posted 03-01-2002 08:46 AM            

"i waze just trying my hardest to be as obsqure as himler minnus ... I guess it's just too painful for a scientist to actually utter the words 'the data's wrong'....They can land a man on the moon, but they can't create an accurate model of basic atmospheric conditions? The hell with that....Of course were [sic] being told not to trust actual emperical [sic] data. Interesting who's saying that. The same same [sic] people who are demanding that we produce data to prove our point. It seems they can't swallow, or explain, what they have asked for. Not surprising...just disgusting! "

'Pat Minnis is a Nazi' is a typical response; that pretty much sums the level of discourse over there. But look at some of the others: 'The data's wrong' shows a complete misunderstanding of science. Data is never wrong. Data is never right. Data is data. It is the interpretation or conclusions that are right or wrong. Trying to defend against a comment like that is like trying to reason with a person who's angry because you, as a scientist, can't say whether the statement "2 plus X equals 4" if the guy won't tell you what "X" is!

And look at the next statement: "They can land a man on the moon, but they can't create an accurate model of basic atmospheric conditions?" DUH! There's a ever-so-slight difference between the complexities of Newtonian mechanics and a chaos-theory modeling. There is no such thing as "basic atmospheric conditions"! One single forty-acre plowed field out on the county road can maybe cause a localized thermal delta which can maybe cause a localized wind-shear nine thousand meters up - or maybe it won't.

And that is one of the major differences between this board and the carney-board. At least you can discuss science here! Have you ever considered why carney has systematically banned everyone with a science, engineering, or aviation background from his fiefdom?

posted 03-01-2002 10:22 PM            

Are you a professional liar or just a mere hobbyist?

quote:

---

'Pat Minnis is a Nazi' is a typical response.

---

That's odd. I've read that thread repeatedly, yet I don't see this statement anywhere. You've even enclosed it in quotes.

quote:

---

Data is never wrong.

---

This is the most absurd thing I've yet seen posted by someone who makes it their business to dwell in absurdity. Said absurdity is self-evident enough so that I'm going to stay focused on your, erm, 'misrepresentations' for the moment.I also stated that I had no reason to believe that the data was wrong (assuming that such a thing is possible in your peculiar version of reality). A rather convenient omission on your part.

Equally convenient is your splicing together of three separate posters' comments under one set of quotes. I've never seen that done before. You must be some kind of pioneer, huh?

quote:

---

Have you ever considered why carney has systematically banned everyone with a science, engineering, or aviation background from his fiefdom?

---

This is complete nonsense and you know it. There are several people on that board with backgrounds in science, engineering and aviation. I am quite sure you are aware of this. You simply made the choice to intentionally spread disinformation.

I didn't link to this thread so that people on that forum would be subjected to this level of transparent bullshit. I don't link to the hoaxers board for the same reason.

Be assured, I won't make the same mistake twice.

I was quite sincere when I said that I hoped NASA contrail research would be better funded (another curious omission on your part, and the thrust of my argument regarding moon landings vs. atmospheric modeling).

I suspect that your removal from various forums has more to do with your 'contributions' than any expertise in aeronautical engineering. But I guess if I need to find any more pearls of wisdom like "data is never wrong", then I'll know where to look.

posted 03-01-2002 10:58 PM            

try mark sky's post you dolt..."i waze just trying my hardest to be as obsqure as himler minnus"

another example of chemm11 ignoring the obvious....

and is sore throat still alive ??? I would have figured he passed considering the large amounts pathogens he claims are being sprayed on him...(daily for 3+ years)...

btw, Dr. Minnis is a damn nice guy !

posted 03-02-2002 12:07 AM            

If you're going to enclose something in quotes, it shouldn't be radicaly paraphrased. That you would defend this practice is unsurprising. You've done it in the not-so-distant past yourself.

I raised hell and, equally unsurprisingly, it hasn't happened since.

Which brings us to Mr. Kunz.

If the special interest group on this board is going to get in habit of routinely quoting my posts, they better be my words. And mine alone. Not paraphrased or thrown into some late-night infomercial word blender.

That copy & paste function you super-genius avianoics, atmospheric science and military applications experts seem to have somehow overlooked is a real-time saver.

Three debunkers here and not a one has addressed the skew-t plots that are currently displayed on the thread in question. Funny that.

Nothing new there, I saw it happen a dozen times in the Zone. Just post that jpeg of the cat giving me the finger and lets be done with it.

posted 03-02-2002 01:12 AM            

I raised hell and, equally unsurprisingly, it hasn't happened since.

that too cryptic for me...(raising hands to the air)

Three debunkers here and not a one has addressed the skew-t plots that are currently displayed on the thread in question. Funny that.

no...the most qualified person (canex) answered it....

Throat does not want an answer from the good doctor....and as jay said he would be 3/4 the way through a BA in meteorology by now...hell...so would I !!!...chem, he wants to fan the fire, draw attention...if he really wanted an answer regarding the skew-t all he had to do was e-mail Dr. Minnis, and I'm sure after all these years he would have replied...

Just post that jpeg of the cat giving me the finger and lets be done with it.

That is a good one...and don't tempt me...I'm going through a character change right now due to the full moon...it's very stressful....

posted 03-02-2002 04:53 AM            

I've addressed it; I guess you missed it.

http://cdebsjournal.topcities.com/RHaltitude.htm

Ditto: Dr. Minnis IS a darn nice guy. I never dreamed someone like him would take the time for a housewife from Indiana. He gave me my "sea legs" to ask questions of real scientists.

>>>"There are several people on that board with backgrounds in science, engineering and aviation. I am quite sure you are aware of this. You simply made the choice to intentionally spread disinformation."<<<

The only people on that board who have not been banned yet who are professionals in any of the above are the pilots/military. "A background in" or a degree does not mean they have spent their life's career on their choice of previous study. I don't think they would want me to publish dates, degrees or professional/career experience, something Duncan Kunz has been very upfront about. It seems to me people who hide behind monikers make the loudest and most ludicrous accusations.

posted 03-04-2002 02:09 PM            

quote:

---

It seems to me people who hide behind monikers make the loudest and most ludicrous accusations.

---

How many monikers have you used CD/Deb, 7? 8?... when most of us are happy with one. The use of multiple handles/monikers as you've used is more comparable to a criminal like a forger, IDentity thief, who uses AKA's to mislead and misdirect the victims and authorities trying to stop them. In fact, that is exactly why some crooks try to get people to divulge their names publicly, that's how 'identity thieves' operate, but maybe you already know that!?

Ironically, the statement you've made above in quotes does describe yourself.

As we all know, revealing one's name on a public forum like on the 'net, may open you to threats and attacks from whackos and 'debunkers' who deny the existence of any conspiracy, like assassinations, chemtrails, cover-ups, govt. corruption, etc., often from the very people involved in such activites, con-artists, mis-direction specialists and various other psychotic shut-ins.

Deb aka nodebunker has used this 'hiding behind monikers' ploy more times than I can remember as an attempt to intimidate threaten, coerce anyone who uses a moniker/handle that she disagrees with. Gee, I really thought she had cleaned up her act? Just another in the bag of tricks, like her/his/it's/their incendiary remarks used to divide activists through gender, religious and political issues. The entitity known as Deb, whatever that is, has often used these tricks in the past as her method of operation. She seems to be somewhat more limited here at CC as of late?

BTW, hitech... does that mean we can use your standard reply for 'Deb' responses, like, is it part of the popular domain? I guess we can come up with our own. It sure would save time having to respond to her patented attacks/statements over and over and over again.

Also, BTW... a word of caution, the use of common first/last names does not necessarily mean that's their true name. In other words, it's not any more an indication of sincerity, honesty or anything else... it's just a name, two names that may or may not identify the person/persons making statements on forums like this.

posted 03-04-2002 02:42 PM            

quote:

---

does that mean we can use your standard reply for 'Deb' responses, like, is it part of the popular domain? I guess we can come up with our own. It sure would save time having to respond to her patented attacks/statements over and over and over again.

---

posted 03-04-2002 08:43 PM            

That is so true, I mean have you seen some of the names and comments that deb has made about some of the refreshing people searching for answers...not to mention so many others who have attacked and threatened law abiding citizens who while using their freedom of speech have questioned what exactly the "problem" as you call it is?..What exactly should we call this problem? Perhaps that would give us a clue as to how to approach having it stopped or investigated as to ensure the future air,water and atmospheric qualities for the health and benefit of all americans...Really we had to come up with our own word to describe it since there did not seem to be one that quite fit watching our sky turn from blue to white in such a short period of time....I am certainly glad to know that there are people studying this figment of our imagination...do you have any email addresses for those particular scientist who might offer some suggestions on just what the problem is and just how we go about stopping it.....thanks ms

posted 03-04-2002 09:07 PM            

quote:

---

Lots of abuse has been heaped on refreshing people who seek a rational explanation for phenomena...

---

Let me stop you there, for the sake of being agreeable. I've watched legitmately concerned citizens labeled everything from morons to terrorists by the so-called 'debunking' community. Quite disturbing, no?

quote:

---

...rather than assuming the worst about either the government or its employees, who BTW are citizens of the same country and abide by the same laws as everyone else on this board.

---

Oh, I see. Such courtesy does not apparenly extend to US citizens concerned about their health, environment and constitutional rights. My mistake.

I'm glad the topic of assumption has been raised though. The idea that anyone intelligent enough to operate a keyboard would 'assume' that "the government or its employees, who BTW are citizens of the same country and abide by the same laws as everyone else on this board" is well, laughable.

If Canex will agree to pay me just $1.00 USD for every documented case of a government employee being convicted for not abiding by these same laws, I will happily retire from this discussion and start looking at beach front property on various remote islands far, far way from these ponderous trails, artificial clouds, and assorted phenomena.

quote:

---

If Sorethroat or any of the characters on these boards really want an explanation of contrails (chemtrails are a figment of someone's paranoia), then they should email the scientists involved in studying contrails and not seek out TV weathermen, Air Traffic Controllers, carnies, or...

---

I wasn't aware that the poster was qualified to practice psychiatry and am sure, considering his stated distate for assumption and 'personal abuse' he would never render this sweeping judgement on all those concerned without making a clinical diagnosis of those afflicted with this terrible mental disease. I never knew you could have a psyhiatrist without even meeting him, much less a friend.

quote:

---

...any number of people who haven't really studied the problem.

---

Problem? I hope the poster clarifies this comment.

What problem?

posted 03-04-2002 11:42 PM            

quote:

---

Contrails are the problem. They fill the skies with cloud cover.

---

Yes that would be a problem, wouldn't it? Espescially if that coverage increased dramatically circa 1999. The increase in air traffic since that time is completely out of proportion to the increase in persistent contrails and artificial cirrus cloud cover, near as I can tell.

That is the primary reason, in my opinion, that most people who are aware of this issue come to the conclusion that these artificial clouds are the result of an intentional program to create them.

The second would be the inability of observers to identify the jets responsible as being anything other than non-commercial. Thermit's exhaustive Trail Research Report bears this out, and my own attempts to identify these planes (based upon direct observation) have met with similar results.

There are, of course, other reasons; 'chemtrails' turning up in congressional legislation as exotic weapons, patents for 'powder contrail' generation, the United States Air Force's self-stated 'strategy' for 'owning the weather' and the military's well-documented history of non-conscenual human experimentation via aerial dispersal of biologicals... to name but a few.

For the sake of arguement, let's discard this evidence (circumstantial and otherwise). I think you will find that most people have little desire to be burdened with the notion that there is a large-scale covert aerial spraying program occuring over their heads on an almost daily basis.

The only other seemingly plausible explanation is that something has drastically changed in our atmosphere. I recall that Air Force Contrail Fact Sheet described solar radiation as being a 'possible' reason for this increase in contrail persistence.

I was a bit surprised too see a straight forward answer to my question, so I'm going to roll the dice one more time, Canex...

posted 03-05-2002 07:43 AM            

Yes, canex. I have a subscription to Flight Explorer, and I've figured out that most of the persistent trails over Lubbock come from flights headed west or northwest out of Dallas/Ft. Worth.

That being said, I have to ask the same question Chem11 does--what is the primary causative factor for these ultra-persistent trails that have appeared since about 1998?

posted 03-05-2002 07:55 AM            

**I definetily agree with that statement...

Sketchy contrail statistics gleaned from satellite images had suggested jet trails would be climatically insignificant. Minnis says ****"we know better than that [now]."*****

Recent research has found what Minnis calls a strong correlation between ***contrail frequency and fuel usage**** over the United States.<<

***(my note...I consider "fuel" chemicals, so in essence they are chemical trails)

No one knows how much of the increased cloudiness to pin on contrail cirrus. But any significant fraction that is due to contrails would be of ***climatic concern****.<<

*So why does everybody act like we should not be concerned????

>>>that's a hemisphere-wide - if not global - concern.<<<

posted 03-05-2002 09:39 AM            

quote:

---

Have any of the chemtrail believers ever considered that they are actually looking at contrails and not chemtrails? Have they tried to check the available scientific literature

---

Yes, canex, did you forget already?

I've done a detailed study using Flight Explorer and atmospheric soundings. I determined that most jet traffic are in the passenger/freight/private category. And that there are some military flights that leave trail strips that persist for orders of magnitude longer than the confirmed contrails.

posted 03-05-2002 11:58 AM            

To me it's not a matter of being concerned or not, it's a matter of what really is and isn't. Once you determine the real-contrails and what is not- chemtrails, then further interest and concern step in. But you have to start with the obvious and the real, not what someone leads you to believe.

Dr. Minnis and his team have been working on this issue for how many years? But as this thread's original posts shows, his work is considered "disinformation" by chemtrailers.
Contrails are contrails, fuel dumps are fuel dumps. Dr. Minnis and his team are career scientists; his accusers are - not.

>>>. . .

"High altitude humidity was never a big factor in weather forecasts until recently. SO, people are trying come up with better operational measurement systems."
http://cdebsjournal.topcities.com/RHaltitude.htm

>>>. . ."I have a subscription to Flight Explorer, and I've figured out that most of the persistent trails over Lubbock come from flights headed west or northwest out of Dallas/Ft. Worth.

3, have you timed the persistence of those contrails, the flights and the altitudes at which they were flying? And did you also see those same flights on non-contrail days? Dates? times? Flight numbers?