posted 03-11-2002 01:54 AM            

Resurrected from another forum for the Defense and Protection of Chemtrail Activists and Their Investigations of the CHEMtrail Phenomenon.

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000474.html

Hey kids!! See how many of these you can identify as funny tricks and games used by the funny CONtrail Artists and contrail believers!?!?!

[Edited 4 times, lastly by defender on 03-11-2002]

posted 03-11-2002 11:58 AM            

The link: http://www.thebird.org/host/dcdave/article3/991228.html

From this original link: http://www.stand77.com/cgi-bin/clin...ference&start=0

The commentary:

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

by DCDave

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

posted 03-11-2002 01:26 PM               

#18: Send out subliminal suggestions that "whoever isn't with us, is against us" by suggesting that everyone who dissents is "unAmerican" or "liberal" or "conservative" or "communist."

I could also say that when I released my findings concerning my archaeological research, one of the paid off archaeologists who was trying to discredit me even tried to play the race card.

Defender, back in 1988 before I became involved with the whole pre-Columbian research thing, there was battle between a supposed professional archaeologist and a fellow researcher. In 1998, the researcher, who became the target of this supposed professional, gave me a copy of this one letter that appeared in one of the local newspapers.
....................................................

These people who claim cultural contact by Celts or Iberians fall into the category commonly referred to as pseudoscience. The latter could be equated with a number of popish fads, which have no basis in fact. (i.e. UFOs, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, etc.) What I find extremely depressing about the attitude of these people is that aside from being totally unscientific and fantasy-like, their “beliefs are also blatantly racist. No mention is made of the Native American accomplishments in the New World. In fact, some diffusionists have suggested that Celtiberians were responsible for higher cultural development among the Native Americans, a point which utterly degrades the Native American. Whenever I read articles or books by these Celtiberian proponents I find it obvious that the writers have no background about the Native Americans who really lived here. Rather, they are quick to compare photographs of colonial structures with Old World structures in a vain attempt to provide evidence for cultural contact. But basic similarities in stone masonry do not in themselves constitute evidence for transatlantic contact.

At a meeting of Celtiberian contact proponents in Vermont several years ago, one of the participants stated that “it is a lot more vibrant to think that all these things were going on here.” More vibrant yes, but in no way based on scientific fact. Overall, pseudoscience, and the present anti-scientific attitude that underlies it, is a threat to critical thinking. It relies on a belief system which requires no actual proof, only a world view that envisions amateurs as “us” and scientists as “them.” In this belief system we (amateurs) have all the facts and they (scientists) either lack
these facts or are attempting to keep them from the public. Fantasy once again.” (Joseph E. XXXXXXX – Woodstock Times October 27.1988)
.........................................................

In 1998, some 10 years after this attack, I was publicly attacked myself by someone who was a member of the supposed archaeological community.

..........................................................

The Idea that ancient peoples from a variety of Old World cultures, including but not limited to the Celts, Egyptians,Phoenicians, Romans, Libyans and even the Lost Tribes of Israel, were here long before Columbus is not a new one. Many such explanations were given to explain such peoples as the “Mound Builders” of the mid-continental United States and the civilizations of Mexico and Central America, the idea being that the remains of these impressive societies could not have possibly been the product of Native American cultures. Such speculation, widespread in the nineteenth century and rooted in biological determinism and beliefs that can be best described as extremely ethnocentric and at worst racist, has been effectively dismissed by a mountain of archaeological, historical, biological and linguistic evidence that has accumulated over the past 150 years.

Nevertheless, the interest in pre-Columbian contacts continues here in the Northeast (Fell 1976), where stone walls, animal enclosures, root cellars and other structures associated with colonial and nineteenth century agricultural communities are passionately cited as examples of the
undeniable presence of ancient peoples other than the many Native American cultures that have roots going back at least 12,000 years ago.

Mr. Rockwell’s study is just such an example. His discovery of manmade “caves” (which he claimed were used in lieu of “stone Chambers” for the site of ancient Celtic ceremonies) as well as carved “standing stones”, “puzzle-stones”, “Y-shaped marked stones”, “altars”, “dolmans”,
“perched and platformed boulders”, some of which are said to be inscribed with a written language or carved in the likeness of a human face, and pre-colonial stone walls is typical of those pursuing the elusive trail of the ancient Celts in North America.” (XXXXXXX 11-19-98)
....................................................

Of course, the archaeologist was not happy that in a report that he was upset about that I had said that he would use 3 basic arguments to dispute me. It was either caused by "glacial activity", "Native Americans" or "colonial farmers." He tried to use all 3 and lost a lot of credibility because of it.

He also tried to say that I was racist and that I knew nothing about the Native culture. Big Mistake. My Grandmother was a full-blooded Schaghticoke. I also mentioned in my response, that a number of Schaghticokes had served as scouts during the revolution. I also mentioned that I was also assistant horse handler for the only officially recognized Colonial Reinactment Unit in Connecticut, the 2nd Regt. Continental Lt. Dragoons, and as such had a lot of knowledge of Colonial history and knew the difference between a root cellar and a stone chamber as did everyone else in the unit. I also had access to certain historical documents stating that the structures that he was calling root cellars were already there when the first colonists had settled New England.

I omitted the names of the supposed professionals here but they will be included in a book that I am currently working on. I have recently heard, however, that the archaeologist who tried to discredit me me, is beginning to re-think his position.

posted 03-11-2002 01:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by deb;
(I don't recall canex posting that he was Dr. Minnis.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deb;
Defender, canex is Dr. Minnis. Whether you choose to believe what he says is up to you.

---

the above quote by deb is in another forum, "Drought has engulfed nearly..."

Oh no, don't tell me 'deb' is actually 'canex' too!?!? ..... not another moniker!?

(speaking of conspiracies, what about Moniker Lewinsky? )

[Edited 2 times, lastly by defender on 03-11-2002]

posted 03-11-2002 01:40 PM            

It seems to be a way to try to confuse both the target (me, in this case), and the audience (visitors/members... in all cases)!

They can deny it of course. Let's see if they do?

[Edited 3 times, lastly by defender on 03-11-2002]

posted 03-11-2002 04:00 PM            

I like this thread and don't want to confuse anyone, but it would be more appropriate in the "other trails" forum, I almost moved it there myself this morning.

Thermit asked us to help keep the site organized by associating threads with their proper forums. This is strictly to be done in the spirit of organization. I'm not defending or denouncing any threads moved by other mods.

Agreed it does cause confusion when you go to look for something and thought sure it was in that forum....heck that's how I misplaced this whole 17 techniques thread, I think. But the search feature is handy (if you can remember portions or who posted).

The upside is that when it is moved it ends up on top of whatever forum it's moved to. In the long run this may be easier for new people to find threads that interest them.

Although the need to exercise the all powerful mod muscle draws me to move it unilaterally, I won't.

I'll leave it to the three of us posting here to vote...Defender, Dan, and myself.

posted 03-11-2002 04:04 PM            

I'm open to suggestions. I've seen these tactics used on regulars, newbies, and long timers and they should be exposed.

posted 03-11-2002 04:51 PM            

If it could be put in a more prominent place without having to bumped up, I'd be all for that, I guess. As it stands now, you can always call the offender right then and there at whatever forum they're posting. I felt that since these techniques are most often (if not always) used by 'contrail believers' like deb who posts in this 'Chemtrail section' most often, then this is where this topic of Truth Suppression belongs.

I've tried to reason with 'debunkers' directly in regards to these deceptive tricks, and then was answered with only ridicule, or the posting of something totally unrelated to the post or ignored altogether, (i.e. 3 of the 17 techniques!).

Recently, I asked for any proof and details when accused by deb of something, (not clear what exactly she was even accusing me of), when I asked her to put her money where her mouth was, only to get those same responses/non-responses, with an assist by her friend 3T3L1.

Don't we all think we have a right to point out this kind of trickery when it's used? It would make for a much more civil, serious and concentrated search for answers in the chemtrail controversy, if we could at least not resort to these kinds of deception and insults to our intelligence... or more accurately, (speaking for myself anyway), not have to defend ourselves from them.

posted 03-11-2002 06:20 PM               

Dan is actually one of the experts in his field now with all the other researchers trying their best to keep up with him and is now supported by 2 major preservation groups.

I worked as one of his assistants for a while and could barely keep up with him myself. I read through a lot of the material that he submitted as well as the debunking material that one archaeologist submitted and
it was just amazing how Dan just ripped him to pieces. I've read through a lot of the material here and am seeing a lot of similarities with this whole chemtrail argument that I saw with the whole pre-Columbian contact argument.

posted 03-11-2002 08:51 PM            

This is Thermits, description of this forum. I believe that the discussion of activism as it relates to chemtrails (and other topics) includes debunkers methods. The anti-activists.

posted 03-15-2002 07:34 AM            

Dan, I like your attitude and, you are right about them making mistakes up in the air, what we need is for them to make a few on the ground. Base of operations need to be located, at least one for proof anyway. What would you suggest to find out more about their ground activity.

posted 03-15-2002 09:42 PM               

Most would probably not land at any commercial airports, though since they are not marked as military craft, could possibly land in those places. I know Dan has put the word out to a few of his friends on their basic color scheme and the visible markings that they do have and is waiting for a response.

Around sunset, the ones that we've seen all seem to be heading either west or southwest, so it probably wont be too hard to find any military bases that they might be landing at.

I know there's a few bases in some areas that have special restricted areas on them where special duty craft land and only certain personnel have access to. These areas are usually heavily guarded and tucked in places where it is nearly impossible to photograph any craft that might be stationed there. It is rumored that they are not under military control but other government agencies.

Our best bet is to find someone who lives near a suspected base and keep an eye out for these type of craft. We've seen anywhere from 4 to 8 in the sky at a time and usually they fly in pairs or groups of 3 and probably all land at the same time.

posted 03-15-2002 11:55 PM               

They probably either have had their tanks split in half or have two smaller tanks. I'd have to look up their spec sheets to see how much fuel they carried originally and cut it by half and try to estimate their fuel consumption rate to figure out their range.

posted 03-16-2002 12:14 AM               

Primary Function: Aerial refueling and airlift
Prime Contractor: The Boeing Company
Power Plant: KC-135R/T, CFM International CFM-56 turbofan engines; KC-135E, Pratt and Whitney TF-33-PW-102 turbofan engines
Thrust: KC-135R, 21,634 pounds each engine; KC-135E, 18,000 pounds each engine
Wingspan: 130 feet, 10 inches (39.88 meters)
Length: 136 feet, 3 inches (41.53 meters)
Height: 41 feet, 8 inches (12.7 meters)
Speed: 530 miles per hour at 30,000 feet (9,144 meters)
Ceiling: 50,000 feet (15,240 meters)
Range: 1,500 miles (2,419 kilometers) with 150,000 pounds (68,039 kilograms) of transfer fuel; ferry mission, up to 11,015 miles (17,766 kilometers)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 322,500 pounds (146,285 kilograms)
Maximum Transfer Fuel Load: 200,000 pounds (90,719 kilograms)
Maximum Cargo Capability: 83,000 pounds (37,648 kilograms), 37 passengers
Pallet Positions: 6
Crew: Four: pilot, co-pilot, navigator, boom operator. Aircraft equipped with PACER CRAG do not have a navigator on most missions. The Air Force procured a limited number of navigator suites that can be installed for unique missions.
Unit Cost: $39.6 million (FY98 constant dollars)
Date Deployed: August 1956
Inventory: Active duty, 253; Air National Guard, 222; Air Force Reserve, 70 http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/KC_135_Stratotanker.html

posted 03-16-2002 06:27 AM            

quote:

---

I know there's a few bases in some areas that have special restricted areas on them where special duty craft land and only certain personnel have access to. These areas are usually heavily guarded and tucked in places where it is nearly impossible to photograph any craft that might be stationed there. It is rumored that they are not under military control but other government agencies.

---

This may sound cliche but when I read that Krissa "Area 51" came to mind. If these tankers have no problem with distance then, that is even a plausible base for FL or CT?

posted 03-18-2002 03:03 PM               

Back in the 1980's during the whole Hudson Valley UFO wave besides reporting the UFO sightings, a number of people were also reporting flights of small airplanes flying in formation(0-2 meduim duty craft to be exact). After a while, it was found that these small planes were flying out of Stewart International Airport in New Windsor, NY and landing in a restricted part of the airport that was supposedly under the control of one of the government agencies.

After a little probing by certain individuals, it was discovered that the agency in question would neither admit or deny that they controled this section of the airport or the flights of these planes. During an investigation of the restriceted area, it was discovered that a number of large C-5A transports were flying in and out of there and several of them could be seen on the ground at any given time.

The restricted area was a large isolated fenced-off airfield tucked away from the main landing strip. The area was closed off with a number of signs indicating that it was a security area and that access to it was restricted.

One of the members of the local media got wind of the story and decided to take a look around. Within a matter of minutes of entering the restricted area, he was taken into custody by 3 MP's and taken to an area where he was interrogated by 2 men in dark suits for a few hours.

To the reporter's surprise, one of the men had a computer printout that had his name on it that had a lot of information about him. After a few hours of interrogation, the reporter was then taken to a public area where a cab was already waiting for him and was told not to say a word about what he had seen there or what had happened to him and that it would be better for him to forget about the entire incident.

I'm not exactly sure when this incident took place and no one is exactly sure why the C-5's were using the airfield. I am not sure if that airfield is still in operation, but it shouldn't be too hard for me to find out and if it is, what type of jets are using it.

C-5A /B Galaxy

General Characteristics

Primary Function: Outsize cargo transport
Prime Contractor: Lockheed-Georgia Co.
Power Plant: Four General Electric TF-39 engines
Thrust: 43,000 pounds, each engine
Wingspan: 222.9 feet (67.89 meters)
Length: 247.1 feet (75.3 meters)
Height: 65.1 feet (19.84 meters)
Cargo Compartment: height , 13.5 feet (4.11 meters); width, 19 feet (5.79 meters); length, 143 feet, 9 in (43.8 meters)
Pallet Positions: 36
Maximum Cargo: 270,000 pounds (122,472 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: C-5B 769,000 pounds (348,818 kilograms) (peacetime), 840,000 pounds (381,024 kilograms) (wartime)
Speed: 518 mph (.77 Mach)
Range: 6,320 nautical miles (empty)
Crew: 7 (pilot, co-pilot, two flight engineers and three loadmasters)
Unit Cost:C-5A - $152.8 million (FY98 constant dollars)
C-5B - $179 million (FY98 constant dollars)
Deployed:C-5A - 1969, C-5B - 1980
Inventory: unavailable

posted 03-19-2002 12:41 PM               

I have also found a good site with a lot of pictures of jets that you all might want to take a look at.

The Aviation Zone
Unofficial Home of the Heavies

Welcome! The Aviation Zone is a comprehensive online resource for military transport aircraft, aerial tankers and fixed-wing gunships. This site contains over 2,700 high-quality photo images, detailed fact sheets with aircraft diagrams, and numerous video and sound files. Over 100 different planes are represented here, most having distinguished service records and a significant presence in the annals of military airlift history since 1940. Featured aircraft include the C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster III, C-130 Hercules, C-141 Starlifter, V-22 Osprey, KC-10 Extender, KC-135 Stratotanker, AC-130 Spectre and many others. http://www.theaviationzone.com/index.html