posted 08-29-2001 02:58 PM            

for Thermit,
you mentioned that you do not know of aerodynamic trails lasting for more than an hour. does the complete video indicate how long the trail persisted for?

posted 08-29-2001 03:04 PM            

Of course they demand evidence. That's not a characteristic of the 'debunking mind set'; it is a characteristic of a scientist.

"Well, they/you have it. If these are to be the rules of engagement, then I also demand evidence."

That's not the way it works, either. In science as well as in most other evidence-heavy endeavors (such as law) it is the person making the assumption or the hypothesis who is required to make his case by providing convincing evidence.

For example, if I hypothesized that the mushrooms growing in my back yard were planted and used as footstools by the Little Fairies of the Dawn, most people would expect to see photographs (preferably not having been processed by Photoshop 6.0) of aforementioned LFotD planting and then sitting on those boogers. If I said, "well, I know it's true because you can't prove it wasn't" all I'd get for my pains would be a belly laugh from the audience.

Similarly, if I were a prosecutor and said "Dirk Digler should get the death penalty because you can't prove he didn't help Timmy blow up the Murrah building", I'd be laughed out of court in a heartbeat.

"If this is an airframe contrail, which I doubt, then present video evidence of a documented airframe contrail for comparitive [sic] analysis. I enjoy a spirited debate as well, DD. However the sceptic communtiy [sic] is going to have to rise to the level of evidence presented if they hope to debunk this."

Again, if I am making the assertion that contrails are caused by something, the "level of evidence" I have to rise to is the evidence that I must produce.

"Black and white photos from WWII aren't going to cut it anymore."

I agree. Photos don't prove much. I have always said that using photos of contrails to prove the existence of a plot is like using photos of Christmas presents to prove the existence of Santa Claus.

"Character assassination isn't going to cut it either."

True. Debunkers who call chemtrail-believers paranoid, woo-woos, and idiots share one very important characteristic with chemtrail believers who call debunkers traitors, disinfo agents, liars, and sheeple:

They're both losers.

"Mainstream coverage of this issue is growing by leaps and bounds."

I can recall several mainstream articles about chemtrails; all have been skeptical. The one recent article I can think of that gave the possibility of chemtrails as anything other than paranoia was Monday's WND report. And you'll notice that the only letter-to-the-editor they published on that contrail story was by a person who debunked them.

"And you folks are running out of time."

How many chemtrail websites have disappeared from the Internet over the past three or four months?

posted 08-29-2001 03:15 PM            

If I had video of you appearing to be a normal human being, I would present it to refute your claims of being of being of non-terrestrial origin. I do not, and therefore make no claim to your planet of origin.

Though your other statements are certainly persuasive evidence of your lack of knowledge concerning recent events on this planet Earth. WorldNetDaily and the Vancouver Courier both ran balanced articles on this story this week.

And it is the debunking community who seem to be concerned that the chemtrail aware are somehow threatening the perceived credibility of the militia movement, as evidenced by Chickie Debs recent comments on her board. Ever been to the William Cooper/ Veritas News website, Dirk? Most...interesting.

I have presented video evidence of an anomalous trail tha you are unwilling to explain by any other method than throwing multiple explanations at and hoping something sticks.

If you are going to explain it in prosaic terms then explain it. Is it an aerodynamic contrail or is it an optical illusion based on the perspective of the witness? Pick one. Make up your mind. Then present your evidence.

Anything less is a waste of both our time.

Be assured that when you do, I will not be as dismissive of your submission as you have been of mine.

It's time to put up or shut up, DD. I've put up. Now I'm shutting up. A picture is worth a thousand words, DD. And there are 30 pictures in every second of that video. So you're going to have to a LOT of talking to catch up here. It's a big internet. Find a video demonstrating an aerodynamic contrail for comparitive analysis.

Good luck,

posted 08-29-2001 03:22 PM            

quote:

---

True. Debunkers who call chemtrail-believers paranoid, woo-woos, and idiots share one very important characteristic with chemtrail believers who call debunkers traitors, disinfo agents, liars, and sheeple:

They are losers.

---

posted 08-29-2001 03:33 PM            

i never accused you of being a con-man chem11
unless you helped start this 3 years ago. i believed you have BEEN conned. it happens to all of us at one time or another.

"If you are going to explain it in prosaic terms then explain it. Is it an aerodynamic contrail or is it an optical illusion based on the perspective of the witness? Pick one. Make up your mind. Then present your evidence."

what else do you want me to do. once again, i gave two rational explanations for the video. maybe my explanations are total B.S. i've been known to be wrong before. but i dont think so in this case. i am a pilot. i have seen contrails of all different types and from all different angles more times than you i am sure. you and the others either buy it or you dont. whatever. but this is what fascinates me. the way this is suppose to work is your present a thesis, i then give you possible explanations based what is currently known. you then tell me why my explanation is full if s@#$. once you have eliminated the known explanations as not being applicable then maybe you have something. please tell me why either one of my explanations (to recap, (1) low angle of obvervation, (2) aerodynamic contrails) wouldnt fit in this case. i am not saying they are 100% dead on, but explain why they are not accurate. try not to attack. just explain why those two do not fit.

your friend
DD

posted 08-29-2001 03:35 PM            

quote:

---

That's not the way it works, either. In science as well as in most other evidence-heavy endeavors (such as law) it is the person making the assumption or the hypothesis who is required to make his case by providing convincing evidence.

---

Exactly my point, Mr. Kunz. Dirk Digler has made the assumption that this is an aerodynamic contrail. It is therefore up to him to provide evidence to support his assumption.

I'm goin to make a dogged attempt to stay on-topic here, rather than discuss how many chemtrail websites there are. Suffice to say that I was pleased with both the WND coverage and he Vancouver Courier's.

If you assume that this is a fuel-dump, then submit video for comparitive analysis! Likewise for aerodynamic contrails!

We could banter back and forth all day, I suppose, but this doesn't further either side of this debate meaningfully. If the video wasn't worth debunking, you guys wouldn't be here. So, quit crapping out on me here. Rise to the occasion. Provide evidence to the contrary.

That is standard courtroom procedure. Not throwing up your hands and saying 'My client is innocent because I said so.'

posted 08-29-2001 03:47 PM            

There is an explanation for this video. I'm not throwing out multiple explanations, Dirk. And I don't understand why a seasoned pilot would have such a hard time identifying the activity if it was anything approaching 'normal'.

posted 08-29-2001 04:01 PM            

i gave you two possible explanations that are reasonable. explain to me why neither would work in this case and i will then give in and admit that it could be a chemtrail. until then i do not see anything unusual or anything that i havent seen numerous times for numerous years.

here is a good little story to explain my logic. from time to time the "dashed trails" becomes a big issue with the believers. now, this is a well-known phenomona amongst pilots and meteorologists (though admittedly, the why and hows arent completely known to me) but evidently it is not well-known to the chemtrail folks. this is always presented as evidence of either turning the spray on or off ( why they would do this over a few meters i have no idea) or improper mixture or some other nonsense. sorry, that is what it is nonsense. anyway, when last i was allowed to participate in this board i pointed out that i witnessed this very event from the flightdeck of my aircraft not too long before. there was a Virgin Atlantic 747 cruising 1000 feet above us on the same North Atlantic Track (NAT track). it cruises slightly faster than my aircraft so i got to observe it as it slowly overtook us. just so you know, 1000 ft seperation doesnt look like much. it appears to right on top of you. it was just spraying and stopping and spraying and stopping for quite a long time. my question to all here was 1) why would someone be chemspraying over the middle of the atlantic ocean and (2) was Sir Richard Branson (owner of Virgin) on the payroll?

silence. no response. i would expect that most here believe that not all starting and stopping trails are chem-related. so if you admit that the Virgin 747 was not a chem plane then how do you tell the difference?

silence. no response.

logic. it doesnt make sense. what possible purpose would they have to spray the atlantic and why would they use a british airliner (is it even feasible).

posted 08-29-2001 04:09 PM            

as to not understanding why a "seasoned pilot" cant identify a normal plane. ah, this has nothing to do with my aircraft identification skills, (i think that i would probably win this contest with you), but have you seen the video and pictures on this thread? no offense to the photographer but they are not exactly high res stuff. i would wager that if you asked any pilot they would tell you about the same thing; either a 707 or 747. if you think that you could do better without enhancing the photos then have at it.

posted 08-29-2001 04:25 PM            

I do not believe that commercial aircraft are involved in this operation. However, I can think of a dozen reasons to conduct this operation offshore. I will await any evidence to support tha claim that what has been recorded is a fuel-dump, airframe contrail or optical illusion.

Patiently yours,

posted 08-29-2001 05:04 PM            

to the rest, dont listen to me or chem11 or even thermit. do your own research. listen to comments from experts in different related fields. make up your own mind.

posted 08-29-2001 05:44 PM            

how can i present evidence to something that looks completly normal to me. i dont keep any normal contrail mpegs on my hardrive (thats not true i have one, but i dont know if it would do any good). people here can either take the word of a 20 year pilot that it looks fairly normal or not. although it really is hard to seen any detail because of he poor quality of the video and photo. maybe my impressions and observations are meaningless BS. possible. i know your opinion.

just curious, chem11, what is your background. what training have you had that has given you the knowledge to completely rule out my educated guesses?

posted 08-29-2001 06:10 PM            

These things are not just details, they are primary componets in research and in revealing the truth...

temp and rh :
http://adds.awc-kc.noaa.gov/projects/adds/flight_path/

F/E information :
http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/fe/review.html

T/S

posted 08-29-2001 06:45 PM            

i dont understand this conclusion. how do you know that the air was "chem saturated"?
why isnt it possible that the air was H20 saturated. in other words, maybe the reason the air seamed to be full of moisture was because it WAS full of moisture. what process did you use to isolate the chemical presence and lack of vapor in the atmosphere.

posted 08-29-2001 06:59 PM            

the poster "djembemon" makes a statement that is completely misleading and yet no one challenges it. it is if everybody is more concerned with stroking egos than actual research. "wonderful job, great work" and so on. i am not sure if i have ever seen a photo challenged by one of their own.

he states,
"We can clearly see both wings in the footage, and yet there exists only one large, fully diffuse, enormous "contrail" emanating almost directly from the body of the plane."

this make it sound like the engines arent producing any contrails and there is just one giant contrail coming from the fuselage. take a look at the stills closely. this is not whats happening. the width of the contrail is much wider than the fuselage. as a matter of fact the width is about the same as the distance from outbourd (no.1) to outbourd (no.4) engine. coincidence? i dont think so. that's why it is pretty obvious to me that there are 4 seperate contrails that cant be distinguished because of the angle of the video. decide for yourself.

also the fact that the trails lasted for more than an hour and apparently formed into a cloud or haze layer shouldnt cause concern either. we all know that this is a normal occurance, right?

posted 08-29-2001 07:24 PM            

You're right, Dirk. And if anybody tries to start a rational discussion over there, the whole group turns on them. This could explain why the WorldNetDaily article completely ignored Carnicom's site and his so-called scientific investigations. (Using hair perm solution as a reagent? Applying sophisticated nonparametric statistics to compare data collected by two completely different techniques? There may be valid scientific proof of chemtrails, but you won't find it at Carnicom's.)

WorldNetDaily Article

[Edited 4 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 08-29-2001]

posted 08-29-2001 08:43 PM            

And to denigrate the entire site because of an ocaasional mis-step isn't entirely fair either.

There is, in fact, a great deal of solid research being posted there.

By way of example, Deborah's excellent compendium on atmospheric tracers, greenhouse gasses and SF6 in particular;

http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=3822.topic

You got a raw deal over there, 3T3. No doubt about it. I've gotten a few raw deals myself. But that doesn't mean there isn't any valid research being presented.

Dirk, discussing this issue with you leaves me feeling like I'm having a conversation with a brick wall. I ask for evidence. You refuse to provide it. Then I have to go out and dig up a still of an alternative explanation, provided by Jay Reynolds. I wind up trying to debunk myself, because no one else appears up to the task.

Topgun, do you have anything of evidentiary value that you would like to add?