posted 11-03-2002 11:53 PM            

November 1, 2002

To all:
The letter to the editor, placed in the forum, produced a great deal of response. Much of it from the "debunkers", those who insist that chemtrail tracks in the sky definitively and uncontrovertibly are nothing more than water vapor normally expelled from jet engines. The response to reactions to the letter to the editor also received a great many replies. Many, also, from the "debunkers". Tellingly, and, perhaps, unsurprisingly, for their past actions, these responses tread much the same ground, engaging in unfounded denials, casual misrepresentations and undeserved calumny. Generally, little more than schoolyard bullying.
PacerLJ35, one of the "debunkers" to whom I referred, was one who responded; to approach the form of his "rejoinders" is to see the general pattern of - frankly - dissembly which the "debunkers", in general, employ to try to control opinion.
He begins by referring to the response to posts by "debunkers" against the letter to the editor by saying "what a long, drawn out diatribe THAT was.
"All it amounted to was alot [sic] of effort given to whining about people who wish to question and debate your point of views [sic]."
He then proceeds to opine: "Julian, it can only be surmised that your idea of freedom of speech is one where you can say anything you like [sic] others are prohibited from challenging your assertations [sic]."
He then adds, pointlessly: "True freedom I see."
Among other things, the complaint about length appears particularly questionable. Since when does the value of something depend only on how little time and effort you give to it? This evidenced attitude is fully in keeping with someone who truly wishes to deceive others by counselling them to do the least possible with respect to an issue, and that includes looking at chemtrails and, because it involves work to look into then, simply believing what lies you are told about them! Any attempt to refute this point will have to, first, assert that PacerLJ35's opening remarks do not excoriate effort and work!
PacerLJ35 then goes on to characterize my response post as "whining about people who wish to question and debate" the contention that chemtrails are not normal. It is eminently open to question just what exactly constituted "whining"! To whine is to complain bleatingly about a presumed infraction of one's rights. I demonstrated the palpable tenuousness of their assertions.
And, if taking issue with another's statements is "whining", how do the "debunkers" describe their often vituperation-laden missives to the chemtrail opponents?
More than anything else, though, the nature of what the "debunkers" call "principle" can be seen in PacerLJ35's excoriation on "freedom of speech". He "defines" my supposed "idea of freedom of speech" as being a case where only one side, mine, can say something, and any assertions to the contrary are not allowed. At no point did I say anything like that, either! I showed up the factual errors and lapses in reason in "debunkers'" statements. Since when is proving the falsity in another's statements fighting against "freedom of speech"?
To be sure, countering lies and falsehoods can be represented as working at delimiting the scope of discourse. To try to prevent others from engaging in dishonorable dispersal of fraud can be said to be thwarting "completely unencumbered speech". But since when is pursuing the honorable an ignoble goal? Is it a violation of freedom of speech to oppose those who say that "two plus two equals five"; or to condemn someone who coaxes a person to cross a bridge that's about to collapse; or to blow the whistle on a CEO who fraudulently inflates the price of his stock? To do so certainly does act to control the flow of doggerel, but is it a heinous pursuit?
In fact, accusing the righteous and their pursuit of the honorable way of acting - as opposed to the plethora of dishonorable ways! - as "fighting against freedom" is a commonplace among the truly disingenuous. With no way to legitimately endorse their interests, they, instead, take issue with the practice of opposing them. And that is to accuse such opposition as "violating personal freedom"!
But, in fact, the completely uncontrolled engagement in activity purely on the basis of personal whim, unmediated by thought of the effect on others, which those who promote the indecent reliably term "freedom", is, in reality, "license"! And those who seek to thwart the promoting of honor by defining "freedom" to be utter lack of responsibility for your actions, are behaving "licentiously"! To seek to have people agree that "two plus two equals four" may be depicted as seeking to "stifle freedom", but it does not necessarily represent the "assault on human liberty" that the unrighteous would seek to portray it as!
No more than calling a chemtrail a contrail makes it a contrail!
And, in opposing the willful and, apparently, foul-spirited proclivity in so many to dismiss chemtrails as a danger to the population, the chemtrail opponents are not trying to "destroy freedom"!
If that were the case, how do the chemtrail "debunkers" portray their attempting to sway opponents to their "way of thinking"?
And that is precisely what they are doing!
They refer to it as “freedom of speech”, but “freedom” does not so easily apply to deliberate deception or fraud - or they would not be a crime! - and those genuinely acting out of honorable intent do not engage in the dismissive and truculent behavior so characteristic of the “debunkers”. Obvious by its absence in PacerLJ35’s reply to the latest posting on Chemtrails Central was abusive and contemptuous speech. But that was because a prominent point was made of that attitude, both in the letter to the editor, and the post about the replies to the letter.
But condemnatory speech was not missing in PacerLJ35’s reply to the latest post, however. The reference to chemtrail complainants “opposing” the “freedom of speech” that the “debunkers” seem to want to equate lying to the people about chemtrails with, is old hat in “debunker” letters and posts, by now. Depicting chemtrail opponents as spoiled, self-centered dictator wannabe’s is yet another of their evidently calculated misrepresentation of the truth!
So carelessly and casually does PacerLJ35 pass off the comment: “Look, if you’re going to type something charging that the government or any other institution is spraying people with high-altitude aircraft, you’ve got to understand that there are people out there that don’t agree with your theories. Cry all you want, but that’s the way it is.”
Why, all of a sudden, does PacerLJ35 refer to people “not agreeing with my theories”? If you know - as surely as the “debunkers” say they do! - that high-flying spraying is not occurring, it is not a matter of simply “not agreeing”! Agreement, generally, is a factor of undecided circumstances, or matters where two or more alternatives can be considered of equal value or quality! The “debunkers” insist that they have complete and incontrovertible proof that chemtrails are merely normal contrails! In that case, it is not a matter of “not agreeing”; it is a matter of having the absolute proof! Why is PacerLJ35 suddenly running to the presumed cover of the presumed “equality of opinion” dodge, also so often trundled by the insincere and deceitful?
And where, either in the letter to the editor or the reply post to the letter’s responses, did I “cry” about others having differing opinions? I described the foul-mannered and spiteful actions, on the part of the “debunkers”, which cannot, legitimately, be described any other way! Calling names. Dismissing worried people’s genuine concerns. Making fun of people asking questions about a subject the “debunkers” evidently want swept safely under the rug! To call a rude, boorish, ill-mannered, apparently unprincipled individual rude, boorish, ill-mannered and apparently unprincipled is not crying, nor is it name calling. It is using unpleasant terms to describe an unpleasant situation! To fail to describe an ugly circumstance using ugly words may comport with the evidently self-serving “definition” of “politeness” that the “debunkers” embrace, but it is not necessarily honorable in the least!
Playing deceitfully and insincerely with words and sentiments is an apparent stock in trade of the "debunkers" - they demonstrate it readily! - and is what can be expected in any protracted repartee with them.
Which is what makes their "invitation" to "debate" patently ludicrous.
For they, evidently, do not intend even to engage in legitimate discourse, but merely a verbal abomination of deliberately protracted verbiage, posing as "discussion! The "debate" that "debunkers" wish to engage in, apparently - and which they condemn chemtrail opponents for refusing to join! - is nothing more, evidently, than a calculated waste of time; a deliberate, endless banter, back and forth, to avoid something substantive being done! And, to refuse to engage in such an apparent act of subterfuge, and failing to improve worsening conditions because of it, is not a flaw or a failing!
Demonstrative, too, of the apparent deceit of the “debunkers”, is the “explanation” of PacerLJ35’s having the term “Government Shill” applied to his i.d., and Traveler’s referring to themselves as “Sheeple”. “That’s an automatic function of posting” on the message board, PacerLJ35 insists. “It’s a bit like how you call yourself ‘New Member’”. “New Member” is a term directly related to the functioning of a computer-based bulletin board! For someone to have an i.d. and posting privileges would define them as a “Member”. To have just started would qualify them as “New”. There is nothing in the automatic operation of a computer-based bulletin board which appends the terms “Government Shill” or “Sheeple” to an individual. Too, I did not call myself “New Member”! That was done by the computer!
The mentioning, in the reply, of PacerLJ35’s previous misspelled denunciation of ethylene dibromide in jet fuel as indicative of questionable intellectual capacity in the “debunker” community” is “countered” by: “So…what are you getting at? There is NOTHING, except rumors posted on chemtrail websites, linking EDB to jet fuel. Your quote above is at best a diversionary tactic, because you didn’t even attempt to prove me wrong, Julian (or whatever your name is)…show me proof of EBD, and maybe we’ll have a real debate.”
Since the degree of PacerLJ35’s evident questionable intellectual depth seems to preclude their even being aware that I was referring to their misspelling, I will state that in so many terms. I was referring to the misspelling.
Any failure to produce significant documentation on ethylene dibromide in jet fuel is not definitively interpretable as only the non-existence of the substance in fuel, only that the government is apparently very perspicacious in maintaining the material they provide for public dispersal! PacerLJ35, however, demonstrates the disinterest in legitimate discourse in the challenge that, as soon as proof of ethylene dibromide is provided, “maybe we’ll have a real debate”. Once proof is provided, all uncertainty is swept aside! Debate is completely useless, since the matter will have been decided! But wasting time seems part of the “debunkers’” aim!
And, for all that they claim themselves interested in debate, why, for that matter, does PacerLJ35 say “maybe we’ll have a real debate”?
In the reply post to the responses, I mentioned PacerLJ35’s obsession with my description of the shapes formed by chemtrails. The letter to the editor mentions “X’s”, “H’s” and “parallel lines”. In his response to the original letter, PacerLJ35 took issue with these descriptions, as if I was suggesting that it is unusual, if not patently impossible, that normal jet paths could take those forms, and that that alone supposedly proves that chemtrails are strange, and, therefore, a government plot. The reference to the different shapes that chemtrails could take was intended to accompany photographs of different chemtrails shapes, that I was including with the letters that I sent to the newspapers! The pictures were not included in the letter to the editor posted on Chemtrail Central because that venue does not seem geared for hypertext or the uploading of images from a picture host site. But, even if it did, we don’t have a picture hosting site to use to maintain picture for uploading every time someone accesses the letter to the editor. I even explained in the first letter and in the reply post that I had included pictures in the letters to the newspapers, but did not have available resources to provide pictures on the Chemtrail Central site. PacerLJ35 chides me by saying, “Now, supposedly, these X’s, Y’s, H’s, parallel lines, etc [sic] were supposed [sic] to show flight paths that are abnormal, but you seem to shoot yourself in the foot by saying that the patterns mean nothing. If they don’t mean anything, why mention it [sic]?”
I will explain again, for the sake of PaceLJ35 and those with similar demonstrated inability to look beyond their contempt to see what is being said. The reference to “X’s”, “parallel lines” and other shapes was meant to accompany pictures that were included in the letters sent to the newspapers, so that those reading the letter to the editor could see that I was referring to something they likely see every day or so, but I did not have available resources to display those pictures on Chemterail Central. I included the word-for-word recitation of the letter for accuracy’s sake! But I did not mean to imply directly through the reference to the shapes that there was necessarily anything suspicious or sinister to be seen in them! If PacerLJ35 still has difficulty seeing this, I invite anyone who knows them to explain it to them.
Where, following the letter to the editor, PacerLJ35 took up the issue of the oily appearance of chemtrail induced cirrus clouds, he insisted that it is “caused by refraction”. I pointed out that oil also causes refraction, so that he does not disprove the abnormal nature of chemtrail clouds by saying that it is caused by refraction! When I mentioned that in the response, he shot back with: “Refraction is refraction. It doesn’t matter if light is being refracted through oil, water or a glass prism, it’s still the same thing. There is no such thing as an “oily refraction”…just refraction. It’s a physical phenomenon of a material splitting light into the various components [sic].”
But I never said “oily refraction”. I merely said that blaming refraction for the appearance of chemtrail clouds does not rule out their being composed of an abnormal material! Indeed, it was PacerLJ35, who was trying to suggest that there is only one kind of refraction. His reference, in the earlier “rebuttal” to refraction through water droplets causing rainbows and such was evidently intended to convince the unwary that there is only a “water refraction”, and that the appearance of a rainbow in a chemtrail cloud was “proof” that it consisted only of water droplets!
When I mention the fact that, when chemtrails are present in the sky, in general, no cumulus clouds form, PacerLJ35’s response is: “OK [sic] Julian, where’s your documentation? And as I attempted to state before, there’s nothing that would link your perceived coincidence [sic] together. And I’m pretty sure I know what the response to this will be…’Ha! The [sic] debunker slime demands documentation, when it’s obvious that I know what I see! What is this…documentation…they speak of?”
As I said, I have a significant amount of photographic material about chemtrails, their formation and progressive coalescing into cloud sheets, from at least the northern New Jersey area. We do not have a picture host site url to use to reference to in posts on Chemtrail Central. We can try to upload an amount of material to the Images part of the site, but that may have little direct reference to material on the Forum boards. But, in the pictures of chemtrails, there are no signs of cumulus clouds being present after large numbers of chemtrails have been laid. There are a few pictures of chemtrails being produced in skies that already have cumulus clouds, but, in each case, it’s no more than one or two. And those instances came after my latest letters to the editor, mentioning chemtrails and cumulus clouds, as if it’s trying to be “proved” to me that they do co-exist!
It is unsurprising that, among their tactics to try to downplay the evident reality of chemtrails, the “debunkers” would also try to depict them as illusory, suggesting aspects associated with them to be merely “coincidences”. The photographs I have would demonstrate the fact that cumulus clouds do not form after chemtrails are sprayed. To be sure, this would constitute a coincidence, but, then, sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid yielding salt and water, when they combine also, strictly speaking, is a coincidence! One event is coincident with another! Calling something a coincidence does not mean there is not a connection! In fact, a string of coincidences in the same type of situation indicates a clear-cut connection! Denouncing a pattern of similar events, under similar conditions as only a “coincidence” is an apparent attempt at dismissing the factual as the merely perceived! And that is fraud!
PacerLJ35’s demand for something that would “link the perceived coincidence together” is wrong both philosophically and grammatically. A pattern of guaranteed events, under similar circumstances, is already linked together! When chemtrails predominated in the sky, cumulus clouds did not form! The “coincidence” PacerLJ35 refers to is the linkage of these two events! They may be referring to the “explanation” for why chemtrails covering the sky prevents the formation of cumulus clouds. Then they should say so. But I gave that in the letter to the editor, when I described the likely use of chemtrails, in northern New Jersey, to “gently mix” air masses, to prevent the more chaotic type of mixing that often goes hand-in-hand with rainstorms. And you do not link a single object. You can link coincidences, but not a single coincidence! And, for that matter, there is no such thing as a single coincidental occurrence! It is the occurrence of the same pattern of events time after time that forms what would be referred to as a “coincidence”. But, by that time, the repetition of the same pattern, time after time, indicates that there is something happening. To even refer to my observation as a “coincidence”, PacerLJ35 admits that it occurs over and over again, and thereby lends credence to it!
And I have not used a term like “debunker slime”. I have referred to them as bullies when they acted bullyingly. I indicated deceitful characteristics and behaviors when they engaged in those kinds of activities! I indicated fraudulent acts, such as trying to dismiss a string of related events as “merely a coincidence”, as fraud, because that is what it is!
PacerLJ35’s excoriation on my description of wind formation from air masses - as part of his overall insistence that he was right in saying that pressure, not pressure differences, causes wind - is equally misleading. I pointed out that air layers - bodies of air lying over another - do not form winds. Wind, in general, is formed by an air mass at one pressure, essentially pushing another air mass, at a lower pressure, out of the way. In fact, what is happening is that the more pressurized air is entering the lower pressure area and mixing with the air there. An air mass overlying another, however, generally does not form sustained winds, at least, not at the ground.
PacerLJ35’s intent, during his subsequent response, seems the pointless aim of “justifying” his assertion that pressure, not pressure difference between one spot and another, is the real cause of wind. He accuses me of, among other things, engaging in a “nice play on words”. “Air layers CAN contribute to forming pressure gradients, which can create shear layers, gust fronts, etc. So although air masses (better term) can contribute to forming wind, wind is still the sole function of air pressure.”
“Gusts fronts” are an expression of air moving horizontally across the landscape, which is still the result of the process I described! “Shear layers” - wind moving at different speeds at different altitudes, in one body - are also present in air masses moving along the land, not overlying each other. What has come to be known as “wind shear” is a down draft of air formed during particularly heavy rainstorms - which are associated with one air mass overlying another - but not solely as the result of air pressure difference between the air masses. It is PacerLJ35 who seems to be playing with words to mislead the uninformed!
“Wind is not a function of ‘air pressure’”, I am quoted as saying, “but, rather, a difference in air pressures.”
“Uh”, PacerLJ35 responds cattily, “that makes it a function of air pressure.”
But it is not pressure which creates the movement of air. If one air mass had a pressure of, say, 31.50 inches of mercury - higher than just about any recorded air pressure at sea level - and another has a pressure of 31.51 inches, there would still be little movement of air, from one to the other. No matter how high the ambient pressure was, if the air masses were close in pressure, there would be no wind! If one air mass was at 29.80 inches - very typical and altogether not out of the ordinary - and another was at, say, 29.20 inches, there would be significant movement of air! Even if the pressures are not out of the ordinary at all, differences can still cause wind! It is the pressure difference, not the pressure itself which causes wind!
In order for wind to be a “function of air pressure” would mean that, given the pressure in a given area alone, and not the pressure in any other area, you would be able to calculate how much wind would result. That is what “function of pressure means”! If an air mass is at 29.50 inches, how much wind would form and in what direction? If PacerLJ35's assertion is correct, that should be immediately answerable. But, the air mass could be in contact with another at 29.49 inches - which would form low wind outward - or one at 28.50 inches - which would cause a large flow of air outward - or one at 30.20 inches, which would cause a flow of air into the first air mass! Accepted meteorology does not admit any method of determining the degree of wind formed solely on the basis of the pressure in one spot! And “difference in air pressure” is not the same as “air pressure”!
The “debunkers” can prate all the officially dispersed facts and figures they want, but aren’t any of them familiar with the way things act?
In any event, PacerLJ35 shapes up as little more than a colossal embarrassment to the “debunkers”!
PacerLJ35 then goes on to challenge my reference to the experiment, on the part of the government, whereby white trails of egg whites were formed from planes to, presumably, test radar reception. A point I made was that that had never been revealed to the public, and, if someone said they saw curious trails coming out of government planes, they would likely be laughed at by high-talking “know-it-alls”, calling themselves “debunkers”, who would say that there was no way the government would engage in anything like that!
“The government didn’t say much about it because, for God’s sake, they were releasing egg whites in a very limited test. Who cares? I wouldn’t care, and it would just be another waste of space on the morning newspaper.”
Finding it necessary to reiterate themselves, PacerLJ35 says, “Again, this was a very limited test. The government isn’t flying over the entire nation dumping egg whites on everyone from 35,000 feet!”
The seedy tack of taking The Lord’s name in vain is self-evident in it crudity. And the government didn’t “not say much” about the experiment, it didn’t say anything!
PacerLJ35 is very adamant in describing the egg white experiment as “very limited”.
How do they know?
Even the CNN report didn’t mention the degree to which it was conducted!
Are they privy to some kind of inner channel to military or governmental information denied everyone else?
That would make them a tool of government, working to convince people that what they are seeing isn’t real! Precisely the role such as PacerLJ35 would deny filling!
That would certainly go in line with PacerLJ35’s opining: “Who cares?” The last thing those trying to hurt you want is for you to be interested in what’s going on around you! Where does PacerLJ35 draw the line at what is worthy to be examined and what isn’t? PacerLJ35 and their ilk seemed determined to keep the people disinterested in what is being done to them!
The tendency of the government to proceed apace with their own interests, utterly disinterested in the welfare of the people, is not disputed at all, these days. Operation SHAD - which involved the spraying of ships with contaminants, to “study” germ and chemical warfare operations - and the release of nerve gases such as VX and Sarin, from Alaska to Florida, demonstrates the fact that, not only is the government likely always lying completely about their operations, there seems no level of duplicity so low, in betraying the public, that there is not some example of the government stooping to, in their selfish interests!
They do, however, let slip an important point, in referring to “another waste of space on the morning newspaper”. What is presented as “honest reportage” and “reliable information from the government” seem, in PacerLJ35’s own words, nothing more than fraud! But that includes official denial of the existence of chemtrails!
I pointed out PacerLJ35’s - I will use the word - attempted suggestion that haze forms only below 10,000 feet. He took issue. “Is that what I said?”, he replies, “Let’s go check, shall we. [sic] Here’s what I said: “I have seen a thick haze down low, close to the ground, abruptly clearing up around 8-10,000 feet.
“Where in there did I insist that haze only forms below 10,000 feet? In that particular example, it was around 10,000 feet.”
If there was only one instance PacerLJ35 can refer to where haze broke above 10,000 feet, why even mention it? Chemtrail opponents are talking about reliable, repetitive occurrences, not single events! PacerLJ35’s reference to the absence of haze above 10,000 feet would make sense, in this forum, only if they were speaking about a general phenomenon! Not a one-time event! PacerLJ35 seemed intent on deceiving people by referring to a one-time only event, and giving the impression that it was a general fact!
And that, too, is fraud!
In my discussion of the “debunkers’” place in the matter, I also pointed out that even they admit that what are called chemtrails – which they insist are contrails – spread out over time, and coalesce to form cloud layers, often described as “haze”. This PacerLJ35 pounces on, saying: “I have never said that contrails form haze. Never. Find the quote, Julian. I have admitted that contrails can seed cirrus cloud formations.”
Among other things, I did not say that PacerLJ35 specifically said that chemtrails or contrails form haze. I referred to “debunkers”. PacerLJ35, presumably, is not all the debunkers! PacerLJ35 would be well advised not to display the kind of monomania, or paranoia, that comes with thinking that only they are being referred to, when “debunkers” in general are spoken of. And, in fact, the tendency of the long-lived lines called chemtrails produce the unbroken cirrus cloud decks called “haze” is without dispute, even by the debunkers, so that they have taken to providing numerous references on their web pages to “sources” that assert that contrails, in fact, widen out, and combine with other such trails, to form cirrus haze. One such is the page, www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry/chemtrail.html. linked to from the page www.worldzon.net/international/checkiedeb/, Thomas Schlatter writes that “the longer a contrail persists, the more it spreads”
“It is not unusual”, he adds, “for contrails to spread and merge so that they cover a good portion of the sky with a filmy veil of ice crystals.”
And that “filmy veil” is what is often referred to as “haze”.
If PacerLJ35 wants to play with words and say that they “meant something else” when they talked about “haze”, they can try to get around their statements, but that would only further demonstrate the eminent apparent disingenuousness and untrustworthiness of the “debunkers”! Even they are forced to admit that they accept that contrails form the seeds for cirrus cloud formation. They seem to want to avoid owning up to their own words and assertions by suddenly changing the meaning of the words they used!
This is only one example of the palpable faithlessness and demonstrated insincerity among the "debunkers”. The righteous tend to promote righteous things, and they do it righteously. Where there is not regard for honor, it is eminently questionable not only the character of the actions, but also the decency of what is involved! A large part of their machinations seems the deliberate attempt to engage chemtrail opponents in ceaseless blather, tossing accusations and denunciations, to see what will stick. There was not one relevant point that was raised. But there seems little likelihood that they will ever have anything legitimate to put in their favor.

posted 11-05-2002 01:07 AM            

my eyes !