posted 06-07-2002 11:22 PM            

Bshrdr, you made some of the points I was going to make re: the patents. I was interrupted before I could complete my post and did not get back to it until now.

I especially like the Ronald Rayguns era star wars missile defense patent (5,038,664) While it may be scientifically possible, this system would be rather infeasible, don’t you think? And 1500 kilometers above the earth is a lot higher than most jets can fly. (Besides we learned all to well last September that high tech crap like that is too easily circumvented).

I also think that this is a "speculative" patent. Kind of like what the people who camped on all of the good internet domain names did in the early 90’s. They had no intention of using them, they just wanted to make money from some one who might.

posted 06-08-2002 01:41 AM            

If I "saw" indications of the star wars program, and then found that the patent existed as well, why should I not think it's existent??

I see planes laying "patternized" contrails that do funny things. I find a patent that backs up such applications and methods. Now what substance or reason do I have to say that this is not existent?

I agree that a patent is not necessarily indicative of actual existence of apparatus, but it does require at least the operational competence of any given device or mechanism to be approved. Considering this, I believe it is logical to assume that such devices and methods do exist and are being used. Especially considering I SEE it happening almost daily.

So Bonehead, I have definitely laid out much more substance to support the existence of such, as compared to your relentless skepticism that is backed by nothing more than your opinion.

I don't feel like you are looking at this objectively. I think you would you reject the existence of these methods and the existence of chemtrails even if George Walker Bush told ya himself that they were present. I guess you simply enjoy disagreeing without being able to back up your opinion.

so tell me bonehead,

why is it that

1. These jets intentionally create x patterns in the sky with these "contrails". Surely it's not their normal flight path to come back around at a different heading and fly directly through the center of their previously laid contrail?

2. If these "contrails" are normal, and are from commercial traffic or normal flight patterns, then why aren't the trails persistent?? Why don't all jets produce the same type of contrails? Why do some seem to have no contrails when others seem to blow out enormous amounts?

3. If these jets aren't using chemicals, why are the contrails so thick and dense? Do you really believe they are burning THAT MUCH fuel that such vapors would be the end result?? My god, so much for "gas mileage".

Oh yeah,

and what the hell is this???

Also....

Ironically, It's quite possibly that this is all part of the "starwarsâ„¢" program, so to speak. Not exactly, but I have read some hypothesis on scalar shielding (I.E. continental) which would disarm any incomimg projectile or electrical device instantly, with the same general effect as an EMP. Bernard Eastlund, patent holder for the technology employed in HAARP, mentions this in his patent. Also there is some actual correlation as the entire continental USA is covered by EM fields transmitted by G.W.E.N. (ndgps) and HAARP. It's really quite interesting but it seems most numb skulls are too busy criticising every little aspect of everything else they never have time or ambition to actually do the research.

posted 06-09-2002 11:25 PM            

"I see planes laying "patternized" contrails that do funny things. I find a patent that backs up such applications and methods. Now what substance or reason do I have to say that this is not existent?"

In the same breath, you would be remiss to admit that it's likely it may not exist as well.

"I agree that a patent is not necessarily indicative of actual existence of apparatus, but it does require at least the operational competence of any given device or mechanism to be approved."

Operational competence would only indicate that it's physically capable of working in a mechanical sense. Whether or not it actually has any practical use would remain to be seen. I use the plethora of mouse trap designs as my support. Many will actually work, but most don't do a very good job at doing so, or require such complexity that no one is going to bother to use such a device.

"Especially considering I SEE it happening almost daily"

I don't really think that you KNOW what you are seeing, given the rest of your post.

"1. These jets intentionally create x patterns in the sky with these "contrails". Surely it's not their normal flight path to come back around at a different heading and fly directly through the center of their previously laid contrail? "

First, show me documentation that it's the same jet. Secondly, here's a good link describing jet airways, etc:
http://www.geocities.com/pacerlj35/high4.html

In fact, it even has a pic of the airways above Indiana.

"2. If these 'contrails' are normal, and are from commercial traffic or normal flight patterns, then why aren't the trails persistent?? Why don't all jets produce the same type of contrails? Why do some seem to have no contrails when others seem to blow out enormous amounts?"

Contrails are subject to many parameters. There are many reasons why, and viewing from the ground presents a handicap. Aircraft fly at various altitudes. They might look like the same altitude to you on the ground, but they may actually be seperated by 1,000+ feet. Where at one altitude the conditions are ripe for contrails, it may not be that way a couple thousand feet higher or lower.

Also, it depends on the jet engine. The larger the engine, the more air it can suck down. And the more air, the more water vapor. Jets with smaller engines, like a Learjet, may not form very impressive contrails, while in the same conditions, a larger CF6 engine on a Boeing 737 might form very persistant contrails.

"3. If these jets aren't using chemicals, why are the contrails so thick and dense? Do you really believe they are burning THAT MUCH fuel that such vapors would be the end result?? My god, so much for 'gas mileage'."

Contrails have nothing to do with fuel. It's water vapor. Not water vapor from fuel, but water from the air. And it's not the volume of fuel that affects a contrail, but the volume of air being sent through an engine.

"and what the hell is this???"

The first picture is an F-18 during a flight test. The little strings all over the airplane are used to measure airflow direction. The "trail" you see is made of smoke, and used to provide a visual reference of the airflow over the airfoil.

I have no idea what the other thing is...could be alot of things to be honest. Some engineering geek thingy.

posted 08-20-2002 06:12 PM            

Sailors Skeptical of Chemical Tests
By TOM STUCKEY
ASSOCIATED PRESS

ANNAPOLIS, Md.- Sailors who were sprayed with chemicals aboard a Navy ship in the 1960s received assurances Tuesday that the government is actively trying to determine whether the tests caused their health problems.

But USS Power crew members attending a reunion in Annapolis said they doubted the promises, as well as claims that the chemicals used were not generally harmful to humans.

"The fact of the matter is we were subjected to tests without our knowledge, without our consent and without protection," said John Ekman, of Portland, Ore., who has suffered respiratory problems since leaving the Navy. "I went into the Navy without any of that stuff. Why would I come out with it?"

The USS Power was off the coast of Newfoundland in 1965 when it was sprayed with a bacteria and with zinc cadmium sulfide in an exercise called Copper Head, government officials say.

It was part of a series of tests conducted by the military known as Shipboard Hazard and Defense, or SHAD. The tests were meant to help the Pentagon determine how to protect ships from biological and chemical warfare.

Dr. Michael Kilpatrick of the Defense Department's Deployment Health Support Directorate said Tuesday there is no evidence in defense files that SHAD participants were told they were being subjected to chemical tests even though they were supposed to know in advance.

"Today, those are not tests that we would do," Kilpatrick said.

One of the major complaints of veterans' groups is that the Pentagon has refused to declassify information about the tests, said Rick Weidman, director of government relations for Vietnam Veterans of America.

Kilpatrick and Thomas Pamperin of the Department of Veterans Affairs said the two agencies are disclosing the chemicals that were used in the tests but will not reveal the concentrations of chemicals used or other details because such information might be helpful to terrorists.

Pamperin said the VA has 28 requests pending from veterans involved in the SHAD tests claiming they suffered permanent damage to their health. He promised that the VA will process those claims as quickly as possible.

Weidman said after the meeting that he did not hear anything new from Kilpatrick and Pamperin.

SHAD "is a story replete with delay, deception and callousness toward the men and women who have served their country so well," Weidman said. "This is just so shameful. It's such a betrayal."

---

On the Net:

Description of some of the tests: http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/current-issues/shad/shad-intro.shtml

--
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/aug/20/082000837.html