posted 03-01-2002 07:18 PM            

Bear in mind that the issue is not about fuel spills. I grant that there have been some fuel spills, and so does everyone else. And, as I said before, the fuel spells could pose a danger to our health.

But the pro-chemtrailers are not interested in discussing fuel spills; their belief is that the non-fuel spills are split into contrails and chemtrails. That is their hypothesis. That is what they should try to document and provide evidence for.

Finally, bear in mind that it is not a contest between "professionals" and "amateurs". It is a contest between two interpretations of existing data. It seems to me that people who believe in the deliberate spraying would probably gain tremendous credibility if they came up with evidence.

Let me use an analogy. You say "mushrooms come up from spores and subterranean hyphae". I say "no, they are placed there as footstools by the Little Fairies of the Dawn". You say, "where is your evidence?" I say, "You told me there was a Santa and now I know there wasn't, so you must come up with the proof that mushrooms are not footstools placed there by TLFOTD."

It simply doesn't follow. The fact that there is a third type of emission (fuel dumps) in a pro-chemtrailer's belief doesn't make his assumption that the first type of emission (chemtrails) automatically the default correct position.

The burden of proof is still on him.

posted 03-01-2002 10:48 PM            

If the flat-earth society is getting wound up enough to engage in mass mailing campaigns designed to stifle 3T3L1'S research, then there is something about her efforts that is making them nervous... and I think I know what it is.

While I doubt that any of the CT activity I've personally witnessed can be attributed to fuel dumps, I am concerned with any dispersal of harmful substances on the general population from above.

posted 03-02-2002 08:22 AM            

These are the options I thought of:

1. Have a private aircraft ready at all times, to be able to take in situ samples.

2. Purchase a high resolution digital camera and huge telephoto lens, learn to identify every type of aircraft flown in the U.S., and learn where the fuel dumping ports are on each plane so that you can obtain pictures like this:

3. Call the local psychic hot line.

4. Ask the FAA.

posted 03-13-2002 08:19 AM            

The FAA does not exist to regulate the airline industry. It exists to protect the airline industry.

This has been reinforced by a segment I saw on the O'Reilly Factor. On August 1, 2001, actor James Woods was in first class on a plane travelling from Boston to Los Angeles. Near him were four Middle Eastern men who were behaving oddly.

quote:

---

without going into the details of what made me suspicious of these four men, although it would have been blatantly obvious to the most casual observer, I took it upon myself to go to the flight attendant and ask to speak to the pilot of the plane. The first officer came out. I reported to him that I felt that the four men, and I said, "Can you look over my shoulder and see who I'm talking about?" And he said, "Yeah." I said I think they're going to hijack this plane. ... I also said I'm very much aware of how serious it is to say on an American aircraft in flight the word hijack.

---

The plane landed without incident, but Woods was told that the first officer and the flight attendant made reports about it to--guess who--the FAA.

The FAA had 42 days to investigate those people, at least two of whom were on two of the flights which crashed on September 11. The FAA was unwilling to take action to investigate possible highjackers. As of today, the FAA hasn't even acknowledged my Freedom of Information Act request to give me a list of all fuel dumps reported over the United States in 2001. How willing do you suppose the FAA is to investigate the possibility that chemtrails exist?

posted 03-13-2002 10:33 AM            

Example 1: FAA cuts airports and airlines a bunch of slack when it comes to security, their costs go down, consumers get a better deal, they fly more, airlines make more money, costs go down, consumers get a better deal, etc.

Example 2: FAA cuts airports and airlines a bunch of slack when it comes to security, their costs go down, plane blows up, consumers get a worse deal (especially the dead ones), consumers avoid flying, airlines make less money, costs go up, consumers get a worse deal, etc.

Example 3: FAA cuts airports and airlines a bunch of slack when it comes to traffic patterns and noise abatement, planes fly more efficiently, fuel costs go down, consumers get a better deal, they fly more, airlines make more money, costs go down, consumers get a better deal, etc.

Example 4: FAA cuts airports and airlines a bunch of slack when it comes to traffic patterns and noise abatement, people on the ground complain, file suit, everyone pays for lawsuit-related costs (especially air industry) planes told to quiet down, fly less efficiently, fuel costs go up, consumers get a worse deal,...

Now there's nothing wrong with two groups with different agendas trying to get different regulating agencies to cut them some slack. When this happens, Agency A and Agency B will usually work out a political compromise which (theoretically) gives all the parties a little of what they want, and we end up with a sort-of cost-effective workable situation.

But when you have one regulatory agency that is supposed to represent opposing groups, you're going to end up with institutional schizophrenia, intra-agency backbiting, and bureaucratic paralysis.

And the answer to this conundrum? Damfino.

posted 03-13-2002 10:45 PM            

For one thing, the way you ran the first two paragraphs together, one might get the impression that the first burning eyes episode occurred only two hours after I had observed the trailing Prowler. There was absolutely no connection between the two. The incidents took place a full week apart.

Secondly, there was not one other report in the Mount Vernon area that night — or a month later — even remotely similar to the ones I have written about.

Lastly, I never experienced anything like that before, nor have I since. Not even after I photographed the sequence (posted 02-12-2002 03:06 PM) on February 20, 2001.

I did once play around with one of those mace-on-a-keychain things before I gave it to a girlfriend. Let me tell you — The uncontrollable burning of one’s eyes, along with the accompanying free flowing sinus discharge, is something you never forget. Kinda like the smell of a skunk.

Something else — If the EA-6B in the images is dumping fuel, then the pilot and CO should have faced severe disciplinary action for having allowed this to be taking place over a heavily populated area. Drills of this nature are expected to be held over the waters of Puget Sound. If this was an emergency dump, so that the plane could safely return and land at Ault field, then it was headed 180° in the wrong direction and probably crashed in the Cascade foothills... that is, if it even started to descend from it’s level flight at 10,000 feet.

In all fairness, if you are going to quote from that particular web page of mine, you might want to include the final paragraph:

Apparently, the facts — to which I have testified above — were not good enough even for some of my own friends and co-workers. “Aw, it was just coincidence,” one of them told me. “It was only mischievous neighborhood kids that had to be spraying you.” His tune abruptly changed, early in December of 1999, once he overheard the chilling call placed to my desk phone right after lunch. “This is Rabbit,” the female caller began without missing a beat, “I know you miss me. I will always be around if you want me.” At first, I thought I recognized the voice of a friend who was sitting in the next row of cubicles. It wasn’t her. And when company security took my report, I was informed that the call had originated from outside...

_____________________________

posted 03-14-2002 07:51 AM            

1. I added some more material between the first two paragraphs. I hope this makes the account clearer.

2. So you're saying these symptoms came from something like mace sprayed at close range, not from a trail of some sort sprayed over your house?

posted 03-14-2002 09:05 AM            

....The FAA does not exist to regulate the airline industry. It exists to PROTECT the airline industry....

From the Oxford Dictionary of Weather
Published 2001, Oxford University Press:

KYOTO PROTOCOL

The treaty drawn up at the Kyoto Conference in December 1997, as part of the "Framework Convention on Climate Change", for the limitation of six greenhouse gases or classes of gases [carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride]. A significant omission from the treaty was the question of aircraft emissions, which are a major source of ozone in the upper troposphere, where ozone acts as a greenhouse gas....

Now before the usual parties start piping up with the usual horsesh-t about how I would like to see aviation completely SHUT DOWN, and how I slobber all over myself keeping up with WILLIAM "No-Jets" THOMAS, and any number of other B-S assumptions which are WELL-KNOWN by these parties to be UNTRUE - I just want to say that I think it's reasonable and fair to keep on pointing out that a great many *activities* of the aviation industry are, at best, rather _loosely regulated_.

Why?

DUH.

posted 03-14-2002 03:16 PM            

You say "I just want to say that I think it's reasonable and fair to keep on pointing out that a great many *activities* of the aviation industry are, at best, rather _loosely regulated_....Why?"

I think it's because our country was founded on the concept of minimizing government interference in the lives of its citizens. A great many activities of many endeavors are "loosely regulated", including the freedom to eat a high-cholesterol hamburger, followed by a beer and a cigarette; or the freedom to drive a car with a V8 engine (if you can pay for the gas); or many others.

Although many Americans these days are calling for the government to step in and take responsibility for us, there are enough of these old constitutionalist-type fogies around to at least give us lip service to the outdated idea that we, as reasoning adults, are able to make our own decisions.

Of course, it's the citizens who have the most power that are able to stop this encroachment, and those citizens who see their profits jeopardized by government interference (i.e., big business, big unions, big advocacy groups) are the ones that will work the hardest to keep the government out of their lives.

But with that said, I think that the aviation industry is one of the more strictly-regulated industries around, simply because the results of an aviation-industry mistake often results in the stranding of thousands of passengers or the violent death of several hundred of them at once. That kind of publicity gets the attention of the people in a hurry.

For example, my company has some small knowledge of commercial aircraft and aircraft systems. Yet when, in the aftermath of the terrorist hijackings of our aircraft on September 11, we upgraded the existing design of a crew compartment door for our 7X7 series aircraft which would have made access to the pilots very difficult, the airlines could not accept it - even if we gave them away.

Why? Because they hadn't yet been approved by the FAA, which must rule on the safety of aircraft and their upgrades.

Now admittedly, that appears to be a rather shortsighted approach, but the bottom line is that the FAA does have strict guidelines about what can be done to aircraft. The certification of a new aircraft, for example, is legendary in its detail and difficulty; all the more so for my company, because we must pass every single one of all the certification requirements of every country in the world, since our aircraft are operated in every country and owned by most of those countries.

And if you ask any A&P (Airframe and Powerplant) mechanic how "easy" it is to fulfill the FAA-mandated requirements for maintenance of aircraft, be prepared to get an earful!

Sometimes, of course, the FAA deliberately loosens their requirements. A noted example several decades ago was when they de-regulated aircraft fares. Prior to that, all aircraft were required to charge exactly the same rates for the same routes - and those rates kept most people out of the skies.

Now, each airline can set its own rates. As a result, airlines have been competing madly for the dollars of the passengers - and rates have dropped by more than a factor of two in constant-year 1980 dollars. Now, more and more people are flying - simply they can, for the first time, afford to. You can still get great service - if you're willing to pay for it. But most passengers prefer to eat stale peanuts while sitting in cramped seats, if they can get to Los Angeles for $34.99.

Of course the FAA falls down on the job - as does my company, other aircraft manufacturers, the airlines, ticket agencies, Burger King, and the Boston Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church. But aircraft are safer, cleaner, and more convenient than ever; and a flight is cheaper than anytime in history.

In short, you don't have to be in the "jet set" to take a jet - and you can thank the FAA for a lot of that.

Regards,

posted 03-14-2002 04:28 PM            

quote:

---

there are enough of these old constitutionalist-type fogies around to at least give us lip service to the outdated idea that we, as reasoning adults, are able to make our own decisions.

---

OUTDATED IDEAS!!! OLD FOGIES!! Duncan, what are you thinking? Well, I fit the bill Duncan. I'm 38, a defender of the constitution, a 2nd amendment supporter, a believer in God and damn well capable of making my own decision. Pulheeez tell me you were being sarcastic. I heard tell you were an old fogie living in the land of 1945....What gives with the communist bull?

posted 03-14-2002 05:51 PM            

How interesting that you would bring this into this discussion.

And how interesting that not only the Boston area, but now the entire United States, is being preoccupied around the clock with subject matter GUARANTEED to retain the attention and inflame the emotions of the American public - SEX and RELIGION in the same running script - at this *particular point* in this *particularly volatile* period of our very recent history.

As if the inappropriate behavior of a certain percentage of the Catholic priesthood toward a certain percentage of its parishioners is Something New In The World.

But, no - we must hear all about it, in Living Color, and in Minute, Extended Detail, and *Right This Very Moment*, when so many OTHER matters of *at least* equally-pressing nature are so rapidly converging to GENUINELY threaten the form and tenor of life as we know it.

And as for _regulation_ of the aviation industry, I am primarily referring to matters of fuel and emissions, both of which, as you must surely be aware, are given a great deal of latitude in, shall we say, the Scheme Of Things.

posted 03-14-2002 05:55 PM            

If I were living in 1945, I'd be only a year old. And I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution (about the same time you were born, FWIW) from all enemies foreign and domestic, at which point they gave me a very short haircut and taught me how to KILL (whee).

So yes, I am being sarcastic. I would assume anyone who actually believes in the Constitution and the freedoms enshrined in it (even including the ones we may not approve of) would be the last person calling for more and more and more government interference.

Unfortunately, most people -- 'liberals' and 'conservatives' alike -- are more than happy to have a big nanny government to tell us how to live our lives. I have not figured why that is.

I think, though, that there are quite a few people that distrust the government on one hand, yet want a big government to do the things THEY approve of, like banning guns or abortions or prayer in school or homosexuals or whatever.

Most of them, of course, have never actually done any protecting, e.g., been in the military.

posted 03-14-2002 06:01 PM            

Perhaps you might give some concrete examples of the lack of regulation that the aviation industry 'enjoys'.

But you might also want to check out information on GE, P&W, Rolls-Royce, SNECMA, etc., and find out just how many hundreds of millions of dollars they were forced to spend in order to upgrade their engines to meet government-mandated emissions requirements.

You might also want to look at Aeroflot, which lost hundreds of millions of dollars since their Ilyushin aircraft are not even allowed to fly in most places in Europe and the Americas because their engines are too dirty and noisy for government mandated requirements.

Again, some concrete examples would be most appreciated.

Regards,

posted 03-14-2002 06:04 PM            

What do you mean, you don't always agree with me?? You MUST agree with me! Or I'll cry.

posted 03-14-2002 06:31 PM            

And as for "concrete examples" of the need to evaluate the status of emissions regulation in the aviation industry, there are plenty of them in the published papers of those whose life work it is to identify and quantify the damage accrued to our atmosphere as a result of WHERE these emissions are expelled.

That highly- and repeatedly-touted "mere 1-3 percent" of the Global Emissions Total generated by aircraft does the catalytic damage it does because of WHERE it is emitted.

And, FYI, I am no longer providing "concrete examples" or bunches of reference links on these boards. I feel I have provided enough in almost three years and am on to another level where this work is concerned.

posted 03-14-2002 07:13 PM            

It is well-known that I am a stickler as to concrete documentation, to the best of my ability, of assertions conveyed. I'm not trying to be snotty here. This is just a fact, and I think you know where to find evidence of that.

It's just that I have recently decided, for reasons which you might be able to imagine, that I am not going to be quite as open with certain categories of factual reference material as I have been in the past.

posted 03-14-2002 07:47 PM            

I can't imagine the number of regulations the air industry must have to contend with. The medical community is also highly regulated, but we can focus mainly on the rules which apply in our particular state rather than having to satisfy governments of the entire world.

That said, I think Deborah and I are right to be concerned about potential health effects of aircraft emissions. As you know, kerosene is not a single type of molecule. About 200 peaks show up on gas chromatography, and those aren't even consistent from batch to batch. Add in the extra goodies for deicing, bacterial control, static dissipation, thermal stability and whatnot, and you have a toxic soup which most people would not like to have dumped onto them from on high.

Let's say the fuel is not dumped. Take the aforementioned mixture and burn it under various conditions of temperature, pressure, humidity and engine efficiency and what do you have? The short answer is, we don't know. Somebody needs to do the studies. If lethal molecules are present, we need to be aware of it.

Next, we need to determine the effect of jet fuel and of the products of combustion on human beings. Maybe the molecules in question sound scary, like Alar, but are in fact quite easily handled by our bodies. But maybe they're not. If they're not, we need to know that, so engineers and scientists can get busy on finding safe alternatives.

posted 03-14-2002 09:34 PM            

quote:

---

I don't always agree with him, but I always respect his opinions, and I appreciate the way he expresses himself.

---

posted 03-14-2002 09:51 PM            

I couldn't agree more that some of the stuff coming from the business end of a Rolls-Royce Trent or GE CFM is quite possibly bad for us. Hydrocarbons are bad juju, and we need to be concerned. Even if previous amounts of the stuff haven't hurt us, the very fact that we're seeing twice as many aircraft-miles as in the 1980s should make us look at the problem more carefully.

And I think it'd be fatuous of me to say that my company has no responsibility for the problem simply because we don't make the engines. We have that responsibility as much as P&W or GE, and I like to think that we -- and even those Servants of Satan in Toulouse, France -- want to make the most cost-effective aircraft possible, where 'cost' means health costs as well as money costs. If we don't, the gummint will get lots of pressure from you and other folks and will kick our corporate butts, which is exactly the way it should be.

That said, I don't think that any of the fedz are evil or anything like that. Like most government bureaucracies worldwide, they are afraid of rocking the boat, have an institutional laziness, and can get pretty arrogant at times. I have served in bureaucracies since I was seventeen, when I joined the particularly fouled-up bureaucracies that specialized in bell-bottom britches and dixie-cup hats.

But most government bureaucracies are, on the whole, plagued with incompetence and stupidity. And why not? They have no competition! If your Ford is a pile of junk, you can punish them by buying a Chevy next time. The government, on the other hand, has a monopoly and don't have any incentive to do a good job. You've heard the famous equation: "elephant = mouse built fo government specifications"; it's true.

And that, not chutzpah or criminal conspiracy, was what was behind the chilling success of the attacks on September 11. That and the fact that we live in an open society, and the fact that it simply couldn't happen here. Once it did, of course, the bureacuracies went into CYA mode, and now are trying to tell us that they did the best they could.

Maybe they did; I don't know. What is every bit as frightening as the attack itself, though, is that the bulk of the American people want the government to "be prepared" next time. this could well translate into more and more obtrusive government, and fewer and fewer freedoms.

Hopefully, this whole thing will slack off a little as we continue (hopefully) to destroy the terrorists and their ability to hurt us. Maybe we can live our lives without seeing armed troops, and hymn-singing neofascists pastelizing our lives in six vibrant colors. I don't know.

But I do believe that most of the folks in government, from the snotty GS-3 who wants to make life miserable up to the office of the President, are really at a loss for what to do.