|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
Contrail/Chemtrail information
 Fri May 23, 2003 6:20 am
|
 |
|
Which I am sure most will call 'disinformation', but those type of people will never open their minds. It is a shame the main forum is closed to debate, and there is no true outlet to do so.
Anyways, back to the point. I found this website, I'm sure it's been posted before. It is actually the Air Force's clearing up of the Chemtrail issue.
Edit: Forgot the link! http://www.af.mil/environment/contrails_chemtrail.shtml
It explains the main arguements chemtrail believers have.
Here's an excerpt:
Claim: Grid patterns of contrails in the sky are evidence of a systematic spraying operation.
Fact: The National Airspace System of the United States is orientated in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation. Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails. More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market. The FAA is responsible for the NAS and Air Force aircraft operate under the same rules and procedures as civilian aircraft when using the NAS.
--
Again, I think it a shame this could not be posted in an actual debate forum, but It will make do here. This is a research and science section afterall.. not sure how many actually read it.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 05-23-2003] |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Fri May 23, 2003 6:30 am
|
|
|
I just looked through the entire site, and not just that page, and it has some great information- aerial spraying, cloud seeding, chaff, a lot of the things people here freak out a bit about.
http://www.af.mil/environment/contrails_intro.shtml
Main page, read through the site if you can- it's loaded with info.
If people are willing to accept the source, this will put a cap on the entire issue.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 05-23-2003] |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Fri May 23, 2003 7:38 am
|
|
|
Damn right it's disinformation:
quote:
The "Chemtrail" hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities...
Name one. You won't be able to, because it never happened (which is why the AF cites a bunch of garbage instead of the nonexistant studies they claim have been undertaken by 'many established and accredited universites).
Let's take a look at who and what the AF uses to bolster their claims:
Link #1: a broken link to a Fortune Citywebsite.
Link #2: An article by 'Jay' (actual name John) Reynolds: longtime friend and associate of William Cooper and employed by Cooper's Veritas news service which specialized in right-wing militia and conspiracy theory. Mr Reynolds employer was shot and killed after opening fire on police officers.
Link #3: Another broken link to a Fortune City website.
Link #4: A slideshow. Pictures. Of persistant trails. Here's one of my favorites: http://www.wolkenatlas.de/pics/bwo11939.jpg
Wow. That's some in-depth research!
But what happened to all those studies of the 'chemtrail hoax'... by all those "established and accredited universities" and "scientific organizations". They don't even bother to name them, much less reference them.
I'd move on to the next outrageous deception, but I'm starting to get steamed. I'll leave this one to someone else... it's a gimmee:
quote:
The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future.
|
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Fri May 23, 2003 7:41 am
|
|
|
So.. you spend the entire post smashing the links they have on the website, and ignoring all of the other information.
How about you look at the actual stuff on the website instead of complaining about broken links to articles or focusing on one line in the entire bunch.
I don't even know how old that website is, who knows how long ago they put those links up.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 05-23-2003] |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Fri May 23, 2003 8:03 am
|
|
|
What information?
They claim the hoax has already been investigated by "many established and accredited universites" but refuse to reference them (becasue they don't exist). That's my fault?
I'm supposed to just disconnect my brain because some lying halfwit tells me to?
All they can proffer are demonstrably false statements, a dozen or so pictures of what I am supposed to consider 'normal' and an article from a news service run by a deranged, would-be cop killer... and that's my fault?
How about you specifically quote what 'information' it is that I am 'ignoring'?
In the meantime, I've got a little information for you:
"The injection of large amount of greenhouse gases and aerosols over Afghanistan, Pakistan and Arabian Sea by US fighter planes during the Afghanistan war in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere contributed to significantly deficient rainfall over north-west and central India." Murari Lal, Chief Scientific Officer at the Centre for Atmospheric Sciences
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_642813.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
For someone with no policy or practice of modifying the weather, they sure do a remarkable job of it. |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Fri May 23, 2003 8:05 am
|
|
|
You still can't disconnect PAST the articles they listed. I am telling you to look at the REST of the site.
What part of this do you not understand?
It's your fault that is all you are focusing on.
Why don't you start with the second link I posted, that leads to the main site, instead of the part where the common arguements get debunked.
Just for fun, I'll mention the link you posted...
Just because an article says the one paragraph opinion of a scientist, does not change ANYTHING without research or facts.
Now.. I'm sorry I asked for your opinion, because you are drawn on trying to turn something that may be answers for many people who are actually looking for them, into your hogwash. You are too far in your mindset.. you will never ot 'believe', so I won't even bother.. what a joke.
[Edited 6 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 05-23-2003] |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Fri May 23, 2003 8:34 am
|
|
|
I asked you to:
1. Name one single study of those conducted by the "'many established and accredited universites" that "investigated and refuted " the "chemtrail hoax".
You have thus far been unable to do so. Therefore, your claim that this obvious deception by the AF somehow 'clears up' the chemtrail issue is, at best, untenable.
I also asked you to quote what specific information it was in that document that I was ingnoring.
You have thus far refused to do so... instead you huff and puff like a petulant child and whine about how you aren't able to post in the main forum. There's a reason for that, and it's easy enough to discern from the contents of this thread.
quote:
Just because an article says the one paragraph opinion of a scientist, does not change ANYTHING without research or facts.
Please apply the same logic to the AF propaganda you posted... except replace the word 'scientist' with 'undisclosed public relations officer' .
This is the science forum, after all.... I would think scientific opinion would be a bit more relevant than blatant falsehoods, demonstable propaganda, and phantom studies by non-existant universities.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 05-23-2003] |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Fri May 23, 2003 12:03 pm
|
|
|
I'm not even going to dignify replying
to anything you say anymore Chem11, I made it clear what information exactly I wanted you to talk about and you failed to do so. You feel it more appropriate to dodge around the issue completely.
I will say I never refered to the statement you had about scientific studies being carried out. Therefor, it is impossible for me to know what studies this site it refering to, as I am not a psychic.
It is like talking to a wall, something I do not wish to continue doing.
Bottom line: I have never heard a reasonable chemtrail arguement, and this website explains (with information most reasonable people already knew) many of the common reasonings and myths behind the trails.
Edit: Thought I should actually respond, after reading through. I hope http://www.borderlands.com/contrails/contrail.htm isn't what you refered to as being the letter by Jay, as it only has a link (albeit) big, on the top. That link has links to a number of contrail studies. Unfortantely most are out of date (the website is 4 years old), but a few are kicking around.
[Edited 6 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 05-23-2003] |
| |
|
|
graeme
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 171
Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA |
|
Wed May 28, 2003 11:52 pm
|
|
|
Cptn.-
I'm still not able to access anything on the page you are referring to here. There's not a lot of info on the opening page for me to read. Are you able to get to the other links? |
| |
|
|
ChemCaptain
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 495
Location: United States |
|
Sun Jun 08, 2003 4:19 am
|
|
|
Sorry graeme, I never saw your reply here... you can read this when you get back.
http://www.af.mil/environment/contrails_intro.shtml From there, you should see a left bar that says
"Introduction" "Background" "Contrails" "Wingtip Condensation Trails" "Exaust Gases" "Chaff and Flares" etc.
I wanted people to check out the entire site because it had information beyond the 'chemtrail' think people were getting freaked out about, like fibers from chaff. |
| |
|
|
graeme
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 171
Location: Sebastopol, CA, USA |
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003 6:43 am
|
|
|
I think I've read that before, but thanx for the refresher. I'm not willing to accept the source, Cptn. I can't make the statement that they are lying about chemtrails, but the military has a pretty bad record on telling the truth. There's just too many examples that I can't believe a thing they say. It's getting to the point that I can't believe anything by anybody that I read anymore. |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003 9:34 pm
|
|
|
"debunkers" Sharpen your knives!
The first "Chemtrail" ever?
Quote:
From "Body of Secrets"
by James Bamford
ISBN 0-385-49908-6
pp 360-361:
>....To Gerson, the problem was capturing the missile's signal.
Because
the signal was line-of-sight and the launch pad was far inland,
it was dif-
ficult to intercept with peripheral ferret flights.
Gerson explored ways to create atmospheric conditions that, like a mirror, would reflect the signal long distances.
Once the signal had been reflected beyond Soviet borders, land-based or airborne collectors could intercept it.
In 1959 Gerson submitted his report, "Six Point Program for Improved Intercept," was
given an initial $1 million in research money, and began to experiment.
An intercept station was set up in the Bahamas. Its target was an
unsuspecting television station in Shreveport, Louisiana, about 1,500
miles away. (Television broadcast signals are line-of-sight.) At a certain
point over the southwestern United States,
a rocket that had been
launched from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida detonated into the at-
mosphere a chemical bomb containing aluminum oxide and cesium nitrate.
Cesium nitrate is hazardous.
Users are warned, "Do not breathe
dust, vapor, mist, or gas; do not get in eyes, on skin or clothing, and ob-
tain medical attention if it is inhaled."
Nevertheless, no one thought to
warn residents under the bomb.
As the toxic cloud drifted over Shreveport, the television signals
bounced off the heavy particles and were intercepted at the NSA listen-
ing post in the Bahamas.
"The experiments were successful
and ultimately allowed reception of TV signals far beyond the line-of-sight,"
said Gerson. "The TV signals had been reflected from the electron cloud
produced by ionization of the chemical mixture. Reception persisted for
about sixty minutes."
Note the 'typical' "concern for public health by 'No Such Agency'" in exposing American citizens to toxic materials.
"Part history, part expose...authoritave and engaging book." -THE WALL STREET JOURNAL |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003 9:58 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChemCaptain:
It is a shame the main forum is closed to debate, and there is no true outlet to do so.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by ChemCaptain on 05-23-2003]
Debate(*1) seems to continue in the main "Chemtrail" Forum.
Debunking is relegated to here.
Mirriam Webster Dictionary
*1: Debate:
>a contention by words or arguments: as
b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides<
Debunk:
>to expose the sham or falseness of <
Since
-chemtrails are visible to anyone who chooses to look;
-photographed and documented;
and
-established via chemical analysis by Canadian and American labs as:
introducing aluminum and other elements into the atmosphere.
They do in fact exist!
Therefore debunkers are not debating!
They are merely endlessly arguing a false
premise.
Exclusion of debunkers from the main forum is both logical and
justified by the overwhelming mass of facts which prove chemtrails are a very real phenomonon.
The debate is over what and why and by whom?
|
| |
|
|
Feelin Kocky
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 537
Location: Underground Weather Control Bunker |
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003 10:02 pm
|
|
|
>>...by the overwhelming mass of facts which prove chemtrails are a very real phenomonon.<<
mass of facts? Please provide some.
Thanks,
F.K.
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 9:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
