|
|
graeme
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 171
Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA |
 Mon Jun 02, 2003 7:30 pm
|
 |
|
There's no dispute that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods in the last 1000+ years. There is an issue on how much industry has accelerated or altered the natural pattern.
In the Freeform forum, I asked in a post how this grand conspiracy started, if in fact contrails have never changed appearance (of course there's going to be more of them due to increased air traffic over the years, but I'm still holding out that their characteristics have changed). EMFX13 answered that he is an amateur astronomer and started noticing that contrails began obstructing the sky in 1997. Did air traffic increase a significant amount more that year than other years, and continue to increase at that higher rate? I'm assuming, given that he's an amateur astronomer, that he's probably got his eye on the sky quite a bit. How does this get explained?
I'm moving this week to St. Louie. I'll be on the road for the next several days. Have a good one everybody and looking forward to reading a response(s). |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Mon Jun 02, 2003 9:26 pm
|
|
|
Is there one question in all that for me, havla? or is it as seeker says:
>>someone who wishes to jerk your chain...<<
That sounds very nice, but if you look more closely at this sentence of yours, it is what Jeanie has called a "smoke screen".
Seeker's obtuse comment was a so-called answer to half of quite another question I asked.
You have no answers to the questions Graeme raises. Your tactic is to adopt a style that suggests you are answering questions when you are not.
I said:
>>The question I asked you was: what are the implications if Deep Shield is genuine? What are the implications if Deep Shield is not genuine?
To which you replied:
"As I said, I don't think it is genuine. The implications of "what if is?" Seems kind of a pointless question given my answer.?
I was inviting you to explore the implications of both contingencies. You simply asserted your belief, without evidence, and then refused to examine the implications of either contingency.
YOu show the same lack of interest exploring the possible explanations for Deep Shield, whether interpreted as a genuine testimony or as disinformation as you show lack of interest in the visual testimony of many other participants in this forum.
You have a strategy of "toughing it out", or possibly boring people away.
I will leave you for Graeme and others to talk to, if they wish to. They can talk science with you, at least.
When you say at the end that you don't have a professed theory, this is disingenuous. Your theory is that no geoengineering project on a planetary scale is being applied.
|
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:15 am
|
|
|
>>You have no answers to the questions Graeme raises. Your tactic is to adopt a style that suggests you are answering questions when you are not.<<
Which question(s)? Which answers? Which do you need more expaination?
F.K. |
| |
|
|
graeme
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 171
Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:28 am
|
|
|
I don't know what Halva has in mind, but these are what I'd like to hear your ideas on: a) specifically the phenomena I detailed earlier, beginning of page 3 I think; b) research in the scientific community on geo & climate engineering- the idea is getting tossed around out there; c) does living near a VOR mean that air traffic is going to be increased in that area?
Thank you. |
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:50 am
|
|
|
Let me answer your last question first.
>> c) does living near a VOR mean that air traffic is going to be increased in that area?<<
I have no idea. I would assume so since they are navigational aids. Perhaps a pilot can answer.
I have to go back and try and review the other questions. Will get back to you.
F.K. |
| |
|
|
graeme
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 171
Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 6:06 am
|
|
|
I wasn't clear on the phenomena that I mentioned in my last post. It is what I saw driving through Wyoming. You'll find it on page 3. That's the best I could describe it, and it is not an exaggeration in any way. |
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 2:23 pm
|
|
|
>>What's your take on scientific reports on geo and climate engineering that seem to involve spraying high amounts of particulates in the atmosphere?<<
In short, if large amounts of "particulates" were being "sprayed", they would appear on weather radar. They don't.
Question 1. of "Deep shield" talks about polymer threads being placed in the atmospere. I doubt it as these would easily show up on weather radar. They don't.
I have serious doubts that geo-engineering is taking place. Especially in the manner describe in "deep shield." Of course there are numerous other problems with "deep shield" that cast doubts on the author of which I can elaborate if you want.
Did that help answer at least one of your questions?
F.K.
edited for clarity.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Feelin Kocky on 06-03-2003] |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 6:21 pm
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm gonna ignore the last two pages and go to this question (I haven't had internet in a week!)
"Are the VOR put in arbitrary locations, or are they near airports? So it would increase the air traffic in an area near one?"
Both. Most of the larger airports (and some smaller regionals) have a VOR, but there are a lot nearly in the middle of no where. Sometimes a VOR may be at a field that used to be trafficed commonly but died out, but the building is still up and running. |
| |
|
|
graeme
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 171
Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 8:21 pm
|
|
|
Hey Cptn. Glad to have you back. I'm gonna be without internet for the next week and am sort of looking forward to it. What's the range of a VOR? So planes have to fly relatively close to its location to pick up its signal?
FK- Speculate for me: could something be done to particulates or polymer threads to keep them from showing up on weather radar? Does the notion that geo and climate engineering is discussed as a possibility in scientific circles make the chemtrail theory more plausible to you? I'd like to hear other doubts you have about the author if you care to elaborate. I don't have an opinion either way yet, am interested in hearing others who understand the specifics of what he's said dissect it. |
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 8:31 pm
|
|
|
For now:
>>Speculate for me: could something be done to particulates or polymer threads to keep them from showing up on weather radar?<<
cover them with radar obsorbing paint but I doubt even that could make them invisible. So I'd say 90% chance of NO on that question.
F.K. |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 8:37 pm
|
|
|
VOR stations vary greatly in their ranges, there are low altitude and high altitude stations each. They can go from about 20 NM to 120/130NM.
So planes don't have to fly very close at all to pick up the signal, but they usually use it at a point to fly over (because you can enter it on one radial (spoke,heading, whatever) and leave on another and know very accurately where you are. Think (I think this was talked about earlier in here, maybe not) as the VOR station as a bicycle wheel, and each direction from 1 to 360 degrees as the spokes. That is basically how VOR stations are used.
With GPS and crazy complicated computers today, VORs are becoming a bit less used, but still used to a very great amount...
If you want to know anymore keep the questions coming and I'll try and answer best I can  |
| |
|
|
graeme
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 171
Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA |
|
Tue Jun 03, 2003 11:27 pm
|
|
|
I'm disconnecting my 'puter tonight for the move. I'm sure I'll have more questions as I'll have mounds of time to think on the 2200 mile drive about what's been said so far. Check back in a week. Be well. |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 513
Location: Greece |
|
Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:02 am
|
|
|
And Chem Captain, don't ignore the last two pages. Go back and read them.
In fact, I suspect you have. Otherwise you would not have bothered to say that you haven't.
|
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:07 am
|
|
|
I skimmed them. By ignore, I meant I was posting about something a couple pages back instead of the recent discussion. |
| |
|
|
graeme
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 171
Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA |
|
Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:54 pm
|
|
|
Quick comment before I take off: Jay thinks it's funny about what I had recounted seeing jets doing in Wyoming on page 3 of this forum. Not sure if he doesn't believe me or what, but I'm sticking to my guns that that's what I saw. If there's any pilots out there who can explain what they think that was, I'd love to hear it. Jay says that if I saw a trail on the horizon then the jet would be at least 100 miles away (I think that was the figure). I could see the plane (either a bottom or top view)as well- would that be visible from 100 miles away? Jay- please respond in the Rumpus Room on the forum we were on if you cannot here. If you are just gonna call me a moron again, that's fine if it helps you out, but it doesn't help me unless you want to explain what you think it was. Thanx.
graeme |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 9:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
