posted 07-16-2002 05:10 PM               

Agent Orange's toxic legacy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1023000/1023133.stm

There is also the long standing controversy as to whether or not US and Coalition forces were exposed to chemical and/or biological weapons during the Gulf War. I still have questions as to what I may have been exposed to over there.

I have found some information for you to consider and in respose to a few of your comments.

quote:

---

Thousands of eyewitnesses -- including pilots, police officers and military personnel -- report seeing up to eight or more tankers laying chemtrails in X patterns, parallel rows, tic-tac-toe or crosshatched lines.

---

quote:

---

Active duty military personnel, police officers, pilots and defense specialists - as well as hundreds of everyday Americans quite used to seeing aircraft contrails and normal flight operations near airports or over long-established routes - independently confirm the presence of multiple "lines in the sky" being purposefully laid by large jet tankers (usually white in color and always without identifying markings) over cities and rural areas.

---

quote:

---

ENS has learned that samples of oily fallout collected by farmers, truck drivers and pilots in Maryland and Pennsylvania were tested by Aqua- Tech Environmental of Marion, Ohio in September, 1997 and found to contain ethylene dibromide (EDB). An extremely hazardous pesticide, EDB was banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1983. But in 1991, the composition of jet fuel used by commercial and military jet aircraft in the U.S. was changed from JP4 to somewhat less flammable JP8.

A Department of Defence source says the move "has saved some lives" in air crashes. Ethylene dibromide is a key component of JP8. The 1991 Chemical Hazards of the Workplace warns that repeated exposure to low levels of ethylene dibromide results in "general weakness, vomiting, diarrhea, chest pains, coughing and shortness of breath, upper respiratory tract irritation" and respiratory failure caused by swelling of the lymph glands in the lungs. "Deterioration of the heart, liver and kidneys, and hemorrhages in the respiratory tract," can also result from prolonged contact with JP8.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's hazardous materials list: "Ethylene dibromide is a carcinogen and must be handled with extreme caution." A seven-page summary of this pesticide's extreme toxicity notes that EDB may also damage the reproductive system. According to the EPA, "Exposure can irritate the lungs, repeated exposure may cause bronchitis, development of cough, and shortness of breath. It will damage the liver and kidneys".

Mark Witten, a respiratory physiologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson where an official US Air Force study on JP8 was carried out, told Scientist in March, 1998 that crew chiefs "seem to have more colds, more bronchitis, more chronic coughs than the people not exposed to jet fuel." EDB is 6.5-times heavier than air.

Unlike normal contrails, the thick white streamers being sprayed from downward-pointing tailbooms over at least 39 states does not dissipate, but spreads into an overcast that refracts a purple color in sunlight and appears suddenly as an oily film in puddles and ponds.

Hundreds of photographs and videotapes made by ground observers show pairs or larger formations of aircraft spreading a white mist that thickens and drifts toward the ground. More than 200 eye-witnesses - including police officers, pilots, military and public health personnel - have provided detailed accounts of aerial spraying in characteristic "X"s and east- to-west grid patterns, followed by occluded skies - and acute auto-immune reactions and respiratory infections throughout affected regions.

---

quote:

---

Larry Harris brought the controversial sample to Aqua Tech for
analysis. A registered microbiologist who once worked on top U.S. biowarfare projects, Harris says that a lab technician immediately
identified his sample as JP-8 aviation fuel similar to dozens of samples being brought in by sick pilots and ground crew.

But after the harassing phone calls began, another chemtrails investigator who was with Harris when he submitted the fuel sample to
Aqua Tech told ENS that the "lab went cold" and would no longer confer with them.

A copy of Aqua Tech's report on Harris' sample has been obtained bythis reporter. Submitted on September 17, 1997 and labeled "Jet Fuel,"lab report number MEL 97-1140 identifies more than 15 toxic petroleum
products - including toulene and styrene, as well as traces of the banned pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB). Currently used as a JP-8 jet fuel additive, EDB was banned by the EPA in the late 1970s as a known carcinogen capable of causing severe upper respiratory reactions at repeated low-level exposures.

---

As for whether or not, chemtrails alone are harmful to the environment and civilians, JP-8 could prove to be.

As to whether the Airforce has any involvement with the matter, I cannot say for certain since other agencies within the Federal Government do have access to the same types of aircraft as the Airforce does. I myself feel that this operation is under the control of a higher agency. Of course, certain factions in branches of the military have from time to time been involved with certain questionable top level operations in the past and may still be involved to a certain extent.

posted 07-16-2002 07:18 PM               

You posted quite a few quotes that claim military pilots, et al have spotted tankers involved in some kind of spraying operation. Funny, but in 11 years of being in the military, and having quite a few friends throughout the military aviation community, not a single one has made such a claim. I've sent a couple of emails to most of them with links to some of the chemtrail sites. Not one has said "hey, I've seen stuff like that".

They all either laugh and dismiss it, or make remarks that you guys don't have a clue. Even with my friends outside the military, who fly for civilian operations (both part 135 commercial and part 121 air carrier ops), I get the same results.

I'm not what you people often make me out to be....when I first discovered the chemtrail conspiracy, I didn't believe it. But just to make sure, I mentioned it to alot of people that I work with, and those that I know that also fly, to see if maybe you guys might have a sliver of merit.

The ONLY thing that I found was a meterologist whose column I read regularly did mention that contrails have been shown to alter solar heat radiation, and thus alter the Earth's weather. But this reference was made to NORMAL contrails blocking a small percentage of the normal sunlight, versus your version of ABNORMAL purposeful contrails involved in some black operation.

So I did give your theory a shot. I presented it to the people who, if they had seen anything weird, would say so. And no one even seemed remotely swayed by the chemtrail theory.

I also posted the chemtrail theory (links to the various chemtrail websites) on the flightinfo.com website, as well as the ufly.com website (which is no longer operation), and it was presented on the TSA (Trans State Airlines) website. Again, it was dismissed, without a single believer or even anyone who gave the theory even a small amount of support.

Krissa, the quotes you provided prove nothing in the way of pilots and other aviation professionals believing in chemtrails. Your sources do not list names. Anyone can make the claim that "military, pilots, etc" have been seeing weird contrails and tanker operations, post it on a message board, and watch it grow into a huge rumor mill.

I'm sick of hearing the old cop-out..."I know a pilot who saw chemtrails, but won't admit to it because he'd lose his job" or some other nonsense like that. If an American Airlines captain sees a tanker spraying, then talks about it, who's going to fire him? American? Why would American care? And if he did get fired for talking about what he saw, he could raise a huge public stink about it.

In my experience, pilots haven't been afraid to tell things like it is. Military pilots, as well as civilian pilots have openly criticized the government and other agencies for various reasons without retribution. NASA has a system called ASRS, which is used by pilots to report dangerous activity.

The bottom line is that pilots are professionals. They have families. And if they saw a program that was obviously dangerous to them or their family, they'd speak up. I know I would. But hey guys, I just haven't seen it. Ever. And neither has anyone else that I know, for that matter.

Again, if you REALLY want to convince me that there are pilots out there who have seen chemtrailing, or may believe that there is some suspicious activity going on, then post at the flightinfo.com message board. Many of them are tanker pilots, etc. Next to their posts is a list of the aircraft they've flown. There are alot of them who've flown KC-135s or KC-10s. There is a huge range of experience over there. Pilots who are new and don't have to worry about losing that $200,000 a year airline job, and some retired pilots as well. And there's everything in between.

Here's something to consider: If you DON'T post over there and ask the question, I'll simply assume that you're too afraid of being exposed as a fraud. It's mighty funny that the only message boards I've seen serious chemtrail talk are on the purpose-made chemtrail sites, anti-government/conspiracy sites, and sites that cater to the paranormal/UFO crowd. I've NEVER seen chemtrails mentioned on mainstream aviation boards, except when friends of mine or myself have posted the information.

posted 07-16-2002 07:55 PM            

Just because there are hundreds of pilots, who know the the operation is covert, who won't acknowledge or affirm the application or existence of chemtrails doesn't mean anything. If you are aware of a conspiracy, and you query one of the co-conspirators or someone involved (wittingly or un), you're obviously going to get negative results.

It's like asking a thief if he steals. Asking a murderer if he kills. Asking an inmate if he is guilty??

Of course they'll say no. Woopy doo.

posted 07-16-2002 08:08 PM               

You missed my point. No, I wouldn't expect someone deeply involved in a conspiracy to admit to it openly. But Krissa posted numerous quotes that military personnel, pilots and controllers having witnessed unusual contrails or tanker operations. I haven't met anyone that has ever made such a claim.

On a side note, I know several tanker pilots. Here is a synopsis, with names withheld for privacy:

One flys for the 319th ARW at Grand Forks AFB. Married, no kids. One of the nicest guys I know.

Another flew tankers for the 22nd ARW at McConnell AFB. Married, two kids. Loves to go fishing. Flies with our unit at present.

Yet another flies KC-10s at Travis. She's single, but still a great person, if not a bit aloof sometimes. She's the only person I know of who oversped the flaps, landing gear, and the landing lights on the T-37 in pilot training, in a single day.

Another guy, single, flies from Fairchild AFB in Washington. Very nice person.

Another pilot in our unit was also a former KC-135 driver, I just don't remember where he flew them from. But he's married with kids too.

My uncle is a KC-135 pilot in Ohio. He's also married, and has an adopted daughter.

I could go on, but you can guess what the trend is. Most of these people have everything to lose by flying aircraft spraying stuff on the population below. They would get their families sick, and even themselves. And considering that they spend their deployments overseas, they really don't have much time to spray their own families and neighbors.

posted 07-16-2002 11:09 PM               

quote:

---

Most of these people have everything to lose by flying aircraft spraying stuff on the population below. They would get their families sick, and even themselves. And considering that they spend their deployments overseas, they really don't have much time to spray their own families and neighbors.

---

That's probably true Pacer, but Krissa did bring up a few valid points. The government has been released all kinds of stuff for years for various purposes without looking at the long term effects. Both Krissa and I have posted various articles concerning all kinds of new viruses emerging and stuff like that. There are also definite problems with the atmosphere, etc. that could prompt the government to take immediate action to prevent a catastrophy further along down the road no matter what the short term consequences of their operations might be.

Hell, we had a few birds die here about 2 or 3 years ago and a couple of people died from West Nile. They were performing ground level spraying operations for months and wondering why fish and lobsters were dying off in Long Island Sound.

Was the spraying necessasary? Maybe it was, but West Nile has hasn't even come close to being an epidemic. Could it have become a major epidemic if they didn't spray? Maybe.

Right now we've got more people being infected by diseases from ticks that from mosquitos.

posted 07-16-2002 11:38 PM            

quote:

---

They all either laugh and dismiss it, or make remarks that you guys don't have a clue. Even with my friends outside the military, who fly for civilian operations (both part 135 commercial and part 121 air carrier ops)

---

Right. Maybe you're just talking to the wrong kind of people, Pacer. Here's a submission.. from a pilot...

The idea that there isn't a pilot in the world who is curious about these ponderous aircraft emissions is laughable. The point is nonsensenscal, anyway. I doubt if the vast majority of people who hold driver's licenses are experts on auto emissions or their effect on the enviroment.

But I forgot. These are aircraft pilots. They're are endowed with a greater sense of accountability and almost always know what the hell they are talking about..

Just like Pacer.

quote:

---

I'm sick of hearing the old cop-out..." I know a pilot who saw chemtrails, but won't admit to it because he'd lose his job" or some other nonsense like that.

---

Okay... but:

quote:

---

On a side note, I know several tanker pilots. Here is a synopsis, with names withheld for privacy

---

Pacer seems to think that active-duty military personnel are going to violate their security oaths, but simply referencing someone that ostensibly doesn't give a rat's ass requires the utmost in secrecy?

Pacer.. I am curious about one thing. During basic training or whatever they call it in the AF... were you subjected to intnetional sleep deprivation during the course of the program?

Not an uncommon practice in the military, just curious...

posted 07-16-2002 11:48 PM               

Here's the bottom line. I've looked at literally hundreds of photos, and the occasional video of "chemtrails". They look just like the persistant contrails left by the Delta, American, United jets and other traffic up there. I see them every day. And to be honest, it's only a bit irritating to get the condescending attitude that I should "look more closely" at the photos to see what is described by chemtrail believers as "the obvious".

Hey, while you guys were "discovering" these puffy contrails within the last few years, I've been seeing them all the time since I started flying. Same goes for my coworkers who have been doing this far longer than I have.

I reviewed Phantom911's video, and lo and behold it looked just like any regular contrail I've seen coming from a Continental 757 or some other aircraft.

I find it highly suspect that this whole theory is being thrown about by a bunch of people who spend very little time actually airborne watching these aircraft from close range. Instead, they spend the majority of their time 5-6 miles away on the ground gaping through the tiny lenses of a cheap set of binoculars and video cameras.

On the flip side, the pilots, who have consistently dissmissed the chemtrail theory, are being portrayed as "ignorant", "brainwashed", or that we lack "common sense" or "wisdom" to notice the obvious. We (the pilots) know our aircraft inside and out. We have more than just a basic cursory understanding of aircraft operations, yet often what we say is tossed aside as just another part of the "debunker" strategy. We spend hours each day climbing and descending through the atmosphere, watching other aircraft create contrails, and observing the traffic all over the United States, yet somehow we're viewed by the chemtrail crowd as a bunch of hacks not worthy of engaging in discussion.

This is my #1 complaint about the chemtrail theory. Legitimacy. It lacks this basic tenent. People on this board throw about numerous stories, many of which are not factually checked, and some are even outright lies. Any attempt to critically examine a source is met with a "circle the wagons" mentality. I've made a few errors in the past, and I have no problem owning up to them and correcting myself. But often when I point out obvious mistakes with chemtrail activist's information, I'm either personally attacked, accused of being a "disinfo agent", or they ignore me and refuse to engage in continued conversation.

To this day, I have yet to see any direct evidence of chemtrail activity. I've seen and read lots of OTHER government activity, such as nuclear tests in the 1950s, chemical tests in the 1960s, etc. But that doesn't provide any evidence that chemtrails are real. It's kinda like trying and convicting an ex-con for another murder just based on his prior convictions, not real evidence.

If I had the time and the ability to do so, I'd personally take each one of you on a several-day tour of an aircraft facility, air traffic control facilities, and spend time teaching you how our airspace system is managed. Then I'd go into detail how contrails form, and what variables can affect their formation, even from second to second.

But I don't have that kind of time. And my unit needs it's airplanes for missions instead of tours.

posted 07-17-2002 12:17 AM               

Ah, my "buddy", ALCON777. I've tried to engage in dialogue with him, but to no avail. He wouldn't mention what he flies, nor any details about the photo. You know, I've got some pictures that I took from the cockpit, with hands and fingers in view pointing to the contrail. If I were to post them on the net, would someone steal it and then say they were a pilot? It's been done before.

I used to have a helicopter web site that had a little FAQ on "black helicopters". I was doing some searching one day and my photo of our Louisiana Army Guard UH-60s was posted on this guy's web site with the caption that they had "caught" these black helicopters on the ground. I sent him an email to take it down, but no reply. That was a few years ago, and I doubt his web site is still up.

I have no problem telling people my name, who I fly for, and what I fly. All the other pilots that are "debunkers" are the same way. ALCON777 wouldn't even provide a tidbit of info to validate his background.

"The idea that there isn't a pilot in the world who is curious about these ponderous aircraft emissions is laughable."

Exactly. Which is why I was wondering why EVERYONE I've mentioned it to (pretty much my entire unit, and most of my friends whom I correspond with via email) dismiss the theory. Additionally, not a single postive result was had at flightinfo.com, ufly.com or tsalounge.com. Not a single one. And there are hundreds of pilots that belong to those communities, although ufly.com is now defunct.

Chem11, you underestimate my aviation ties. I don't simply know a few handful of pilots. I work with 20 of them. There is a C-130 reserve unit here with dozens more, and I have a good friend flying with them. I've got about another 3 dozen or so friends scattered through the Air Force flying everything from tankers to fighters. My dad is a pilot. My uncle is a tanker pilot. My best friend is an airline pilot, along with the people I know through him. I've mentioned the chemtrail theory to nearly every one of them. They all have dismissed it.

"I doubt if the vast majority of people who hold driver's licenses are experts on auto emissions or their effect on the enviroment"

That's a very poor analogy, Chem. Most people who drive can't even find the radiator on their car. Many can't even change a tire on their own. The standards to get a driver's license is nothing like the standards to be a professional commercial pilot. Although the general public seems to have this preconceived notion that being a pilot is sorta like being a driver, it's not.

Pilots can sit down and draw the fuel system, hydraulic system, electrical system and engine systems on a piece of paper from memory. They can explain to you how the system works in detail, and they even know things like how much pressure the hydraulic pump produces, or at what temperature the oil cooler in the engine operates. They can explain to you exactly how their engine operates, the air flow in the engine, as well as the fuel flow.

They may not be experts in chemical engineering, but they have a pretty good idea of what comes out the other end. And to be honest, most drivers don't give a crap how their car works or what pollution it produces. But most pilots have a much better understanding of their machine than you give them credit.

"But I forgot. These are aircraft pilots. They're are endowed with a greater sense of accountability and almost always know what the hell they are talking about.."

Exactly. Regarding their aircraft, they SHOULD always know what they are talking about. Successful analysis of a malfunction while in flight depends on the flight crew correctly understanding what the problem is and how their actions impact the system involved. Having a thorough understand of the airplane, its associated systems, and the things that affect the aircraft (such as weather, etc) is paramount for a safe flight.

"Pacer seems to think that active-duty military personnel are going to violate their security oaths, but simply referencing someone that ostensibly doesn't give a rat's ass requires the utmost in secrecy?"

First, there isn't a "security oath", per se. Security is important. Keeping secrets vital to national security is important and enforced by the laws. But higher than that is the moral responsibility that military personnel are required to uphold. Keeping a secret that could result in actions contrary to the spirit of the Constitution would mean violating the ultimate oath...protecting and defending the Constitution.

This whole myth that military personnel are sworn to blindly obey all orders above all is one of the greatest urban legends thrown about. This stems from an intellectual holier-than-thou mentality that folks in the military are stooges who couldn't hack it in the real world, or can't think for themselves.

Military personnel are REQUIRED to use moral judgements to determine if orders are legal or immoral.

posted 07-17-2002 01:02 AM            

§7 , Act 2b

Legislation including the word "chemtrails". But i guess they must be referring to something that doesn't exist. Right.

Quote from Legislation:

quote:

---

weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space

---

posted 07-17-2002 02:08 AM            

What I did ask was whether you underwent sleep deprivation during your initiation into the United States Air Force.

The person who posted that photo has given me little reason to doubt their integrity.

You, on the other hand are quite another story and I am quickly growing tired of your unsubstantiated accusations and insinuations. Rense is a liar (because you say so). Alcon is a liar and a thief (because he's savvy enough not to waste his time in a dialogue with someone whose only claim to fame thus far is being the most inept and deceptive 'debunker' to yet appear on the scene).

I've watched 'people like Pacer' come and go for the last three years. You'll wind up going off the deep end like Reynolds or erasing all of your posts in a childish act of defacement like Kunz or spending your time ranting and raving like some deranged five-year old like Maverick.

There is absolutely no evidence that Alcon or Jeff Rense has engaged in any type of intnetional deception, Pacer.

Spare me your insincere apologies for 'poor research' in the future, please. You have been given ample opportunity to clean up your act and all I'm seeing out of you is more vicious, unsubtaniated mental sewage.

Your deceptions have been documented, Pacer. Now they will be disseminated.

posted 07-17-2002 02:27 PM               

aircraft flying at cruise altitudes are 5-6 miles away from you directly overhead. I've always spent my life with an eye turned towards the sky....as a kid I wanted to fly, and as an adult I do fly. But I have yet to see anything that I would qualify as "low flying" emitting a contrail of any kind. Point me to a photo, one with something in it for scale, of a "low flying" chemtrail-emitting aircraft and perhaps I'll believe your claim. Until then, all I can go on is my experience. And all the "low flying" photos I've seen to date are actually showing aircraft at typical cruising altitudes of 25-40,000 feet.

Alpha-Theta:

There were a number of future technologies that were discussed in that bill, none of which have been shown to exist. There has been legislation to ban human cloning in the US....doesn't mean that it has already happened.

Chem11:

You post so predictably. No REAL info to debate about, just ranting and raving about what kind of waste you feel I am. You can tell me that you feel I'm a pile of feces a mile high....I don't particularly care. I've addressed the inaccuracies and mistakes I've made in the past, and if you feel that's all you've got to go on, fine. But when I posted my photos of persistant contrails on the net, I posted who I am, and what I do. It's called a qualifying statement. Like someone on the Carnicom board said...anyone find a photo and post it on the internet. ALCON may very well be a pilot....I didn't say he wasn't. But the very fact that he refused to engage in dialogue with people that I know to be real pilots has me wondering.

As far as Rense lying, he may not be the original liar, but by posting that info on his webpage, without any other frame of reference (i.e. something saying that this may or may not be true, etc), he's essentially perpetuating the lie.

Look Chem, obviously I disagree with you on the main point: I feel chemtrails do not exist, at least not in the capacity touted by the chemtrail believers. And for that you view me as some kind of arch-enemy, to be resisted at all times.

It doesn't matter if my information is even painfully, and obviously correct. You'll still attempt to discredit that information by discrediting me. One minute I'm a Neanderthal who can't write. The next, you're saying I'm a know-it-all who spends too much time writing about useless facts. The next minute you throw past mistakes in my face. All your energies are directed at slinging mud, but you don't spend a whole lot of time discussing chemtrails. You're like the attack dog. You don't bother yourself with the details, but you'll tear away at my heels just because I'm "the enemy".

Phantom911:

I viewed the one where someone says "Sum Bitch" in it. I watched it, and I'd estimate the altitude as fairly high, probably above 25,000 feet. As for the trails "turning on and off", that's pretty common. I see it all the time with the various airliners and biz jet traffic flying over and under me. There are a number of reasons why the contrails would do that, and it's really situationally dependent. If the pilot reduces engine power to slow or descend, it may then reduce the amount of exhaust low enough to where the moisture can't condense. Likewise, if the micro-climatic conditions in that specific area are sitting right on the dewpoint necessary for condensation, the airplane might fly temporarily into a section of the air mass where it is slightly below that required to form a contrail.

posted 07-17-2002 04:23 PM            

I don't think anyone is necessarily stating that the AIR FORCE are a bunch of criminals. However, there is clear and present reason to believe that they are in fact involved in what appears to be 'covert criminal activity'.

posted 07-17-2002 05:45 PM            

Those are the technologies of today Pacer. They aren't future weapons. You can deny this all you want, but the fact remains.

i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

Cloning was banned once it was possible, not vice versa. Also related to cloning, it's ludicrous to believe there are not universities and government laboratories doing extensive research on genetic manipulations.

Hey Pacer, what is Biological Process Control? Perhaps you should ask the Scientific Advisory Board of the United States Air Force. It falls under categories listed below:

i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems.

posted 07-17-2002 06:30 PM            

At the beginning of 2000 in Eastern Washington, I began observing what I call chemtrails--a very different phenomena from that which I had ever observed prior to that time.

Since 2000 I have observed a very great amount of spraying in the Inland Northwest and many chemtrail-created "clouds." Often during this time I have observed aircraft flying around spewing horizon to horizon trails, while at the same time I have observed other aircraft flying in the same area with only their traditional short traditional dissipating contrails behind them.

I have observed aircraft with only a short contrail showing for sometime begin to spew out the long horizon to horizon trails. I have also watched the long horizon to horizon trails which an aircraft was spewing out suddenly end while the aircraft continued on its way showing just the normal, short, comet-like contrail behind it.

I have observed aircraft spew out chemtrails, then stop for awhile, then begin to spew out more chemtrails, so the pattern looks like this: trail space trail space, etc.

Here is an article which might interest some.
http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm

CHEMTRAIL CRIMES & COVER-UP DOCUMENTED
copyright 1999,2000,2001, 2002
by Clifford E Carnicom

posted 07-17-2002 08:46 PM               

And a ban on "strategic, theater, tactical" weapons? Well, that about outlaws every weapon known to man, because in some form or another, they all fall into those categories. Please, that bill is a joke...typical political banter. I wouldn't be suprised at all to find out that a chemtrail believer was able to get someone to sneak it in under the table.

Ellyn:

posted 07-17-2002 08:55 PM            

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if my information is even painfully, and obviously correct. You'll still attempt to discredit that information by discrediting me.

---

Sorry Pacer, but that simply isn't the case... the information you have posted is painfully incorrect. I am not privvy to your personal life so I have no way of (and no interest in) discreditig you or slinging mud. Ultimately, The only person who can discredit Pacer is Pacer.

You didn't see me starting threads entitled "Pacer Lies" did you? On the other hand, I have no problem calling you on your own deceptions when you attempt to go after an influential person who is making a good-faith effort at raising environmental awareness.

We are sick of seeing our atmosphere being despoiled by the forces of destruction. We are tired of watching decent people's names dragged through the mud because they have the 'audacity' to actually give a damn about something other than developing more ingenious and cost-effective ways to kill other human beings.

I have no 'enemy', Pacer... I know that such a non-homicidal philosphy may be alien to your training and the resulting mindset that you have chosen to adopt.

I do, however, reserve the right to defend myself and to defend those I belief to be persons on of honor and sound-character.

But you won't see me on the other side of the planet bombing a wedding party into a pile of human debris because I have bought into some self-serving idealogy that these men, women and children are 'the enemy'.

War is the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy. Ineptitude is the the enemy. Hypocrisy is the enemy.

Some guy whos fly helicopters and thinks he knows it all (and makes a hobby of proving otherwise to all and sundry) hardly qualifies as 'the enemy', I'm afraid.

And to further illustrate my sincerity, I'm going to give you a little advice, Pacer...

I envy you, Pacer. I envy your naivete. I envy your ability to trust the unknown. And truth be told, my continued inolvement in this issue has given me a 'mental agressivness' (you would make the analogy of my being 'an attack dog') that I could easily learn to live without.

Consider this, though; I do what I do because I am 110% convinced that the citizens of this country have been subjected to covert aerial spraying. In fact, this point has proven time and time again. I am equally convinced that this program (whatever it's true size actually is) has resulted in adverse health effects for those involved. And I am absolutley certain that the citizens of a deomcracy should (at the least) be informed as to what they are being exposed to.

Call me crazy.

But what, do tell, do the people that engage in at least equally 'mentally agressive' behavior that do not believe in the reality of the situation possibly have to gain?

Sound and fury.. signifying nothing.

Here's my advice; go read some of Maverick's latest offerings on his forum. He didn't used to 'write' like that. His personality has undergone the same change that John Reynolds and Chickie Deb's has.. bitterness for the sake of bitterness.

If that is where you want to wind up, then you are on the right path. If not, then perhaps you should take alook down the road and see where those who have gone before have eventually arrived.

If you do not believe there is a problem here, then get on with your life. Nothing you say is going to make the slightest difference to the people invloved in this issue.

Perhaps it is this eventual realization that accounts for the bitterness and pointless, unrelenting negativity that emenates from the debunker camp. These same personality changes are manifest in persons engaged in semi-conscious denial, but I will leave the amateur psycho-analysis to those better qualified to probe the intricacies of the human mind (like F-16 pilots and aeronatical engineers).

I've known plenty of people expressing plenty of skepticism on a whole plethora of issues. None of them bear the slightest intellectual or emotional resemblance to the now-almost sterotypical chemtrail-debunker.

posted 07-17-2002 09:36 PM               

So, you're saying that my information that the C-21 cannot carry 17 generals, but can only carry a maximum of 8, is false? And my assertation that Kiowa 71 did not "blow up" due to sabotage, but crashed because of a fuel imbalance, is also false?

I've posted alot of OTHER information besides the Yampert case, Chem. I don't know if you READ any of it, but that's your loss.

"they have the 'audacity' to actually give a damn about something other than developing more ingenious and cost-effective ways to kill other human beings."

Please, spare me the whole "the military only likes to blow things up" mentality. I flew medevac helicopters, and I'm an airlift pilot now. In that capacity, I've done far more to help people than to kill them. Take a look at your country, Chem. Where's the bulk of the rescue aircraft concentrated? The military. Who is the largest airborne mover of humanitarian aid and relief supplies? The US military.

I'm not going to sit and tell you that the military is some great benefactor of the world, but while part of our military is engaged in warfare, a large portion of the military is likewise engaged in positive events.

"I know that such a non-homicidal philosphy may be alien to your training and the resulting mindset that you have chosen to adopt"

Ah, I've run into this stereotype before on other message boards (political/current events, not chemtrails). The stereotype that military folks are over-aggressive robots programmed for the kill. Sorry, but you've watched "Full Metal Jacket" one too many times.

"But you won't see me on the other side of the planet bombing a wedding party into a pile of human debris because I have bought into some self-serving idealogy that these men, women and children are 'the enemy'."

First, let's put that whole thing in perspective. An AC-130 crew is engaging the REAL enemy, and they are firing back. Ground troops have called in air support. A few miles away, a wedding party decides it's smart to start shooting their guns (with tracer rounds) into the night sky. The AC-130 crew, which isn't the most maneuverable aircraft in the world, spots tracer rounds coming from a new direction, but at them. So they query the ground troops as to their position. Well, that gunfire isn't coming from the good guys, so the AC-130 fires back.

I don't know Chem. It's a bad situation. I certainly feel sorry for those people who were on the ground, but at the same time, you can't really blame the Spectre crew. Just a bit of common sense, I'd think, would be NOT firing your weapons en masse while a battle is going on nearby.

Your rhetoric is particularly insulting, because I can guarantee you that those AC-130 crewmen don't view the innocent as "the enemy". Had they known what was shooting into the night air, they wouldn't have fired back.

"War is the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy. Ineptitude is the the enemy. Hypocrisy is the enemy."

You're correct. But because war is a bad thing, doesn't mean we turn our backs to those who would wage war against us. Please tell me that you're not someone who feels that if we all dropped our guns and gave each other a big bear hug, the world would suddenly be a great place to live?

"Some guy whos fly helicopters and thinks he knows it all (and makes a hobby of proving otherwise to all and sundry) hardly qualifies as 'the enemy', I'm afraid"

FLEW helicopters is more correct, although I do have a commercial helicopter license. And no, I have no intention of being your enemy, although instead of entering into a dialogue about chemtrails and discussing the matter, you spend most of your energy climbing onto your podium, gazing down upon me and lecturing me, insulting my intelligence, and the list goes on. I only respond to you because it's impolite to ignore someone. And hey, there's always hope...

"I envy your ability to trust the unknown"

I trust until I have a sincere reason not to trust. Without trust, nothing would ever get accomplished. No one could look upon another without wondering. And your hope for world peace would not be possible.

It may be a bit weird for you to picture that someone in the military doesn't want to go to war. I mean, you'd think that if I didn't want to fight a war, then why be in uniform, right? Well, it's not so simple.

I certainly don't want to go to war. It means taking something from my family. It means taking something from me. When the towers fell on 9-11, I was getting ready to taxi. We shut down. They told us about the towers being hit, and I was simply shocked. When I saw them fall on television, I was stunned. We knew that we'd be going to war, in some capacity. It was about that point I had to go to the restroom, where I literally cried my eyes out for a few minutes. Lots of people had suffered. And many more would suffer in the coming months or years.

Chem11, don't sit there and lecture me with your intellectual ideas of what kind of person I probably am, and notions that military folks are somehow feeble minded war dogs. Maybe someday you'll reach across that gulf and realize that we're just as human as you are, and trying to position yourself on the morally higher ground, as if you're cutting in line to get to heaven, doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

"If you do not believe there is a problem here, then get on with your life"

I'm here because essentially, I see accusations against people I know. I'm a pilot. I fly high-flying jets. My friends fly the same jets...tankers even. And even though I know most of you are dead-set in your belief, it's the concept of a balancing act...I'm speaking out as the dissenting voice, defending my honor as well as those who you accuse of doing this.

"I've known plenty of people expressing plenty of skepticism on a whole plethora of issues. None of them bear the slightest intellectual or emotional resemblance to the now-almost sterotypical chemtrail-debunker"

Perhaps some in their frustration get a little carried away. I have attempted to refrain from that. Nothing here is worth getting THAT upset about. So you can stop telling me where I should go based on your stereotype of me. I'll go where I see fit.

posted 07-17-2002 10:35 PM            

I find this particular personalty trait to be the most despicable of any I have encountered on the net, and where one stands on the CT issue has got nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned (as anyone whose been around will testify to).

There used to be debunkers whose posts I used to read, simply because they presented largely factual information. In the last year the truth (even in it's most distorted and irrelevent forms) seems to have has been judged to be an inadequate weapon in the debunker arsenal.

I'm sorry to say that your recent contributions have done little to reverse this rather telling trend, Pacer.

You have attributed statements to Jeff Rense, when no such statement by him was ever made.

You have asserted a connection between chemtrails and the Yampert case when no such connection was present.

And you have insinuated that Alcon lifted the photos he has posted on this website from another pilot (if you go to his website you will see the man in the cockpit holding signage that reads CTTUSA.. which pretty much invalidates your latest mental excercise).

This... is the voice of 'dissent'?

Well, I suppose I could spend every waking moment trying to validate or dismiss what you see fit to post as facts on the internet, but your batting average speaks for itself.

You'll get no more grief from me, Pacer. Henceforth I will simply skip anything preceded by your name based on my repeated experience that there is at least a 75% chance that whatever information you care to 'share' has absolutely no basis in reality.

Even Rense's webamster manages a signifigantly better average than that.

And please don't hesitate to post further explorations of disinformation and shoddy research as it applies to this new medium. I'm sure other reader's will learn as much from you as I have...

posted 07-17-2002 10:58 PM               

"ALCON may very well be a pilot....I didn't say he wasn't. But the very fact that he refused to engage in dialogue with people that I know to be real pilots has me wondering."

That was my stance on ALCON. I always didn't really know what to think about him, because he never talked to me or any other pilot for that matter. I never accused him of being a thief. I simply pointed out that it's possible that he may not be a real pilot.

"my repeated experience that there is at least a 75% chance that whatever information you care to 'share' has absolutely no basis in reality"

Again, my issue with Rense was the story his website ran concerning the supposed conspiracy involving a C-21 accident. So you're saying that 75% of my information about that accident is false?

And when I was debating with dj over at Cliff's concerning Flight 587, I was wrong about thrust reversers?

posted 07-18-2002 12:01 AM            

quote:

---

perpetuates false information, without any attempt of putting in proper context or checking its validity

---

My Response:

ROFL. Sounds EXACTLY like the DoD !!!!! ! Oh wait no, my bad, they only disclose half the truth to leave the masses befuddled in their ellipsis.

If you want to criticize people for fabrications, Pacer, perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree here. Perhaps you should look at the politicians. Perhaps you should look into the various atrocities of the past, and see where the trust was violated, where the honor was breached. I assure that time after time it is none other then your employer, our DoD. And if it wasn't the DoD, it was the plot of one of their many collusive agencies (who have also been notorious for 'screwing up').

posted 07-19-2002 03:34 AM            

quote:

---

Chem11:
There's a banner on the top of that board.

It's an official USAF banner.

---