posted 10-22-2000 09:57 PM            

Seeker you are free to believe what you will, but what difference does it make what William Thomas says or thinks? What difference does it make what Carnicom thinks? Does the integrity of the people involved who promote the issue matter one iota, good or bad, if the issue, is in fact real. I guess what I'm asking, when put another way, is: Does it really matter if you believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow...if in fact it does rise tomorrow. Does what we believe really matter when compared with the facts at hand and the truth and reality that occurs regardless of what we believe?

Let's assume for the moment, for the sake of discussion, that some aircraft are indeed spraying us with an unknown chemical....how relevant then are the opinions and integrity of William Thomas and Clifford Carnicom to the fact of the spraying? Does what they think matter or change the fact of its occurrence? You see the problem here? You're shooting the messenger but not really refuting the message, or countering the speculation of people like Thomas or Caricom.

1.You haven't explained to any satisfaction yet how chemtrails can form in conditions that do not allow their formation.

2.Why we have never seen such massive displays of voluminous "persistent contrail" filled skies in the past (at least in my memory). What about your memory?

3.You haven't explained possible engine designs that maybe could account for these formations, (that I have seen on this board, anyway). You have my own detailed opinion regarding high by-pass jet engines for example....but I haven’t seen yours.

4. Why do the precise stop and start dashed "contrails" (that I have seen with my own eyes) occur.. Have you told us yet?

5. What about the low-altitude formations that occur in temperature, pressure, and relative humidity conditions that would make natural formations impossible? Have you explained this yet?

6. Have you explained the multi-color oilslick displays, and how its possible for the opaque ice crystals found in natural formations to refract light, as a liquid substance would?

7. Have you responded cogently to my own personal comments of witnessing a chemtrail descend to groundlevel? I don't remember you de-bunking me on this point yet.

Let's forget Carnicom and Thomas for a moment Seeker, their integrity is not even relevant or in question here. What is important is what you have witnessed with your own eyes, and with your own experience. I am calling your bluff and asking you to respond with your own reasoning and not that of Carnicom's or William Thomas.

You obviously have an interest and fascination with this issue or you wouldn’t have dealt with it so long and/or placed so much of your time and energy into it. But if you cannot explain or counter my examples of anomalous sightings occurring in the sky every day with your own logical explanations, then I think you must at least allow for the possibility that those who believe something is being sprayed may in fact be correct.

cydoniaquest

posted 10-22-2000 10:14 PM            

Some say you don't exist either, but I swear I saw you chowing down at a greasy spoon in Arizona!

posted 10-22-2000 10:28 PM            

The problem is.....your 12 guage is loaded with blanks.

posted 10-22-2000 11:38 PM            

I think anyone who has read my posts considers me a debunker par excellance, and my background and employment make me a candidate for paid-disinformant-of-the-month in some circles.

But Mr. Cydoniaquest brings up some valid points and questions.

First, calling Messrs. Thomas, Rense, and Carnicom’s integrity into question does absolutely nothing to make or break the case for contrails-as-chemtrails or anything else.

I personally think Mr. Carnicom is a puffed-up gasbag; but then, I realize that I am a puffed-up gasbag as well. If a hideous egotist with an over-developed sense of his own importance is the kiss of death to that person’s beliefs, then Mr. Carnicom and I are both wrong – and that simply can’t be; either Chemtrails are non-existent or they exist!

Another thing that I believe Mr. Carnicom and I share is our belief that our view of contrails is the true one. You can believe something that doesn’t have much validity in the eyes of the scientific community without losing integrity. So it simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever for anyone of us here to denigrate the others’ beliefs; we see too much of that between Messrs. Bush and Gore.

Instead, we need to answer some questions that need to be answered. I have posted what I consider some serious questions about the existence of chemtrails; as far as I know, they have yet to be answered by anyone in the chemtrail community.

But how about Mr. Cydoniaquest’s questions? Some of them are certainly beyond my expertise; I am neither a meteorologist nor a fluid dynamicist. But there are things I think we must think about – things that many of us can agree with.

There are a lot more c-trails now than there were five years ago. Is this a function of simply more aircraft in the air, or is there another factor? For example, we see reports of increased respiratory problems; is that a reflection on higher pollution in general or is there a c-traol/respiratory distress correlation? I don’t think there is. Mr. Cydoniaquest does. But neither of us knows for sure, and we shouldn’t blow it off.

Another thing that concerns me is the increasing frequency of reports that c-trails form at substantially below the 9000-meter altitude typically associated with c-trail formation, i.e., -40 deg C, 100 % RH. If this is true, all of us debunkers need to figure out why. If this is not true, then we need to show that it is not and at least post the information where all can see it.

I personally believe that our government is corrupt in many areas, and recent movements in our laws show that peoples’ freedoms, privacy, and right-to-know are at the bottom of the government’s priority list. I know that just because we have a government capable of mischief – and one that did such mischief in the past -- that it doesn’t prove the government is actually carrying out that mischief now. On the other hand, intent and capability are used to show circumstantiality in the law, and sometimes that works in finding out more important things, like motive, hard evidence, etc.

I think that most people involved in the c-trail controversy fall into four groups:

1. People that believe, with religious fervor, that c-trails are a plot, and nothing will convince them otherwise;

2. People that believe, with religious fervor, that c-trails are completely bogus, and nothing will convince them otherwise;

3. People that believe that c-trails are bogus, but are at least willing to hear the other side; and

4. People that believe that c-trails are the real thing, but are at least willing to hear the other side.

As a Number Three, I have no problem with others of my own tribe, nor with our neighbors in Number Four. We can at least argue evidence, and may the best corpus delicti win.

But Numbers One and Two will end up going nowhere, and after all the back-and-forth insults of “fool!”, “sheeple!”, “idiot”, and “CIA spy”, no minds will have been changed, and all will be left with the taste of ashes in their mouth.

Now as to whether those ashes are the results of chemical spraying ... but I digress.

Regards,

Duncan Kunz / duncan.kunz@prodigy.net

posted 10-23-2000 12:04 AM            

The meteorological approach to discerning possible contrail inconsistencies has apealed to me since it is a hands-on method that is repeatable by anyone given the formulas and data. I'll admit that I have used models that were too simple in the past, but my understanding is growing as the needed information is collected. When this is complete data related to observations will be rexamined and we will see if there are any interesting trends.

posted 10-23-2000 12:52 AM            

I will install myself as a 3 1/2 .....

I am completly opposed to any "chemtrail sickness" and any relation tuit.....

WX mod exists in small forms but it is against many UN laws to perform WX-mod as a country.....

I would lean to that direction for the DOD knows only what they do in security and national interest....

That would be the 1/2......

Thermit, if your keeping data of you area then you should be establishing a daily page of observance, if possible....mere suggestion....

out

posted 10-23-2000 10:45 AM              

One thought for now, however, you seem to have a problem with critical evaluation of William Thomas' claims. The fact is that he could be considered the "father of chemtrails", at least since jan 1999. Having followed his positions since his arrival, I have become as disgusted with him as YOU are against Al Gore, whom I note, you seem to concentrate on rather heavily.

So, when myself and others critically evaluate the statements of a (mis)leader such as Thomas, are you any different when you do the same with Gore?

Does integrity matter?
Does a pattern of falsehood mean anything?
Does claiming to have evidence but never showing it strike you as wrong?
Do flip-flops show weakness?
Are you aware he was fired from Environment News service, and all his articles on 'chemtrails' removed from their archives?

Cy, I would like to see your truthful evaluation of William Thomas' character and past actions, please.

I'll admit he is not the end-all and be-all of chemtrails, but I see his archetype within most "believers", there is no denying his mythos pervade the whole shebang.
Agree?

posted 10-23-2000 11:57 AM            

quote:

---

Thermit, if your keeping data of you area then you should be establishing a daily page of observance, if possible....mere suggestion....

---

Tis true...

posted 10-23-2000 04:58 PM            

"It wasn’t until some months later that I happened to be working late one night and catch a William Thomas interview (or replay thereof) on the Art Bell show, and at that time I realized others were aware of the same thing"

The fact that you were listening to an Art Bell radio show tells me you are at high risk for being sucked into controversial issues i.e. "chemtrails".

posted 10-23-2000 06:05 PM            

"I think that most people involved in the c-trail controversy fall into four groups:"

This poll, taken from the Chemtrails and Company web site, may require you to add a fifth group.

How can you have a normal discussion on this subject when 27.5% of the people polled are chanting genocide?

Poll Question: Do you feel Chemtrails are INTENTED to effect our health

One of the big issues pertaining to Chemtrails is, are they intentional to effect our health. Are they trying to kill us, make us sick, or are we just feeling the side effects of chemspraying? What do you think?

Votes: 40
Genocide Program (11) 27.5%
High Possibility (6) 15.0%
To make us sick, Not kill (4) 10.0%
Side-Effects of, not Inten (11) 27.5%
Seems Intentional,unclear (7) 17.5%
Not Likely (1) 2.5%

posted 10-23-2000 06:28 PM            

"Just think of all the other things you could be doing besides living in the chemtrail forums."

Outside of playing golf 5 days a week, I have a lot of free time on my hands to surf the web and keep up with current affairs. I am online in conjunction with watching sports and current events on the dish, so I really don't have to allocate any extra time to these forums.

posted 10-23-2000 09:01 PM            

How can you have a normal discussing on this subject when 27.5% of the people polled are chanting genocide?

posted 10-23-2000 09:39 PM              

1.You haven't explained to any satisfaction yet how chemtrails can form in conditions
that do not allow their formation.

I haven't seen your presentation on these conditions. Those of others I have seen fail in not having any actual altitude measurements especially, and usually are not accompanied by skew-T data that is timely or accurate enough spatially to the observation. I would be impressed by a presentation by a real meteorologist with accurate data, but then again, so would all meteorologists, and it could get you into a real peer reviewed journal, as real meteorologists do. It won't happen.

2.Why we have never seen such massive displays of voluminous "persistent contrail" filled skies in the past (at least in my memory). What about your memory?

I never paid attention to them prior to 1997 when the controversy began. All the real professional contrail researchers I have corresponded with, such as Patrick Minnis, David Starr, and Hermann Mannstein tell me
that until they started looking, they didn't notice them either, but now they see them in old movies and photos, always there, just never noticed. For example, this spring I happened to read up on fire ants, which are nearing my area in their march northwards. When i later noticed a rather tall ant nest on my property, I was concerned enough to notify the county agent who came and looked.
Turns out they are native ants that build these above ground colonies after rain. Now I see them all the time after rains, they were always there, but I never noticed. The increase in air traffic is significant, at 7%/annum worldwide, and some routes much more than others, new airports built and now my local airport pop 10,000 takes jets where they didn't before, since expanding the runways.

3.You haven't explained possible engine designs that maybe could account for these formations, (that I have seen on this board, anyway). You have my own detailed opinion regarding high by-pass jet engines for example....but I haven’t seen yours.

I recall seeing your idea some time ago at C&C. I believe the larger engines and fuel consumed in more recent engines would create more water vapor, thus more contrails. More efficient burn = more water vapor produced as well. The water vapor comes from the oxidation(burning of fuel), not from the compression of air, however.

4. Why do the precise stop and start dashed "contrails" (that I have seen with my own
eyes) occur.. Have you told us yet?

I see these frequently, too, often I try to predict such changes in persistence by observing nearby cirrus density, it's a game I play as I contrail watch nowadays. certainly you are aware that the atmosphere is chaotic, not planar in any dimension. Just as natural clouds come and go, start and end, and have infinite shapes, so do contrails. There is no mystery there. The purported reasons chemtrail believers give for these changes are quite amusing to me.

5. What about the low-altitude formations that occur in temperature, pressure, and relative humidity conditions that would make natural formations impossible? Have you explained this yet?

To my knowledge, other than Clifford Carnicom's photogrammetric analysis, no alleged chemtrail photo has been produced which has a measured altitude. Carnicom's measured well above 30,000 ft. I believe pressure has little to do with contrail formation. In arctic conditions, contrails form and persist at ground level, causing airport closures and havoc at stations while loading cargo.

6. Have you explained the multi-color oilslick displays, and how its possible for the opaque ice crystals found in natural formations to refract light, as a liquid substance would?

I covered this in a previous post on this board. You are incorrect on all points. If your contention is that putative chemtrails are a hydrocarbon, you will have to find a hydrocarbon which forms hexagonal crystals.
You will not find one.

7. Have you responded cogently to my own personal comments of witnessing a chemtrail descend to groundlevel? I don't remember you de-bunking me on this point yet.

One of my first contacts regarding contrails was with Dr. David Starr, in 1997. http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/~starr/
Dr. Starr is one of the world's foremost authorities on cirrus clouds.

He told me at that time that yes, "fall streaks" (virga is rain that evaporates) do form from contrails. He also told me that in rare cases they can fall to ground level(eventually melting)without evaporating.
I am sure you are aware that much precipitation begins as frozen rain, ice, sleet, snow, or small hail.

I hope I have answered as much of your questions as time an space permits, but am willing to amplify any which you feel need more explanation. In fact i expect it, OK?

posted 10-24-2000 06:11 PM            

There is only one thing about this whole contrail/chemtrail scenario that I am still confused about. I am sure it has been discussed but I am still drawing a blank.

Here goes....Today I was on the golf course, hitting the ball and watching the sky. We had a clear blue sky day, mid 70's..the north south corridor of commercial flights from LAX, SFO, had normal layers of traffic. Everything I saw today was at 30,000 plus. There were some east/west jets, I assume military, at approximately the same height.

Many of the jets were leaving contrails, but these were dissipating quickly (within minutes)unlike the lingering contrails I witnessed last week that turned into bands of cirrus clouds.

Today was the first time I noticed that a few of the jets were not leaving any contrails, although they seemed to be at the same height as the others.

I have seen many of the carnicom group use this as theory that the planes leaving contrails are actually spraying. This would be a good time to refute that with some facts.

I have one guess....The air traffic actually looks to be flying between 30,000 and 35,000 feet...but the planes leaving the contrails are a bit higher and have reached the elevation where the temperature drops enough to form contrails.

Any input is appreciated.

posted 10-25-2000 09:19 PM            

Elvis, What you saw on the course sounds normal to me, a dissipating contrail at approx 35,000 feet and no jet trail from the lower jet of approx. 30,000 feet. Here's the problem. What would you think if you saw jets approx. 30,000 feet leaving no contrail, yet far below it, say, 15,000 feet you see jets leaving non-dissipating trails? Also, lets add, that it's a hot summer day with low humidity and numerous Fair-Weather clouds about...Now, what would you think if you saw this??