posted 08-29-2001 10:12 PM            

And the thread was removed.

So, clearly, your voice was being heard. And listened too, despite the knee-jerk reactions most people have towards censorship.

I am of the opinion that we need to work together in order to further the cause of chemtrail awareness. Sometimes that means swallowing a little pride.

Healthy competition is a good thing. It helps to raise the bar and motivates people. But when bitterness and resentment enter the picture, then we're doing something wrong. I have a great deal of respect for Clifford Carnicom. He's put his ass, and his name, on the line for this initiative.

posted 08-29-2001 11:34 PM            

Now that you mention it, I do have a few things to add.

1. It's nice to see you back, Dirk.

2. The picture above is most definitely of a KC-135 dumping fuel. I've seen claims on either side that this doesn't happen very often, and that is true. But, I have seen it happen. I was on a flight about two months ago where we were supposed to get gas from one, and they had an onboard problem with the fuel transfer system. While we patiently waited on the KC-135's wing, they cycled fuel through the boom for a good three minutes or so until the problem was fixed. It left a huge trail of fuel vapor in it's wake. I'm sure that if we were over Santa Fe, Cliff would have had a heart attack.

3. It is not up to us nonbelievers to prove anything. The burden of proof lies squarely with those who profess that these are chemtrails. If I claimed that my automobile exhaust is made up of cotton candy, wouldn't it be my job to prove that to be true?

The last time I checked, It's the chemtrail community's job to prove their hypothesis. Not the opther way around. Science has already proven that contrails can happen, and that they can persist. A long time ago, and many, many times since then. By scientists. That's the scientific method, I believe.

Instead, what I am reading here is that it's Dirk's job to prove you wrong. That's false. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. The public at large, the media, and me all require proof before we will accept your claims. And proof is not what I have seen so far. Let me explain:

Proof is not "seeing something unusual in the skies." I'm a pilot, and I've seen unusual things before, like an F-16 with a fuel leak spewing out gas in it's wake. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that the things that I've seen are government conspiracy to kill off the civilians, though. That's pure speculation, with a bit of paranoia mixed in. Where's the tie-in between persistent contrails and all the claims being made? Where's the meteorologists on your side? The pilots? The maintenance workers? The controllers? The doctors? The coroners? Are we all involved in this conspiracy? Proof that an unusual contrail is a chemtrail will only be achieved by obtaining a sample of the contrail, at altitude.

Proof is not seeing persistent contrails and getting sick. Changes in the weather will turn a clear sky one day into a contrail-laden mess the next. It's also known that changes in the weather can affect folks' health as well. It can also trigger plants into releasing pollen, and kick up lots of dust and dirt when a weather front passes. So, a correlation between persistent contrails and an outbreak of illness is the ONLY way to prove this. As of today, I have seen no (zero) scientific studies or data to verify this hypothesis. Instead, there's a lot of "I see a contrail, and I am sick. Therefore, the contrail is maing me sick. I see lots of things before I get sick. Any one of them is just as likely to make me ill as a contrail.

Proof is not seeing a contrail and having a piece of weblike fiber land in your yard. How can you tie this to something 30,000 feet above your head? What if the kid up the street was playing around with some "silly string" and it blew into your yard? What if Farmer Bill (or Fisherman Bill if you are by the water) was using some epoxy and mistakenly dropped the container, sending sticky web-like strands into the air when the container hit the ground? It could be one of a million things besides the trail five miles up in the sky above your head(30,000 feet.) And let's not forget that if there were a chemical being sprayed, it would take many, many miles of downwind travel before it reaches the ground. Not a very accurate delivery method.

Proof is not a video of a plane leaving persistent contrails, heavy contrails, no contrails, or morse-coded contrails spelling "C-H-E-M-T-R-A-I-L-S--R--U-S."Until there is proof that the makeup of a persistent contrail is different from any other contrail, then calling a line in the sky a chemtrail is merely speculation. That's it.

posted 08-30-2001 12:07 AM            

So. What is your opinion of what is actually occurring in this video? No one debunker has attempted to give a single mundane explanation of this and stuck to his guns.

Proof, of course, is not required for a convinction in a court of law, Topgun. People have been executed on nothing more than witness testimony.

Proof of anything is awfully hard to come by and always subject to interpretation. I have no 'proof' that you are a military pilot. But a proponderance of the evidence suggests that this is the case.

So, in an effort to remain intellectually honest with each other, let us consider the question in legalistic terms; by a preponderance of the evidence.

T/S, I'd like to hear your opinion on any remaining possiblility of this being a fuel dump. To my mind, this possibility is precluded through comparitive analysis of the video still and eyesopen video. Yay or nay?

posted 08-30-2001 02:44 AM            

duncan and dirk make good points...but the video is definatly....not a model plane hung from a tree...

grins

posted 08-30-2001 02:45 AM            

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

Well, the same thing would apply if the prosecution stood up and said 'this man is guilty because I said so.' Funny, but in a court of law, someone is innocent until proven guilty. You're putting your government and the military on trial here, and convicting them without anything even close to "beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is not a court of law, so your argument does not apply. You may say that this is the court of public opinion. I'll agree with you to an extent if that's the case, but I'll caveat that with the fact that a hypothesis is merely that until it is proven. Hypotheses may get you somewhere with the public intially, but if it doesn't hold water then the boat will eventually sink. And right now, the boat is in drydock.

I'll agree with you about the "preponderance of evidence." Unfortunately, the only evidence that I have seen that even remotely resembles something credible is Thermit's trail report. And, I might add, even this is subject to criticism. The only other things that have been presented so far are pictures and movies of aircraft leaving large trails, and a lot of completely bogus "scientific" studies being conducted by Cliff.

So, I believe that the evidence so far is on the side of the nonbelievers. If you ask each and every one of the chemtrail believers on this or any other site to list "who, what, where, when, why, and how," then I'll guarantee that you won't get the same answers from any two people. Hundreds and hundreds of speculations. Hell, I've even seen a post that suggests that a plane leaving NO trail is unusual and part of the conspiracy. Meanwhile, there is already on the books hundreds and hundreds of scientifically conducted experiments dealing with the formation of contrails.

Speaking of contrails, I am no closer to identifying the plane in the video than anyone else. The video image is not clear enough to make out the details required to identify it. And, I only saw a 3-second clip once, and for some reason I am now unable to download the video. On a side note, the video does not show how long the contrail persisted. All of you jump on this as being "damning evidence," yet no one asks the basic questions.

If forced to make a decision, I am of the opinion that it is a low angle shot. So, to me it is just four engine contrails. Definitely not the "damning evidence" you claim it to be.

I've seen pictures over at Cliffs of other "megasprayers" over Santa Fe, and I believe them to be aerodynamic contrails indicative of a wing doing some higher-angle-of-attack work as the plane climbs up through some humid air. Cliff's pictures also have no time period associated with them as far as persistence is concerned.

So, please come forth with your even more "damning evidence." I'm eager to see your photos/videos of more contrails.

posted 08-30-2001 03:50 AM            

Now, if video isn't impressive evidence to you, why are you so interested in seeing more?

WorldNetDaily is a respected, conservative and widely read internet news service. It's readership does not consist of the tree-hugging dirt worshippers that the members of the CT community are so unfairly chraracterized as. And the last time I checked, the polls indicated that the vast majority of respondants believed that a government cover-up was taking place.

posted 08-30-2001 03:53 AM            

Asked and answered.

posted 08-30-2001 04:51 AM            

And someone appears to be playing games in my personal e-mail box.

posted 08-30-2001 10:05 AM            

OK, on a serious note: No, I don't know anyone with that handle. Are we being just a bit paranoid? I'm a pilot who is paid to fly. This is merely a hobby, done off-duty and with no guidance whatsoever from anyone else. As a matter of fact, the guys that I fly with have no idea that I post here. I've shown a few of them this site, but I haven't told them that I am a member of this board.

I tried to view the clip yesterday just to see if there was something that I was somehow missing from the first time that I viewed the video.

Tell me, was it about 3 seconds long? My machine had the darndest time downloading it even the first time. Last night, I just got the white screen with "not found."

Sorry if I missed a post by Eyesopen answering the post about the persistence of this particular contrail. Unlike you, my life does not revolve around this issue, and I don't read every post make by every person here.

On this subject, you also lambaste Dirk about his lack of knowledge for not knowing about the "important mainstream media articles" put out recently. I beg your pardon, but I don't use WND or a paper in Vancouver as my source of daily news, either. So, how would Dirk or I know of an article about chemtrails in these publications?

posted 08-30-2001 11:38 AM            

And I don't recall calling anyone an 'Agent', Topgun. Your words, not mine. But it is becoming obvious that someone is closely monitoring this development, and doesn't appear to be real happy about it.
And since you are paid to fly fighter planes, do refrain from psycho-analysis. You are clearly out of your depth.

posted 08-30-2001 12:31 PM            

It should be accessible to you now. Get it while you can...

posted 08-30-2001 12:45 PM            

It worked okay a minute ago, now the problem has once again reared it's ugly head.

posted 08-30-2001 11:39 PM            

Listen, the angle doesn't account for what I'm seeing in this video. He's thousands of feet below the aircraft. It's not a 'side view'. From his vantage point, that is an obvious impossiblity.

I saw somethin really strange today. What appeared to be an 'aerodynamic contrail'. Except it was only a few feet long, a shimmering 'wave' extending from the wings as a commercail jet made it's approach to Sea-Tac. It only occureed while the jet was moving through an artificial mass of chemscum (sorry, I refuse to call these things 'clouds'). So, knowing what I do regarding aerodynamic contrails, I am forced to conclude that these artificial chemscums are hydroscopic in nature.

Anyway, it wasn't a trail and it wasn't persistent. Just very strange in appearance.

posted 08-31-2001 12:55 AM            

you realize that I really want to see the whole video...and it will be weeks before I lose interest...so find a way...ok...

So, knowing what I do regarding aerodynamic contrails, I am forced to conclude that these artificial chemscums are hydroscopic in nature.

you know chem I never asked you about your background in aerodynamic contrails..would you care to expound ?

also, it is fact clouds (visble, or resemblances) need nuclei to form, ya know jets pour out tonnes of it daily, I dubbed these "artificial clouds" long ago....chemscum is an assumption coupled with implication...is not accurate, and won't be til one of your mythological "bastards" breaks from silence and spills the beans...so....

personally I feel this board is not a faxscimile the carnicom board and here we would not draw absolutes from mere photographs...

in complete obscurity, I would concur that *frequentcy* of artificial clouds are and have been on the rise...

T/S

posted 08-31-2001 01:50 AM            

And until the cyberwar nonsense stops, nobody is going to be seeing much of anything.

Now listen, and listen well T/S... this little corner of cyberspace has a name. Can you tell me what it is? THAT'S RIGHT!

CHEMtrail Central. So spare me your righteous indiginantion. Until Thermit changes the URL, I will continue to refer to these formations and their attendant phenomena as chemtrails, chemclouds and chemscum. And my log-in will remain Chem11. If that's all right with you...

Man...I'm pissed. Polluted water, polluted air, polluted people... and you bust your ass trying to gather enough evidence to satisfy even the most denial-ridden ostrich in an attempt to pull it's freakin' head outta the sand and what happens? The plug gets pulled.

I've been checking the logs... it looks like a DoS attack. Jam the pipe with so many requests that the server can't keep up.

Crude... but effective.

posted 08-31-2001 02:18 AM            

CHEMtrail Central. So spare me your righteous indiginantion. Until Thermit changes the URL, I will continue to refer to these formations and their attendant phenomena as chemtrails, chemclouds and chemscum. And my log-in will remain Chem11. If that's all right with you...

This little coner is the neutral zone, I would hope that conjecture would not be associated with fact...IF you choose to do so...that would certainly detract from credibility...which I will have no part of....I am capable of listening to your statements...and have an open mind to to possibilities, but as of yet the word (term) "chemtrail" exists as fact only in the minds of proponets and participants...certainly not in the dictionary...so applying a classification to a designation that has no definition....is not based in fact...

this maybe Chemtrail central, but the neutral zone is not softball...and I am not a second stringer...dig....

Man...I'm pissed. Polluted water, polluted air, polluted people...

yeah those bastards on the bridge telling the girl to "jump bitch" in your state is really sick...

and you bust your ass trying to gather enough evidence to satisfy even the most denial-ridden ostrich in an attempt to pull it's freakin' head outta the sand and what happens? The plug gets pulled.

just put it somewhere else...geeze there's plenty of sites that are free....

posted 08-31-2001 02:44 AM            

Set one up as an example. Please. There's 'plenty' of them. So get crackin'. Find one with a 25 meg file size limit and unlimited bandwidth and you'll be watching the long version by tommorow.

Because debunkers are allowed to post in this forum does not require me to change my conclusions regarding covert aerial spraying, T/S.

I'm not real sure where you're coming from, T/S.. but I fully expect to see free webspace with a 10 meg video hotlinked to this site by tomorrow.

This of, course, isn't going to prevent further DoS attacks, but having a mirror sure wouldn't hurt.

Good luck!

posted 08-31-2001 03:10 AM            

Isn't there a site 50megs.com that's free ?...come on, for a few bucks you can get your own site free of worry...is your chemtrail belief not strong enough to put your money where your mouth is...like Thermit ?

anyway chorg has the space...is there not an area here to do video's too....come on...

Because debunkers are allowed to post in this forum does not require me to change my conclusions regarding covert aerial spraying, T/S.

fair enough, you can wear that liesure suit if you want...I'm telling you it's out of style...listen chief I was asked to be here, invited...not *allowed*...if that was the case...I'd be gone tomorrow...I could careless about political correctness, but accuracy is very important...

but having a mirror sure wouldn't hurt.

no chit...

posted 08-31-2001 12:14 PM            

T/S...you're not listening. Doing too much talking. First you're making bold pronouncements, then asking stupid questions which you could easily answer yourself, then making sly insinuations.

So... where's that webspace?

I'll tell you where. It doesn't exist. This is not 1999, T/S. Providers are no longer handing out bandwidth like candy.

Of course, if you'd have taken a few minutes to research the situation, you'd understand that.

And if you'd taken a minute to listen to what I was telling you, you'd understand why this entire discussion is irrelevant.

I have a website with reliable servers, a fat pipe and sufficienct storage capability. It has been on the receiving end of a DoS attack. Therein lies the problem. I have attempted to address the problem. Hopefully it has been resolved.

Finis.