| Subtopic | Msgs | Last Updated | |
| Archived Posts of this Discussion | 42 | 02/04 12:17pm |
     | Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 11:43 am  Even though this thread has been pushed back into the archives, (God forbid any true believers may see it) more fun with photos, Flight Explorer and NASA: http://chickiedeb.topcities.com/Jan0902Sup.htm [Actually Deb "Research Archives" is where the original post was placed by its author and all the previous posts in this thread are still accessible by simply clicking on the archives link above. This is done in long threads to keep the most recent part of the conversation loading quickly; some users browsers also run out of memory on the longer threads and crash. I don't need your sarcasm. Mr. Skousen has been more than fair than some of the other boards (who have kicked off some of the posters of this thread) by allowing you to continue posting. We would all appreciate some respect here even if you disagree with us --as you've been shown more than that by your host. --Webmaster]
|
| | Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 09:23 am One criterion used by chemtrail believers for description of 'chemtrails' is when contrail formation or persistence ends abruptly. The rationale they attribute to this phenomena vary: A.- plugged spray nozzles B- an attempt to camouflage the spraying C- spray pump failure An interesting piece of research that explains plausible reasons why normal contrails might actually be intermittent comes from the European Union's MOZAIC project. http://www.aero.obs-mip.fr/mozaic/ Held between 1/1995 and 12/1997, MOZAIC collected atmopheric data by equipping commercial aircraft with instrumentation and conducting sampling during over 5000 scheduled flights. A relevant paper, "On the size distribution of ice-supersaturated regions[ISSRs-JR] in the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere", brings out data of interest to explain some reasons why intermittent contrail occur. This paper is available in .pdf form at: http://www.copernicus.org/EGS/annales/18/ag18/499.pdf. and in somewhat choppy html at: http://google.com/search?q=cache:KC7yni22r00C:www.copernicus.org/EGS/annales/18/ Some interesting quotes are: "In fact 13.5% of the more than 1.7 million MOZAIC data records analysed by Gierens et al. (1999) imply ice-supersaturation." "Surprisingly, we find that there may be much more very small ISSRs than apparent from the data such that the true mean diameter of the ISSRs may be of the order a few kilometres only." [NOTE- If the true mean( average) diameter is only a few kilometers, some much smaller diameter ISSRs exist- JR] "The longest distance flown in ice-supersaturated air occurred on a fight from Frankfurt (Germany) to an airport near Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) on December 18,1995. This distance was 3735 km (i.e. 249 consecutive data records with IC ˆ 1). The ISSR, that this flight occurred in, was an uplifting airmass before a cold front that approached the northwestern African coast. The flight direction was almost parallel to the front line which explains the long extension of the ISSR.[NOTE- the above described situation is the most common reason for contrail persistence, the operative mechanism being an uplifting of moisture at the leading edge of a cold front. This mechanism was used to explain the Carnicom contrail sightings in April, 1999.- JR] http://web.archive.org/web/19991127232419/http://carnicom.com/altcon1.htm ================== On the size distribution of ice-supersaturated regions in the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere Klaus Gierens and Peter Spichtinger Abstract - In order to determine typical sizes of ice-supersaturated regions (ISSRs) in the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere we set up the frequency distribution of pathlengths flown by MOZAIC aircraft within ISSRs. The mean pathlength is about 150 km with a standard deviation of 250 km. We analyse the influence of a selection bias(viz. that large ISSRs are more often crossed by aircraft than small ones) on the obtained pathlength statistics and derive a mathematical equation that relates the pathlength distribution to the underlying size distribution of ISSRs, assuming that they have circular shape. We solve the equation (by trial and error) and test the result using numerical simulations. Surprisingly, we find that there may be much more very small ISSRs than apparent from the data such that the true mean diameter of the ISSRs may be of the order a few kilometres only. The relevance of the result is discussed and dedicated research flights to measure the true extension of ISSRs are recommended. =========================== Mr. Skousen, Archived weather images and satelliet photos exist which couild shed some light on the atmospheric conditions extant on the day of your personal 'chemtrail' sighting. If you are honestly interested in factual evaluation of the incident, please provide as much of the previously requested information regarding that incident as possible. Considering the gravity of your allegations, which imply at least that the US military is irresponsible, at worst, criminal, such an incident should be pursued. Would you not agree? Jay Reynolds
|
| | Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 03:33 am Just a quick comment on on the following thought from the previous post. "Considering the gravity of your allegations, which imply at least that the US military is irresponsible, at worst, criminal, such an incident should be pursued." Try and do it. There have been many incidents in which the US military and other branches of our FedGov have demonstrated or participated in treasonous and/or criminal behaviour. Just a few among the good many in my lifetime are the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, the transfer of atom bomb material and secrets to Russia via Lend Lease, the agreements at Tehran and Yalta, the restrictions on US military in the Korean and Vietnam wars, Bay of Pigs betrayal, the refusal to finish off Iraq (and getting into it in the first place), then on the home front we have Waco, OKC, and the current invasion from Mexico, for openers. Having personally flogged thru a lot of relevant info and interviews during my own investigations into Pearl Harbor, the atom bomb giveaway, the OKC bombing, and the FedGov coverups of these incidents, which involved some of the highest ranking military, law enforcement and political people, I am convinced that prosecution of the conspiracies might be not worth the effort, as evidenced by the powerful military, law enforcement, media and political forces the conspirators can and do draw upon to prevent exposure. And I think most of us using this forum realize this. My comments probably belong elsewhere on this forum, but I believe some of the previous postings are dedicated to discrediting individuals rather than the chemtrails theory. I've discovered the use of this tactic in all the coverups of the above mentioned incidents.
|
| | Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 08:40 am Dear Mr. Hughes, Perhaps the reason you have "flogged through" so many previous conspiracy theories, and had no success in reaching sound conclusions is that the individuals involved failed to properly document the incidents so that real evidence could be uncovered. This has often been the case in my investigation of the 'chemtrails'. Without sound and determined evidence gathering, what you end up with is simply hearsay, speculation, and rumor. Such is mere grist for conspiracy theories but inadequate for further action. It appears that, in this case, once again, the witnesses have failed yet again to provide substantiation. I can only guess at the motivation behind this failure. Perhaps you could provide a theory for why this has occurred. Jay Reynolds
|
| | Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 08:46 pm If you want to investigate 'theory' concerning conspiracies and the role that Russia will play in them visit http://www.thefinalphase.com or use the google search engine and type the words,'Anatoliy Golitsyn,' 'perestroika' and 'glasnost'... The theory will be provided... Ted
|
| | Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 12:48 am And don't forget that it was the U.S. military in the 1950s and 1960s that flew over certain cities and sprayed radioactive debri over unsuspecting populations.. You can read very extensive documentation on this in previous issues of Flatland Magazine... Ted
|
| | Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 06:10 am Don't equate my use of "flogging" with unsuccessful. The chemtrail issue is still a theory to me, but other issues, the ones I have expounded upon in this forum, are convictions because I have done enough research, including talking personally with people involved, or their survivors in some cases, that I'm satisfied with my findings. The kinds of information that I rely on is still available, but takes some pretty hard and aggressive digging to get at it. As for motivation behind failure to substantiate a theory, lack of motivation and/or resources probably accounts for a lot of it. Coverups of the sorts of incidents I've personally investigated seem to be organized by interests with the power and resources to supress publicising a lot of evidence that would have put presidents, generals and admirals, among others, in jail. But the evidence of wrongdoing is there for the finding.
|
| | Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 08:22 am Jay Reynolds has brought up some good points in his 19 Feb. posting that we would all do well to consider. "...failed to properly document the incidents so that real evidence could be uncovered." More thorough documentation allows interested persons to dig in deeper themselves, as I have on certain issues. Case in point: when Joel Skousen reported about the guy who had stated he heard an explosion that might well have brought JFK Jr.'s plane down, I tried to run down whoever interviewed him and get his story. The best I could do was locate the guy who heard the noise, talk with someone living in his house, and send the witness a letter asking to whom he gave statements, so I could read them for myself. His reply, scribbled on page 2 of my letter, "it must have been the plane crashing that I heard" was all I got out of him, but that in itself told me enough. Has anyone come up with a handful of whatever is being sprayed out of those planes, or gotten close to anyone who has? "This has often been the case in my investigation of the 'chemtrails'. Without sound and determined evidence gathering, what you end up with is simply hearsay, speculation, and rumor." I'm not interested in this particular issue, but it seems a handful of the chemical, whatever it is, might help put the issue to rest. "Such is mere grist for conspiracy theories but inadequate for further action." That depends on the reader, and his/her willingness and ability to dive in further. It takes time and money. And I'm not willing to identify some of my sources for privacy sake. I'd like to see more original research on this forum. "It appears that, in this case, once again, the witnesses have failed yet again to provide substantiation. I can only guess at the motivation behind this failure. Perhaps you could provide a theory for why this has occurred." I think I commented adequately on my preceding post. Lack of motivation, and coverups too powerful and well organized for us to penetrate. Bottom line: lets do more research ourselves.
|
| | Friday, February 22, 2002 - 09:10 am Dear Ralph, Anyone who honestly follows through in checking out 'chemtrails' will find manifold rumor, hearsay,and speculation, outright lies, unfulfilled claims, and factual inaccuracy. If you think you personally see chemtrails, begin by trying to identify the planes using Flight Explorer. You will find that most of what you are seeing are commercial jets, many of which will leave persistent contrails now being labeled as 'chemtrails'. You might want to see if your observations of 'chemtrails' correlates with NASA's new contrail forecast, which is pretty accurate: http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/contrail_forecast/contrail_prediction.html If you find out differently, let me know. Jay Reynolds
|
| | Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:20 am Why in the world does NASA maintain a contrail prediction site? How do you identify planes at 30,000 feet from the ground? Why is there all this intellectual effort spent on trying to belay possibality of gvt secret experiment/program? I cannot beleive that Jay & Deb are not funded in their effort to be apologists blockers of concerned citizens. Your work is negative - trying to prove that something does not exist. Why don't you contribute your obvious considerable time, talents, money to something worthwhile to mankind like sustainable agriculture. Perhaps Joel, as stated by other writers, is too busy making a positive contribution to be further drawn into your "prove the negative game"
|
| | Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 03:05 pm sam-i-am: I hardly think that Jay & Deb are paid by anyone to post here or on any other forum. The burden of proof for somthing lies with the people who make the allegations, not with the people who are skeptical. Ever hear of the scientific method? Mr. Skousen may be a great guy, and I am not interested in debating that. I am, however, interested in finding out how he could post something and label it as fact when the theories presented have more holes in them than a brick of Swiss cheese. You ask why there is all this intellectual effort being spent trying to belay the possibility of a secret experiment program. Well, the answer is easy......it's not that hard to refute each and every argument being made. It doesn't take much "intellectual effort," and it doesn't take much time, either. With even a cursory knowledge of aviation meteorology, the U.S. Airway system, Federal Aviation Regulations, and the ability to visually identify different kinds of aircraft, it will give you (at a minimum) plenty of doubt that "chemtrails" exist at all. Get on any "chemtrail" message board and pose any of these questions to the members and "resident experts": 1. Who is doing the spraying? 2. How can they knowingly spray on their friends and family? With all of the whistle-blowing going on in the government and the military, why is there none on this issue if it were to exist? 3. If the operation is as large as is alleged, thousands upon thousands of pilots, ground crew, air traffic controllers, maintenance personnel, chemical truck drivers, etc, etc, etc, are involved in the "conspiracy." Why is it that ZERO of them have come out and voiced concerns over this? And remember, even in the most secret of locations (Area 51,) stories leak out of environmental and health hazards that the government has caused. It goes without saying that the government has experimented on small scales before on citizens. This is the tenet that chemtrail believers use to show as proof that an operation is currently underway. I disagree, especially since the previous "experiments" were on small scales and were (for the most part) considered to be relatively harmless at the time. 4. What is upper-level wind shear? Can it contribute to causing "start/stop" trails? 5. Why have there been no pictures of planes landing/taking off or on the ground that are part of the spraying program? With the thousands of planes involved, where do they fly out of? Area 51/Groom Lake is way too small to handle a huge fleet of planes, so where are they? How do they get to locations all over the USA and other parts of the world to spray? 6. If the "operation" is for population control/weather control/mind control, etc., where are the verifiable statistics that show this to be true? 7. If "chemtrails" are meant to affect something on the surface of the earth, how come the trails never drop down and reach the ground? How long would it take for an atomized substance to reach the earth from 30,000 feet? Why spray directly over a city when the winds aloft frequently exceed 100 knots? Is there another, much less expensive, much less overt, much more effective, and much more accurate way to provide the same degree of "coverage" of a population? (hint: yes, there is.) 8. Do you actually know any pilots who regularly fly at altitudes where contrails form? What do they think of the "chemtrail" phenomenon? 9. Do you know any air traffic controllers? What do they think of the "chemtrail" phenomenon? Take any of these questions to a "chemtrail" message board, and look at the responses (or lack thereof.) Use some common sense, and see if they use facts, theories, opinions, or just heresay when they present their arguments. It may be just me, but facts are much more worthy of consideration than heresay. Maverick
|
| | Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 12:12 am You Maverick, may be in a unique position of knowledge because of your trainning and position to honestly answer any of the questions you pose above. However, because of your "position", you also may be the "Dis-information Officer"...regarding Jay & Deb, everyone I've ever met who has had a real intrest in anything (a hobby if you will) approaches the avocation with a goal of increasing knowledge to acheive a positive end. Jay & Deb seem to have an inordinate degree of knowledge which is used to persue a negative...IT JUST DOSN'T FOLLOW...Also, if YOU were told the "mission" was secret and disclosure was punishable (or you were a lowly-none-to-bright-noncom)to whom would you be disclosing what??? As far as your scientific method, I am educated...did you ever hear of voodoo science (junk science) like the global warming scam??? You did not answer my question as to why NASA has a chem(con)trail prediction web site???
|
| | Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 05:57 am I don't expect any of you to be 100% correct on any issue, or anywhere near it. Look carefully at the language used by the critics of the chemtrails theory (which I still think of it as, because I'm not into it as some of you are). It seems obvious to me that their intent is to discredit individuals, not the theory. Then check my last posting to the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy issue, where I found character assasination used to a a great extent to try to discredit certain witnesses and testimony.
|
| | Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 01:47 pm sam, The answer to your question can be found here: http://research.hq.nasa.gov/code_y/nra/current/NRA-99-OES-04/winners.html I suggest you develop an "inordinate" amount of knowledge. Might do you some good. Jay
|
| | Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 09:20 pm why jay.what good would the knowledge that you have do for me or anyone else. you didn't answer my question above-why don't you devote your considerable time intelligence and money to doing something worthwile for mankind instead of attacking the charcter of others in your persuit of proving a negative.just how do you explain your motivation.if you want to save the dummies from themselves then teach us something we can sink our teeth into like how to grow food or be a successful canditate in a job search or....get my positive point.if your motivation is to prove your superior opinion i trust you realize it won't happen on this web site.if your motivation is to take the heat off of potental wrongdoers you are making a valient effort...fess up or shut up
|
| | Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 08:07 am A gentleman employed by the FAA has been in the news the past few days as a whistleblower concerning the security issue. Here are some numbers to ponder- WHITE HOUSE REPORT ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL REFORM December 7, 2000 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversees the largest, busiest and most complex aviation system in the world. As part of its mission, the FAA and its staff of 49,000 operate and maintain our nation's air traffic system, orchestrating the take-off, landing and routing of 93,000 aircraft a day. The FAA also regulates aviation safety and security, which entails standard-setting for, and oversight of, commercial airlines, private aircraft, aircraft manufacturers and the air traffic system itself. http://www.naats.org/npoli/ato.htm The Air Line Pilots Association is a union representing 67,000 airline pilots at 47 U.S. and Canadian airlines. http://www.alpa.org/internet/about.html The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) is the world's largest labor union organized by flight attendants for flight attendants. AFA represents over 49,000 flight attendants at 27 airlines, serving as a voice for flight attendants at their workplace, in the industry, in the media and on Captiol Hill. http://www.flightattendant-afa.org/aboutafa.htm When you consider the number of people involved in the aviation industry as a whole, and not one has come forward to expose or report "chemtrails," perhaps you will understand why I call the non-issue, The Best Kept Secret. >>>"I cannot beleive that Jay & Deb are not funded in their effort to be apologists blockers of concerned citizens."<<< Believe it. I am also a concerned citizen, and just a housewife from Indiana. What proof do you need? (And BTW, we grow and can our own vegetables every year.) I don't consider my hobby as a negative. Since when is presenting truthful research anything but positive? Sure beats crocheting.
|
| | Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 08:43 am Dear Sam, Please take the time to review my website. Perhaps you didn't see the page about me, which tells about my organic farming activities over the last seventeen years. http://www.worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/aboutjay.html On my first farm in the US Virgin Islands, I pioneered a novel approach to dry-land farming for the tropics, using permanent grass strips between crop rows to generate mulch material for erosion control, build soil, and hold moisture. I currently grow and sell organic produce and am using the same practices on my farm in the US. What have you accomplished in the field of sustainable agriculture, Sam? Jay
|
| | Monday, March 04, 2002 - 10:19 pm Mr Skousen, Sam, Ralph? Anybody out there? Jay Reynolds
|
| | Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 03:59 am I still check the postings occasionally but chemtrails is lower than a backburner issue with me, perhaps in part because I'd be out of my element in that topic. I have enough on my plate for now. Also, I could see that some postings were dedicated to personal attacks rather than plain disagreement. I have no interest in that, although I do have experience with it, as I stated elsewhere. It's easier to contact me by email at gretheandralph@hotmail.com or grethe.and.ralph@juno.com
|
| | Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 09:46 pm Open the gates Proximo!! Open the gates! All enemies of the Emperor shall die!!!
|
| | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 02:56 am Ted, Would you mind explaining your last comment.
|
| | Friday, March 08, 2002 - 09:54 pm Boy, this thread has gone beyond absurd. I for one am getting weary of my inbox being flooded by notifications of new postings. I can represent myself as a Fighter Pilot, a Chem-Trail Tanker Pilot, a dirt farmer from Arkansas or even a house wife from Tim-Buck-Too (Home Maker is more politically correct). Since the internet is mostly anonymous, I can be anyone I want to be (I'm ErikTheRed today.) To anyone that spends this much time--and those long posting take a long time--seeking to prove anything in cyberspace I say to you GET A LIFE! At least crocheting produces some kind of meaningful product! You can't prove anything by citing web site after web site where probably nothing is as it seems. This is way beyond boring. No wonder Mr. Skousen isn't interested in your ad naseum communiques. You have sufficiently beaten this dead horse into a mass of quivering flesh. Now stop. Why don't you move on to UFO's. There are web sites documenting lizard like aliens in our midst that eat our missing children. Surely these poor disturbed people need some of your attention! If somebody wants to believe in Chem-Trails, let it ride. Someone threatening to take a pot shot at some Chem Trail airplane is nothing more than internet swagger. Surely you have surfed the internet long enough to recognize this? Since you have flooded this site with your version of the truth, thousands of real people have died from drunk drivers. Maybe you could spend some time on this or some other tuly important crusade?
|
| | Monday, March 11, 2002 - 02:26 pm This thread has exhausted our resources in maintaining this board. It has grown exponentially and there is no sign of it settling down. We cannot afford to maintain a site for chemtrails debates as it is not the theme here. The thread will be left intact so both sides will have their viewpoints expressed on this site and readers can check out the material for themselves. Any new threads about chemtrails will be removed; this is the definitive debate on the site and will left as such.
|