posted 04-29-2002 11:25 PM            

Here Duncan...try this on, since you refuse to address the State of California Air Resources Control Board evidence of significant increases of the TOXIC heavy metal barium in the air of California...thousands of samples over many years.

So here's some fresh evidence today:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/images/vis_enhanced/2002042919.gif

posted 04-29-2002 11:30 PM            

Pictures of clouds and contrails over the Pacific Ocean!

I guess you showed me some "evidence"!

posted 04-29-2002 11:39 PM            

did you forget to confer with CANEX before you so hastily responded ...

Kunz ?

posted 04-30-2002 02:20 PM            

I have read your post, and have responded on a point-by-point basis. As usual, your comments are in "quotes"; mine are in italics.

"You gave me that LONG spiel on aircraft travelling through atmospheric blah blah blah blah...."

To be honest, if you are going to refer to my explanations as 'blah, blah, blah', then why should I bother trying to explain it any more? It seems to me that, if you consider any explanation I make as 'blah blah blah', either you don't understand my point or you already have your mind made up.

But since you asked me again, I'm going to assume that you really want some answers and are not asking just because you want to troll or flame me. Here we go:

First, there's not much difference in the reporting via a video clip and a still photograph. With a video-clip we can see the contrails start and stop, but the still photograph shows us what had just happened, and we can reasonably assume that because the still photograph shows a broken contrail, then it really did start and stop.

Therefore, any comment that can explain the still photo of a broken contrail can probably explain a video of the same, right?

Now you weren't in the airplane to see them starting and stopping the "spray nozzles"; and I wasn't on board to see that there really weren't any "spray nozzles", so neither of knows for sure. All we have is our respective hypotheses, based on how we interpret the evidence; in other words, our own explanations for the 'start-and-stop' contrails.

I explain this phenomenon, as I mentioned earlier, by the fact that the upper-atmospheric environment is very dynamic, with as little as fifty meters of altitude showing enough differentiation in conditions for contrails to either form or not form. This means that a plane that varies its altitude by 50 meters or so - if the conditions were right - could very well "dip" into and out of a different altitude with different atmospheric characteristics, and thus display (or not display) a contrail. I'm sure you've been a passenger on a commercial jet often enough to know that sometimes the plane bounces up and down!

But the plane can be flying perfectly level and still exhibit start-an-stop contrails. For example, a freshly-plowed field six miles below can result in a higher IR radiation reflectance that would rise right up and change an area that may only be a mile in diameter. If you postulate a commercial aircraft flying at 500 miles per hour, it would fly through that patch of disturbed air in 7.2 seconds. That way, you could have (even with an anomalous area a mile across) a contrail start and then stop - or stop and then re-start - in seven seconds.

This existence of this atmospheric dynamism has been demonstrated for over fifty years by detailed balloon- and aircraft-borne radiosonde deployments, and you can find detailed reports of this in almost any textbook of meteorology published in my lifetime - and I'm pretty old.

On the other hand, you might say that such 'start-and-stop' contrails are caused by clogged nozzles or some other malfunction in the 'spray' device. If you think about it, doesn't it seem a bit far-fetched that the same folks who make aircraft engines that almost never malfunction would build such a failure-prone device as the technological centerpiece of their worldwide plot?

Or, if you think that the "turning on and off" is deliberate on the part of the chemtrail-weenies, wouldn't you have to ask why? I mean, if the turn their 'sprayers' on and off and on and off, then they'd be getting peoples' attention which could blow the entire Secret Plot, right? Plus, if they stopped spraying, then they'd have to come back later and spray again to cover the area they missed!

So if you want an explanation for start-and stop contrails, you either have to be in the aircraft looking at the crewmembers (which you weren't, of course, and neither was I) or you have to come up with an explanation for the phenomenon which makes sense to you. The first explanation above makes more sense to me. If the second explanation makes more sense to you, I'm certainly not going to hold a gun to your head and make you think otherwise.

"... and I questioned why there was such a vast difference between the two sides of the aircraft, you know, how the one side of the aircraft's trail peters out to a sputtering state while the other remained pretty steady."

I haven't a clue. I wasn't there. Perhaps one side of the aircraft was heated by the sun a bit more which caused a change in the fuel burn characteristics, or one engine was set at a slightly higher speed or fuel mixture. Or perhaps not.

"Not to mention the FACT that this clip starts out with significant trails being laid down, then shut off, purged momentarily, then resumed once more with seemingly lesser density."

In the words of Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 presidential debate: 'There you go again, Mr. President.' It is not a 'FACT' that trails were 'laid down then shut off, purged momentarily, then resumed...' What is a 'FACT' is that the pictures show an aircraft contrail start and stop and start again. You are confusing an observation on your part - which is a perfectly good observation -- with your interpretation of an observation. It may sound nit-picky to you, but being able to differentiate between observations and interpretations is what separates scientists from non-scientists.

Or, to paraphrase poor Wisequakker: "...By itself, science tells us what should be. Only tempered with clinical observation and common sense, does it tell us what really is, and when we add wishful thinking, we end up going off the deep end......"

"Thank you, and sorry to interrupt this particular whizzing contest."

Thank you for your consideration, Phantom911. However, in the words of the famous International Olympic Committee President (and crook) Juan Samaranch: "I declare the 2002 Urinary Olympiad to be over!!"

Regards,

posted 04-30-2002 03:43 PM            

quote:

---

Don't believe me? Argue it with these guys at Cornell: http://www.vortex.mae.cornell.edu/long_top.html

Sounds like a plan to me. I visited the Cornell site, saw the same type of thing based on a series of photographs in their simulation, and managed to stumble through the accompanying text.

Admittedly it is kind of complex, and fluid dynamics was not my strong suit (nor were the diffie-q's you need to pencil-whip them). Nonetheless, I'm convinced that the 'rings-on-a-snake' are explained jsut fine by interaction of vortices.

Sorry.

---

You’re “sorry”, alright. And your ongoing display of humility is just as phony. I don’t have to take up anything with “the guys at Cornell”. Their presentation is perfectly valid. It’s your application of their findings in such a slipshod fashion that is an insult to their research. I already explained why that is, in detail. If you need a refresher, go back and reread it. If you don’t care, well that’s fine, too.

Now, here is some valid science for you — which you have failed to address. To quote myself:

quote:

---

If what I photographed was such a classic example of the rarely-seen vortex core, then where are the rings? They are much more prominent than any “snake” that is visible in one of the images I have presented, above. In the actual clinical SUCCESS trial, shown above that, the core is completely undetectable. Furthermore, any trapped ice crystals still form an aggregate — not a conglomerate — and they must obey the same dynamic laws as does the parent vortex. That is, the vortex core will expand with time and distance from the point of its generation. There is no evidence of expansion in either of the photographs that I have submitted.

---

No, Duncan, you and I are not teammates. Not in the broadest sense. You can add anything you like to my tagline, if you want to. It is nice to know that it has found it’s mark in poor old Mr. Kunz...

_____________________________

posted 04-30-2002 07:25 PM            

Phan, I am sorry you failed again. Not sorry for you, but sorry that I wasted my time thinking that you were really asking questions.

Quak, I firmly believe you don't have the brains to bait a fish-hook, and I understand now what you mean about us not being "teammates" -- I made a few calls myself over the past couple of days.

But I do owe you, for one of the best (inadvertent, I'm sure) jokes I'd ever heard:

"Now, here is some valid science for you ... to quote myself"

posted 05-01-2002 10:56 PM            

Please link this satellite picture to this thread before it becomes unavailable.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/images/vis_enhanced/2002042919.gif

Everyone should easily be able to see what Kunz reefers to as , "Pictures of clouds and contrails over the Pacific Ocean".

He may be laughing to himself...others aren't.

It would be interesting to see a discussion between CANEX and Kunz as to whether these are "contrails-Kunz" or "ship trails-CANEX".

But then that would create dissension in the ranks of the debunkers.

posted 05-01-2002 11:08 PM            

It would be interesting to see a discussion between CANEX and Kunz as to whether these are "contrails-Kunz" or "ship trails-CANEX".

I'll put a hundred on canex...

I saved the pic (one better on my site btw), just in case it's gone...all you have to do throat is save it to your "documents" then upload it to ctc uploading area...

still laughing...."contrails over the pacific"...isn't that a broadway muscial !!...LOL...

posted 05-01-2002 11:24 PM            

THEN we'll consider COMPARABLE conditions occuring in the TROPICS.

posted 05-02-2002 12:08 AM            

And nobody else outside this one small community does, either.

I don't think that your thousand pictures of contrails are "evidence" of some Secret Plot -- any more that a thousand pictures of Christmas-presents are "evidence" of the existence of Santa Claus.

But you know that. Your petitions, after more than a year of signing efforts, have reached the grand total of -- what? Seven hundred signatures? The funds you set up to actually find something out have been spent on -- what? An "activist's" computer-monitor?

Throat, what has your three years of posting on the carnicom-board -- and now here -- done for you? You haven't proven anything. Your "scientific studies" a la Therese Aigner have further damaged the entire credibility of the contrail issues.

The only credible researchers I can think of are Thermit and 3T3L1, and you keep tripping them up.

I mean, you can yell insults, and the claque will applaud approvingly; but to what avail? None of the real media buy what you're selling; no scientists buy what you're selling; the American people don't buy what you're selling. To most people, you're just another cult.

It's not a case of "sheeple" versus "patriots"; it's not the "Illuminati" versus the Americans; it's not even Good versus Evil! It's science versus silliness; validity versus vapidity; common sense versus paranoia. It's reason, logic, and thought versus BobB, defender, and Quak.

The bottom line, Throat, is not that you're losing the race or that you even lost it.

The bottom line is that you never were in the race to begin with.

posted 05-02-2002 05:43 AM            

Careful, Thermit and 3T3L1. The red flags go up when Kunz starts making sucking-up noises. Rather two-faced, when you stop and think about it...

_____________________________

“When walking amongst predators, never lose awareness of your surroundings. By itself, science tells us what should be. Only tempered with clinical observation and common sense, does it tell us what really is......”

posted 05-02-2002 07:36 AM            

Quak, I disagree with some of Duncan's opinions. But when it comes to science, he has a much better grasp than you do of what real science is. Sorry.

posted 05-02-2002 08:41 AM            

"I mean, you can yell insults, and the claque (sp?) will applaud approvingly; but to what avail? None of the real media buy what you're selling; no scientists buy what you're selling; the American people don't buy what you're selling. To most people, you're just another cult.

It's not a case of "sheeple" versus "patriots"; it's not the "Illuminati" versus the Americans; it's not even Good versus Evil! It's science versus silliness; validity versus vapidity; common sense versus paranoia. It's reason, logic, and thought versus BobB, defender, and Quak."

posted 05-02-2002 09:36 AM            

"Quak, I disagree with some of Duncan's opinions. But when it comes to science, he has a much better grasp than you do of what real science is. Sorry." Bullsquat here.
There goes that damn annoying sucking noise again.

How much longer is Thermit going to allow this crap from kunz?? For many, many months he has done nothing but disrupt,slander,argue,call names,belittle others work and in general causes any real forward progress to take two or three steps backwards.
The longer he stays and is allowed to carry on unabated the bolder and more insulting he gets.
Thermit, whose board is this, 3t3's, kunz's or yours? For criss sake man, give this guy the boot, and take away flight privledges from 3t3.
Who is this kunz, and why the tolerance to his belittling attitude? Anyone else would have been told long ago to hit the road.
Is he that much better in their minds than the rest of us?? One person out of all the members here, better than you or me? Or is there something else at work here. Others have done less and were banned or at least kicked in the scrotum to get their attention, not so with the imperial kunz, he just gets to go on and on.
Pay attention to how many come and go here, and how many actually post. FEW.

And as for 3t3 she needs to be removed as a mod. Doing a lousy job by defending kunz and his abnormal and insulting behavior. She is about as neutral as he is nice. NOT!

posted 05-02-2002 02:53 PM            

.....For many, many months he has done nothing but disrupt,slander,argue,call names,belittle others work and in general causes any real forward progress to take two or three steps backwards.....

Exactly, David.

And this kind of situation is *exactly* why most of the real progress is occurring OFF the board(s) - and has been for some time.

Take heart.