Aerosol? Persis-trails, Real or not? Options

[Roark]

So, I heard Steve Jones is now looking into chemtrails.

Sofia got me looking at chemtrails for example. And I'm not ready to talk about that too much, I have actually made some observations. I have not (unintelligible) what's in those trails, but some of those do certainly last longer than others. And that's... I could go into that a little bit, but I think that that's a valid area and it's not 9/11 but it is truth

I'm curious. What do the real pilots on this forum say to that?

Do you believe in chemtrails also?

[grizz]

There's about a dozen chemtrail topics already. Read around for the answer you seek.

[dMz]

I move that we close [&file?] this redundant thread early:

1. It has already been addressed several places elsewhere, repeatedly (wasn't it just yesterday?).

2. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7462
"But if you are wrong in the end, by supporting criminals through spin, obfuscation, strawman arguments and ad homs, you are an accomplice and you are an obstruction of Justice. Take heed.

Perhaps this is the reason most so-called "Debunkers" want to remain anonymous. I dont blame them. If you are not being paid to intentionally derail arguments through spin(as many of you attempt to offer as 'debate'), you may want to rethink your position."

3. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4993
a."BUT IF YOU ARE HERE TO DISRUPT UNDER THE FALSE PRETENSE OF POLITE MANNERS AND ASKING QUESTIONS WHICH SIMPLY GET PEOPLE TO ARGUE INDEFINITELY ABOUT THINGS THAT CAN NEVER BE PROVEN ABSENT A GENUINE INVESTIGATION WITH SUBPOENA POWER IN A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE OR A COURT OF LAW, THEN KNOW THAT I WILL BAN YOUR ASS WHEN I GET TIRED OF KICKING THE HELL OUT OF IT.

OK?"

b. "We do welcome anyone who is honestly searching for answers ... however, we have all dealt with our share of posters who have their minds made up already, who refuse to do their own research and come here to simply challenge us. Many who fit this description are part of an organized effort to disrupt groups like Pilots for Truth, and we have little patience with them.

Let us know in your posts that you are here honestly looking for answers and not here to disrupt and you will recieve a warm welcome."

4. Why doesn't Roark go ask Steven Jones at Scholars', assuming that is Roark's goal here. The relevance of the OP to the P4T Mission Statement is what exactly?

[rob balsamo]

Roake is most likely JamesB from SLC. He asked me the same exact question in an email last week trying to change the subject of the fact none of his cronies stepped up to the plate to debate us on AAR.

With that said, Pilots For 9/11 Truth has not researched "chemtrails". Matter of fact, before i started to wake up to the lies, corruption and cover-up's of our govt, i actually used to be a "debunker" (of sorts) on some "chemtrail" forums when i was bored.

Now that i realize how nefarious our govt really can be, and that we know Weather modification is fact, it doesnt suprise me so many people are concerned. I will say some of the pictures i have seen compared to contrails do raise an eyebrow. We can prove it one way or the other rather easily. All we need are a few aircraft placed around the country in the areas which have the most "activity" reported and go up to get some samples. Problem is, who is going to pay for it?

[dMz]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[dMz]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/g...ssociation.html

Fallacy: Guilt By Association

Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy
Description of Guilt By Association

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2. Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

[dMz]

Turnip truck- the large, wheeled vehicle that the Brassica rapa likely fell off sometime during the night... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[mrodway]

Now that i realize how nefarious our govt really can be, and that we know Weather modification is fact, it doesnt suprise me so many people are concerned. I will say some of the pictures i have seen compared to contrails do raise an eyebrow. We can prove it one way or the other rather easily. All we need are a few aircraft placed around the country in the areas which have the most "activity" reported and go up to get some samples. Problem is, who is going to pay for it?

My view is that you can't alway trust "them" to do the right thing - so it is a good idea to keep an eye out if you can!

I have been pondering the possibility of constructing low cost spectroscopes, cheep enough so that anyone interested could build one and keep a look out.
The idea would be to take an image of the sun's spectrum as a trail passes in front of it, hoping that some of the chemicals in the trail would cause a dips in the normal spectrum. At least we should be able to classify the trails into groups, even if the setup wasn't accurate enough to work out the content and purpose.

(IMG:http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/cd_spectroscope/1000lines_per_mm.jpg)
http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/c...ectroscope.html
(see bottom of page for hi-res version)

Unfortunately (Or fortunately!) any kind of trails a rare around here, so I cant really test the idea out myself.

[dMz]

"Roark",

If you are interested in Chemtrails, why don't you research the work of Clifford Carnicom? He's been researching that issue for 9+ years or so. Here's a bit of his biography:

"Clifford Carnicom is a former research scientist and career federal employee of 15 years with three different agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. His technical and academic background is extensive in the fields of geodetic science, engineering, advanced mathematics, computer science and the physical sciences. Due to his work with the federal government, he held a high level security clearance."

Here are some articles on Contrail Physics for you:
http://www.carnicom.com/model1.htm

http://www.carnicom.com/model2.htm

Here's his website for your convenience:
http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm

http://www.carnicom.com/

[dMz]

I have been pondering the possibility of constructing low cost spectroscopes, cheep enough so that anyone interested could build one and keep a look out.
The idea would be to take an image of the sun's spectrum as a trail passes in front of it, hoping that some of the chemicals in the trail would cause a dips in the normal spectrum. At least we should be able to classify the trails into groups, even if the setup wasn't accurate enough to work out the content and purpose.

Thanks mrodway,

The big hurdle would be in analyzing the absorption or line spectra. A digital camera comes to my mind, but it might need a long aperture speed in one of those "dark boxes."

Once an image is digitized, there is a very good freeware image tool, ImageJ originally designed for microscope analysis, courtesy of the US National Institute of Health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageJ

http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/docs/menus/analyze.html#hist

It is an interesting idea.

[dMz]

So, I heard Steve Jones is now looking into chemtrails.

I'm curious. What do the real pilots on this forum say to that?

Do you believe in chemtrails also?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/p...g-the-well.html

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

[Roark]

So, The belief in chemtrails is "poison?"

[painter]

So, The belief in chemtrails is "poison?"

So, does your member name indicate that you are a Reptilian oark?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....c=13214&hl=

[dMz]

So, I heard Steve Jones is now looking into chemtrails.

I'm curious. What do the real pilots on this forum say to that?

Do you believe in chemtrails also?

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Loaded Question

Alias:

* Complex Question
* Many Questions
* Plurium Interrogationum
Translation: "many questions", Latin

Form:

A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

Exposition:

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

1. "Have you ever beaten your wife?"
2. "If so, are you still doing so?"

In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.
Exposure:

Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an actual buyer.

[EDIT: The troll immediately below materialized at post #180 on the other thread. I believe that subtracting 181 from those references >180 should work, and the URL hotlinks to the other thread should still work fine.]

[ericmnnyc]

Dmole...you posted this image
(IMG:http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Image_Library/images/chemtrails_broken_links.jpg)
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Image...roken_links.jpg

Do you realize that it's been photoshopped/digitally-altered? (Poorly at that)

This post has been edited by ericmnnyc: Jan 3 2009, 01:51 AM

[JFK]

Dmole...you posted this image
(IMG:http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Image_Library/images/chemtrails_broken_links.jpg)
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Image...roken_links.jpg

Do you realize that it's been photoshopped/digitally-altered? (Poorly at that)

This one has not been as I took it myself.

Taken in Portland, Me. on 10/9/06 @ ~ 11:00 am facing NNE.

(IMG:http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7959/shiftinggearsdu2.jpg)

This post has been edited by JFK: Jan 3 2009, 01:02 PM

[grizz]

I have dozens of dotted line chemtrail photos that I took myself, but I'm not going to bother to post any of them, because I already have. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[ericmnnyc]

Maybe it has,
but I've seen similar things in the clouds,
and have photographed them.

The point is...if such a thing really exists, there's no reason for someone to fake it, right?

These atmospheric anomalies are really happening,
more and more frequently, and I think they are
the unintended consequences of atmospheric modification,
by man.

However, this atmospheric modification, could also be just
a cover story for something much more nefarious,
and that is, the chemical and biological poisoning of most of humanity,
in a deluded, concerted, draconian plan, to reduce world population,
because machines can do the work now, for their dominant minority, who have anointed themselves, the guardians of the world, and believe they no longer have a use,
for the "little people", at the bottom of the hill, from on high, in their exclusive abattoir.


imo, lunk

So do you wear protection from these chemicals when you go outside?

@jfk - interesting picture, but not the same thing.

[ericmnnyc]

I guess you are implying that chemtrails don't exist because you claim that one photo is manipulated. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

A digitally-altered photo isn't proof of anything, but it certainly calls into question the motives of the person who altered it to present it as proof of something.

All the photos I post I took myself, and have only been resized.

(IMG:http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p9/chainlighting/chemtrails/old005.jpg)

(IMG:http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p9/chainlighting/chemtrails/old016.jpg)

These still aren't the same "gap" shown in the altered photo.

[grizz]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yawn.gif) When I have some extra time I'll find some of my 'gap' photos for you. I have plenty of them.