posted 07-10-2002 04:53 PM               

AND
http://www.rense.com/general24/repub.htm

At worst he is a liar, at best he is a poor investigator that does not check his sources.

In the first article, he states that the C-21 that crashed in Alabama was carrying 17 officials, according to one source. The C-21 cannot carry 17 people.

Second, he continues and states that the Learjet was "blown up". The aircraft impacted the ground intact, and was THEN consumed by a post-crash fire. The aircraft was attempting an emergency landing at Alexander City airport, but crashed short of the runway due to a fuel imbalance. Both the CVR and the FDR support this, as well as the mechanical inspection of the wreckage, which found that one of the two standby pumps in the wing was operating due to a fused relay, causing the fuel to transfer into one wing tank instead of both wing tanks. All of this information can be found in the accident report, which is available to the public via a FOIA request.

In both articles, Rense explains that the aircraft was headed to DC to "arrest" Bill Clinton, using UCMJ authority. First, none of them have the UCMJ authority to arrest the president. That authority lies with the civil judicial side of the government. Second, the aircraft was enroute FROM Andrews AFB (in DC) to Randolph AFB, Texas. The FAA flight plan reflects this, as does the radar information provided by air traffic controllers, showing Kiowa 71 (the C-21 callsign) approaching Alexander City from the east, and requesting an emergency descent to the nearest facility (Alexander City).

posted 07-10-2002 06:32 PM               

quote:

---

But he not only spun it far from the truth, but he went so far as to post information that isn't even truthful. Either he didn't bother to check it out, or he had another agenda on his mind.

---

posted 07-10-2002 07:43 PM            

Turned out to be some old guy with a spotlight who was pissed off at commercial flights flying over his house!

And I'm still waiting for you to post that warning that you claim was posted by your employer (I'm sure something this serious has been filed. Dig it out if it exists).

So yes, investigating claims is a good idea. I investigated yours and they turned out to be nonsense, Pacer.

posted 07-10-2002 08:18 PM            

rense has credibility ?

posted 07-10-2002 10:17 PM               

I posted the Avweb story about de Yampert, and it quoted the authorities were charging him with attempting to blind MILITARY flights, not commercial flights. No, Chem, you're the one trying to spin back out of that story by making it look like a simple noise complaint gone awry, but it wasn't. Look it up on Avweb if you'd like, or go re-read the post about it on the High Desert board.

Speaking about criticizing Rense, I have good reason to. I'm a rated pilot in the C-21, and I'm also my unit safety officer. Additionally, I've attended the mishap investigation course at Kirtland AFB, where Kiowa 71 was one of the examples we used in class. I've read both the SIB (safety investigation board) results as well as the AIB (accident investigation board) results, AND I've attended numerous classes on the accident at Simuflite in Ft. Worth.

I've listened to the cockpit voice recorder and watched the FDR computer animation. Rense is wrong, and you know it. You can drop the de Yampert thing because it's a dead horse. The info is available on Avweb specifically citing him as threatening military aircraft. If that's the only thing you've got to go on to "discredit" me, you're pretty sorry.

posted 07-11-2002 08:13 AM            

quote:

---

The FBI arrested one guy here in Montgomery about 6 months ago, for threatening to shoot F-16s and C-21s and other military aircraft on final approach to Montgomery Regional (which he lived under the approach). They found high-powered rifles and assault rifles in his house, along with two high-powered search lights, material explaining his suspicion of the US government and the USAF. Chemtrails were also mentioned in his material at home.

---

The only thing Yampert pointed at those planes was a spotlight. And there was no mention of chemtrails anywhere (except in your post).

I therefore conclude that you have embellished this story, both by falsifying the reason for his arrest and also by including a non-existant connection to the chemtrail issue.
http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessageRange?topicID=3740.topic&start=41&stop=60

posted 07-11-2002 02:29 PM               

However, you have continously used this to say that I'm a liar, and you also state that de Yampert was spotlighting commercial traffic.

Here are some more things about the case that are public and available on the web: The final "spotlighting" incident that caused the Feds to move in was when he tried to blind a T-1 on final. He had tried this with other military aircraft as well.

The pilots that testified at the trial were all Air Force pilots...no commercial pilots. Everything on the web and any public arrest records will only show an abbreviated version of the story. Evidence of what they found, etc, will be hard to come by.

I admit here and I have admitted before that the anti-government info that I had read came from an email from someone I didn't even know, so there really isn't any way I could verify it, short of getting into the case files.

posted 07-11-2002 07:37 PM            

Chemtrails were also mentioned in his material at home.

(Just a little experiment. I'm wondering how many times it will take for me to repeat A USAF lie before people will believe it.)

If there's a difference between you and Rense, Mr Pot. (besides the funky hairdoo) then it's this:

I don't pay Rense's room and board. He is a self-sufficient entity who is not (as far as I am aware) lining his pockets with my tax money. If he engages in deceitfulness, he's apt to pay the price in the form of decreased listenership and loss of respect (just like Brother Whitley).

When the military lies, it's just 'Strategic Deception'(to quote your comrade, Col. Horrible Fillups); business as usual.

That I'm paying for the priviledge of being lied to and propagandized is what really rips out my short hairs, Pacer.

there really isn't any way I could verify it

Then maybe you shouldn't have spread this horse$hit all over the internet. You'll spare no expense when it comes to verifying something that was posted on Rense's site, then proclaim that "Rense is a liar" if there is an inaccuracy, but you won't lift a finger to verify what comes out of your own piehole? Sure...

Henceforth, I will refer to this peculiar mental disease that infects the Dark Brotherhood as 'The Wedding Party Virus'.

A peculiar vector, to be sure... this particular virus somehow manages to only kill people it hasn't infected with it's gung-ho lack of accountability.

posted 07-12-2002 10:41 PM               

Criticize me if you like, but DO NOT take my quotes and say they are "USAF lies". I may be in the Air Force, but I am NOT an Air Force spokesperson. Let me make myself perfectly clear: My posts are of my own opinion, and not official USAF sentiments in any way.

I don't know WHAT you were trying to do there...perhaps get me in trouble? It doesn't matter whether what I say is true, not true, or simply incorrect...but you running around saying that I'm speaking on behalf of the Air Force would result in the perception existing that I am using my office as a PR tool.

The times I have mentioned that I fly for the Air Force have been for background information only, NOT to insinuate that I'm some kind of "unofficial" spokesman for the military.

Again, how do you expect me to "lift a finger" and show you something I read? I apologized REPEATEDLY that I could not find the article, and I ADMITTED that it was impossible to verify the claims in that article, yet you continue to press the issue that I'm an unrepenting liar.

So you're "lining" my pockets with your tax dollers, eh? Hey, I pay just as much in taxes as you do, and let's not forget what I was talking about above: my comments are my own and NOT those of the USAF.

posted 07-13-2002 08:44 PM            

And no, you never did apologize for that innocent little inaccuracy of yours. At the time, that is exactly what I suggested you do... and in a very respectful and even-tempered manner.

No apology or retraction was forthcoming. That much is evident in the link that has been posted. And now you try and impune the integrity of one of the largest voices the CT community has? And expect to emerge unscathed?

quote:

---

my comments are my own and NOT those of the USAF.

---

That's funny. Every other professional I know is expected to conduct himself in a manner that does not bring dishonour to his profession and his associates.

USAF personnel are somehow excluded from this expectation?

quote:

---

It doesn't matter whether what I say is true, not true, or simply incorrect...

---

I'll make a mental note of it.

quote:

---

I honestly think that you would love to see me get into hot water with the Air Force over this

---

This is between you and your superior officers. No one put a gun to your head and marched you down to the recruiters office. I would be pleasently surprised to see someone actually get slapped on the wrist for dissmeminating this sort of calcualated disinformation, but I honestly don't think you have a heck of a lot to worry about... from what I've seen.

quote:

---

You're out to screw people

---

No. My only intention is to raise awareness of this issue, gather evidence and utterly obliterate the arguements raised and tactics used by those that would have us believe that 'all is well'.

quote:

---

I used to be amused by your attempts to use long pseudo-intellectual wordings, but now you genuinely get me angry with your increasingly hateful speech and attitudes.

---

Strange talk from a card-carrying hoax board member. And I think if 'hateful-speech' were the issue, you would have ample opportunity to level criticism back 'home'. Take a good look sometime, Pacer. Threats of phsycial violence, References to forced bestiality and homosexual rape are the order of the day on Maverick (USAF) and Col. Dan (USAF) and
Pacer's (USAF) little soapbox.

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

It's an official USAF banner.

posted 07-13-2002 10:00 PM               

Hey, do me a favor: Find one quote where I made threats of physical violence, et al. I can't speak for Mav or Col Dan, but show me where I made such threats. I KNOW I haven't ever made threats like that, because I don't descend into that nasty little world of threats.

Speaking of lies, Mr. Chem, you're doing a great job misleading the people on these boards to think that (#1) I'm a unrepenting liar, and (#2) that I have NOT done things (like make threats) that I haven't ever engaged in.

Again, look above: I apologized twice in this very thread. I'll do it for you again: I apologize for NOT being more thorough in posting sophomoric paraphrasing of a document with whom I did not know the origins nor could I verify such origins. If you go back to Carnicom's board, I did apologize there too. It may have not been in that exact thread, but I did, because I distinctly remember writing (to you) a post with nearly the exact same emphasis.

Chem, pretty soon YOU will look like the silly one once you insist on beating a dead horse after I've repeatedly admitted poor research. I have no problem admitting when I may have posted in error or in a sloppy manner. And AGAIN (5th time), I retract my statements based on something that I could never possibly verify on my own.

Now, moving on: My original statements regarding Rense are based on the C-21 accident in Alabama. Since proving the presence of chemtrails beyond a doubt would involve actually TESTING such chemtrails, it can be reasoned that most evidence suggested by chemtrail believers is at most a hypothesis. These hypotheses are supported regularly by articles on the Rense web site (just look at the other forums and you'll see Rense's name pop up many times).

The one story that CAN be 100% verified as being false (at least by my credentials) is the C-21 story that I came across. He (or his staff) blindly accepts and posts the information that a C-21 carrying 17 generals is headed for Washington DC to arrest Bill Clinton.

This is false because the C-21 cannot possibly carry 17 people. It has two seats in the cockpit for the flight crew, a jump seat, and four individual seats, along with a rear bench seat that can fit three adults (rather uncomfortably). This means that, including the flight crew, the C-21 can carry 10, and that being a packed airplane.

Next is the issue of the generals flying to DC. Actually, the aircraft was coming from DC headed to Randolph AFB in San Antonio TX. The flight plan at the departure field indicated so, and so did the FAA routing that was being provided to the aircraft. Again, radar data showed that when the aircraft declared an emergency, it was approaching Alexander City from the east, not the west.

Rense's article continues and states that the C-21 "blew up" due to sabotage. There was no indication of sabotage. Prior to takeoff, a standby fuel pump relay had fused, and when the crew tried to transfer fuel forward from the fuselage fuel tank, it caused a severe fuel imbalance, with the majority of the fuel entering the left wing tank. This is available by FOIA request from the Accident Investigation Board report (often called the accident report).

C-21s still in service have been retrofitted with fuel standby pump lights in the cockpit. When the relay is closed, the light remains on.

Again, Rense also states that the generals were going to DC to arrest Clinton under their UCMJ authority. The UCMJ does not give any such authority for a general to arrest the President. Such authority would effectively take the military from civil hands and place it in military hands making a military coup very possible.

UCMJ does give commanders certain legal powers, and they do have the power to dispense legal punishment, but only to those under their command. Last I checked, the President (Commander-in-Chief) wasn't under ANY general's command.

My qualifications to make such judgments: Yes, I've made mistakes in the past of biting off on questionable source material. But my sources on this subject are not questionable. I have flown the C-21 for a year. I have studied the C-21 accident in question in safety school. And the C-21 accident is regularly used as an example during systems training to emphasis the importance of knowing the aircraft systems, particularly how the fuel system operates.

I'm not a couch potato who is making blind assertations about something I know little about. And I'm certainly not Chem11 doing internet Google searches trying to "self-educate" myself on the accident. I have operational and academic experience.

Rense has posted many other stories with "sources" that are just as questionable as my one-time mistake of un-verifiable information. And he's posted at least two stories that are obviously false and contain unreliable information.

Additionally, to boot, I read a Rense article that had claimed to find the "chemtrail patents". It claimed to have found Hughes patents for a holding cell, chemical purification, and some kind of matrix that might be used to "spray". I did my own search on the patents. The "holding cells" were patents for batteries. Read the full text and it becomes obvious that's what they are. The chemical purification turned out to be a process to seperate material used in thermal sensing equipment from the other raw materials. The "matrix" turned out to be a platform for a mirror used in laser technologies.

As for Chem11's assertation that Rense can do whatever he wants because he's a private entity, or that he can't possibly police all his articles, that's a cop-out, and you know it. You hold me to a certain standard and insist that I "show you the money", so to speak. But you turn a blind eye to one of the more prolific chemtrail "information" sources as to the validity of his methods....all because you aren't "lining his pockets with your tax money". The day you see my driving around in a Jaguar is the day you can claim that my pockets are lined with anything other than lint.

posted 07-13-2002 10:55 PM            

quote:

---

: I apologize for NOT being more thorough in posting sophomoric paraphrasing of a document with whom I did not know the origins nor could I verify such origins.

---

Thank you. Better late than never.

quote:

---

I retract my statements based on something that I could never possibly verify on my own

---

Thanks again. I'm sure you will be more cautious in the future.

quote:

---

Speaking of lies, Mr. Chem, you're doing a great job misleading the people on these boards to think that... I have done things (like make threats) that I haven't ever engaged in.

---

Does the Air Force offer a remedial reading course? It might be something you'd want to look into.

quote:

---

Rense also states that the generals were going to DC to arrest Clinton under their UCMJ authority

---

Okay... I get it. You're actually a chemtrail activist attempting to discredit the enire debunking community with your ineptitude. Welcome to the team. Claiming that Jeff Rense stated the above when Sherman Skolnick's name appears directly above the article you referenced (especially after a such an eloquent apology for your poor research) is a stroke of pure genius.

quote:

---

Chem, pretty soon YOU will look like the silly one

---

I don't think you look silly at all, Pacer.

What would make you think that?

posted 07-14-2002 06:15 PM            

The other board that you call home, and maverick, are doing nothing more than pimping you out, and you cannot see it.

I just had a long visit with the board of mavericks and could find nothing there in regards to research, investigations or anything else meaningful, just hate talk and slander, and you guys have the balls to talk about us who do believe.
http://pub31.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessage?topicID=616.topic
Mavericks site is nothing more than a group of hate talkers with over inflated egos that have nothing better to do than slam everyone about everything. Ask yourself two questions, why does his board exist, what is the purpose, research?, hardly. It is to stroke maverick and his cronies. It’s a losers board Pacer, you can do better than that.
Case in point---Maverick talking about chem11 and others:
“Nobody in the USAF believes in chemtrails (the few who have even heard of them,) and most certainly would slap this dumb ass silly if he ever had the balls to tell them in person the crap that he says online. Dave (Chem11) is a pot stirrer, just like David and DonSucks and Guided Muscle and many others”.

“The few that have heard of them” how ridicules a statement is that. Is he saying you guys can’t read, or your audio input sensors (ears) are defective?

posted 07-16-2002 12:39 AM            

(just a side note; it seems strange to me that you are so concerned about this. If the whole issue is farse, then why would there be any need to get nervous about discussing it?)

Also Pacer, If you take an objective look at what David is saying about all the negativity, ridicule and badgering going on by the halfwits on that other board. All i see people like 'maverick' and the infamous mr 'kunz' offering is nothing more then their derogatory, and usually unsubstantiated opinion regarding people which whom they barely even know. A lot of the less intelligent people think debates are won with vulgarity. Those of us who are educated realize that once the opponent resorts to vulgarity, they have thereby lost the debate, and with it their credibility.

posted 07-16-2002 02:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpha-Theta:
A lot of the less intelligent people think debates are won with vulgarity. Those of us who are educated realize that once the opponent resorts to vulgarity, they have thereby lost the debate, and with it their credibility.

---

You're absolutely right Alpha. I've seen it happen many times and I've been debunked a feew times myself. The debunker, finding himself backed up against the wall, usually does resort to name calling and then vulgarity and sometimes even an occasional temper tantrum. Interesting behavior indeed.

posted 07-16-2002 12:29 PM               

I saw a post on Carnicom's recently, in reference to attempting to post chemtrail info on other aviation bulletin boards. One person suggested posting on the flightinfo.com board.

I'd be interested to see the results of that. After the people over there pounce on the chemtrail theories and tear them apart, are you then going to declare everyone on that board (all of whom are pilots ranging from private pilots to air transport pilots) part of the "debunker" conspiracy and tell them that they are ignorant about these supposedly "unusual" contrails (which they see daily at work)?

I'd be very interested.

Unfortunately, I doubt any of you have the guts to go over there and debate with them. After all, having a handful of pilots dismissing your claims on your territory is fine...you can easily label them "debunkers" or disinfo agents, whatever. But having a couple hundred pilots laugh, criticize and generally throw out the chemtrail arguement? Well, you can't have that, can you?

Just in case anyone wants to take a stab at it:
http://forums.flightinfo.com

I could be wrong...maybe you would get a few that might agree with your theories....who knows. But to date, I've yet to see a pilot (with a verifiable background) claim to believe in chemtrails.