is necessarily *rational*. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational. and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

* State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

* Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw or misstep invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

* "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," suggests that the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most *familiar* explanation is by definition the *simplest*.

* Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical and philosophical parallels between science and democracy.

* Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence.

* If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not *supposed* to prove *anything*.

* In any case, imply that proof *precedes* evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

* Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist!

* Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any Point in time.

* Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly *assumed* to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and simply say "I rest my case."

* Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.

* Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

* By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can raise the level of objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.

* Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

* Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and time-consuming, while deeming that of unusual phenomena so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff' or "freak," or as "self-styled" -- the media's favorite code-word for "bogus."

* Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit part of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that hypothetically *could* explain it; c) declare that, therefore, this one element *has been* explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the *entire case* has been explained.

* Find a prosaic phenomenon that superficially resembles the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and therefore cannot possibly be artificial.

* Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should point out that the physical sciences have always dealt with invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity, electromagnetism, etc. . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."

* Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds.

* Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all such questions: "If extraterrestrials exist, why haven't they landed on the White House lawn?"

* Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of any position they've taken. Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to mis-replicate their experiments or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be "ridiculous" or "fruitless." To make the whole process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

* Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

* When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this statement as if it were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her behavior cannot possibly be scientifically correct.

* If you are unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad-hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators or chroniclers of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition of their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers." Take care not to inadvertently apply such judgments to those pursuing, in similar fashion, orthodox activities.

* Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out as experts on the ET question, although course credits in ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.

* Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!'' Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims. or, for that matter, even exist.

From "The McDaniel Report" by Stanley V. McDaniel(North Atlantic Books: 1993), ISBN 1-55643-088-4.
http://www.skiesare.demon.co.uk/debunkal.htm



[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 03-31-2002]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger
KnewEyes





Joined: 23 Apr 2001
Posts: 667
Location: under those cloud-like things
PostSun Mar 31, 2002 4:31 pm  Reply with quote  

What a great addition to the "Suppression of Truth" thread, Dan. These intricate details of debunkery are out in the open now!
 View user's profile Send private message
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostSun Mar 31, 2002 7:23 pm  Reply with quote  

I knew that you would like that information KnewEyes.

I've been debunked a couple of times and know how the process works. I might also add, from my own personal experience, that a debunker must be able to quote outdated sources and ignore all new sources, or any sources that would contradict his own even if they come from credible archaeological or scientific institutions. Luckily, in my case, I had the Smithsonian Institution and a whole bunch of professional archaeologists and ticked off researchers to back me up.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 03-31-2002]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Molliani





Joined: 16 Mar 2001
Posts: 428
Location: Illinois
PostMon Apr 01, 2002 10:38 am  Reply with quote  

Dan
Our on board debunkers have a lot to
learn, they're so transparent. They're a nuisance without substance.

[* Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence. ]

I'd like to add this for the suppression of information that could lead to the truth.
Classified information .......

* Department of Defense security definitions:

* Classified agreement: "An agreement that requires access to classified information by the contractor or designated employess in the performance of tasks or services in the agreement."

* Classified document: "A document containing information, the disclosure of which could damage the national security of the United States."

* Confidential: "The lowest DOD classified level applied to information whose unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause damage to national security."

* Secret "The DOD classification level between Confidential and Top Secret that is applied to information whose unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause serious damage to national security."

* Need-to-know: "A determination made by the possessor of classified information that a prospective recipient, in the interest of national security, has a requirement for access to, knowledge of, or possession of classified information in order to perform tasks or services essential to the fulfillment of a classified contract or program."

(definitions courtesy of Prof. Norm Swazo)


 View user's profile Send private message
Dan Rockwell





Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA
PostMon Apr 01, 2002 8:11 pm  Reply with quote  

Thanks Molliani. I knew I was forgetting about something.

Luckily the debunkers I've had to deal with are using 20 year old arguments and kind of lose all credibility when I come up with all the latest findings. - Of course when they're being paid to do the debunking, they kind of forget to read the latest research developments and just hope that their status and credentials will protect them.

Concerning the field of archaeological research, one of my colleagues, who is now deceased, wrote the following"

“Engrained ‘Pabulum’ is protected, nurtured, and becomes gospel… If one is not a camp follower, then one is denied admittance to the Academic Bordello, and its inane doctrines… As they say, “Been There - Done That.” Twenty-seven years teaching Earth Sciences was my lesson in the dumbing of America: Curricula and texts disappeared; fun and games prevailed; Scientific method abandoned.

In the last three years leverage from on-high and an early retirement package eased me out of my life work or so I thought…” (Charles Boyle, 7-28-98)

I should add that Mr. Boyle was an expert in linguistics, with a BS degree in botany, an MA degree in Education, an MS degree in Geology and a MA in Theology and a teacher of the Earth Sciences for over 27 years prior to his retirement so he knew what he was talking about.




[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 04-01-2002]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Yahoo Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  
1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT.
The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:33 pm


  Display posts from previous:      



Conspiracy List | Arcade Webmaster | Escape Games


© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum