Chemtrail Inactivity - Personnel on Holiday Vacation?, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 06:50 PM by Zepherian
reply to post by alien


Sorry, but since people are focusing on their arguments having authority because of their supposed qualifications, said qualifications become part of the debate. This is undeniable and logical, and I don't think we can really go back when things are presented in this light.

I'm not questioning anything but the information they have offered themselves, and it would help my assessment of the validity of their positions if they stepped up to the plate and proved the qualifications they so often claim to have.

This is not an ad hominem, this is validation due for a claim made. Yes, I have my suspicions about several nicknames here, but beyond that I am focusing on verification of their claims, as I believe is due to the reading audience as a proof of good faith.

Can you not agree?


reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 07:03 PM by SuperSpark
reply to post by Zepherian


As I said...



It does seem rather odd that a good ol' ground crew guy/gal would expand their knowledge to encompass all the classic chem-trail counter-points (including doctored photos of engine exhaust and persistent contrails in the 80's). What would be the passion in it unless they were being paid? I for one expect that readers will discern the debunkers for what they are... a staunch hit squad with the mission of overwhelming honest discussion on the subject with half-truths, photo-shopped photos and line-item responses given to them by their superiors. If we give one example, they give two. If we post one photo, they post two. Our passion is to shed light on the conspiracy. What is theirs? None, its their job. What a crappy assignment though! My Gosh! That's like one step away from being assigned to an Alaska radar station in the Winter! Let's show our resolve, build our base and overwhelm them back. If I were their boss and I saw how many people were unemployed out there, I might make an executive decision as a result.


I think you're falling into their trap Zeph! We could be spending this time further discussing the facts. Give readers credit. Counter tweeked pics and false facts with true pics and true facts. Be patient. Don't waste energy debunking debunkers. You're time and energy and knowledge is too valuable to wasted!

Notice I replied with irrefutable facts from the FAA on commercial airline ceilings and there was nothing in response? They will change the subject next of course. Any reader will notice this and connect the dots.

**************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates


reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 07:42 PM by Zepherian
reply to post by SuperSpark


I've been down that road, more than once. Since the result is them glossing over all the evidence given and then claiming authority, without exception, it is time for them to prove their authority, as it is not reasonable to be expected to accept it on faith alone. They have rejected the chemtrail argument based more on authority than on data. I say, at least, prove that authority, don't just claim it. I think I am being reasonable.



reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 07:59 PM by alien
Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by alien

Can you not agree?


...I can agree - and garauntee - that should anyone choose to start attacking people again like I have asked people not to do they will be Warned and/or Postbanned for a lil bit of time-out on the bench...


reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 10:34 PM by defcon5
Originally posted by Zepherian
Listing supposed qualifications behind an anonymous nickname is meaningless, if you guys insist on using the argument of authority then I suggest you identify yourselves, with a first and last name and some form of contact address, otherwise there is no garantee the qualifications are valid.


First off I would never be so stupid as to put my personal information on the internet for any reason whatsoever, as it is a good way to end up with being harassed, targeted, or having your identity stolen. Even folks like John Lear never gave personal information beyond their name, which in his case was not a big secret anyway.

Secondly, even if I gave you that information it would do you no good in confirming who I am, or what I have to say. If you called any of my old companies, they are not going to confirm that I worked out there to someone who just randomly calls them on the phone, the airport is not going to hand out that kind of information for security reasons. I doubt that Customs would give you my personal information either. Only someone from a professional HR company is going to have the ability to run that level of background check. I cannot post old ID's or other records as they can be photoshoped, altered, and cause a security issue that I could get into a tremendous amount of trouble for. You know we are not talking about working at Wal-Mart here, there is a high degree of security involved in the field we are discussing.

What I have done in the past is to send my information to an ATS official, who can be held accountable if that information is released. I figure they have most of my personal information already from when I registered on the site. I believe that I have already told Springer the specific companies that I worked for, years ago, and I would be willing to allow them to confirm or deny that I have the experience that I say I have. ATS, as an actual company, would have a better chance then you would of confirming my work record through the HR departments of the companies I used to work for, and to me it would not be any different then applying for a job.

Beyond that you simply have to take what I write as its presented, and the fact that I seem to have some idea of what I am talking about should be apparent.


reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 10:38 PM by defcon5
reply to post by Zepherian


He is referring to the comment I made which he, rightfully so, snipped.
Though others have said similar things in threads before, and I feel that what I said was true, it could be considered a personal attack.


reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 10:59 PM by defcon5
Originally posted by Exuberant1
I do not believe they will honour your request.

I will but only in the way I outlined above.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Instead, you will likely just receive a list of their alleged accreditation and a fabricated employment record.

There is no accreditation for that kind of work. You start out taking company training (which varies form airline to airline), then you are allowed to sling bags on narrow body aircraft. After awhile, if you do ok, then you start working on wide-body aircraft and learn to run loaders. You move up from there to tugging, freight tugging, mail running, then finally you go back to training and learn to be a fueler. You ride with a fueler for three months, before you are allowed to fuel on your own. After you have done all of that, and you show an aptitude for the job, you may be offered a position as a Lead Agent. Then the process starts again, through running narrow body then wide body aircraft. After you have done pretty much every job on the ramp, and have shown an ability to run flights effectively, you may be offered a position as a Ramp or Fuel Supervisor. The next highest position is the Ramp Services Manager, for which there is only one position for each company at each station.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You may actually be attacked for having the gall to dare ask our resident chemtrail debunkers such a question.

Not at all, and why would you think that it would upset us so much?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
How dare you question their credentials after they have already 'vouched' for each other.

I have no problem with being asked that.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*Get ready for a dose of scorn and disdain. One of them constantly refers to me as a 'troll' when I reply to him or dare to ask him a question. That will teach me to research and discuss chemtrails....

No, the reason that I refer to you as that is because for awhile you seemed to be showing up to simply make sarcastic remarks to anything I posted. Not really adding anything, simply making sarcastic remarks with nothing to back them up.
As an example from this thread:
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by defcon5

"how exactly are you interrogating aircraft transponders?"
You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about.

To which I quite promptly showed you that I do in fact know exactly what I am talking about, and that you were simply baiting me for an argument. By definition that is a tactic used in trolling.



reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 11:23 PM by defcon5
Originally posted by Exuberant1
There is every reason to believe, indeed, that those who call themselves debunkers are, in fact, shills for government, trying to keep the truth from the people. They willingly admit to being considered that by many conspiracy theory examiners, and just as quickly - and without proof - dismiss the accusation, but it seems very near the truth, if not the truth itself.

If I worked for the government as a debunker, why would I have more posts in forums such as “conspiracies in religion” then I do in chemtrail threads? I have been here a long time, and I have a track record well beyond simply chemtrails.

The truth is that Aviation is, by majority, a civilian field, as is meteorology. So that means there are a lot of regular people out here with the knowledge to say that the “Chemtrail” stuff is just a hoax. People who are into aviation or meteorology, are like people who are into astronomy, its often both a job and a hobby. As we have a love for what we do, we tend to defend it more staunchly then others. If you went over to “Bad Astronomy's” website, you would see the same kind of thing about CT's dealing with space, space flight, and other associated science. Its not that they are all paid debunkers, its that you are spitting in the face of their beloved hobby, and calling them liars.

After awhile that tends to tick people off, especially when you keep doing it in thread after thread.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*The evidence is that, not only are chemtrails real, there seems to be a dedicated movement to try to dissuade those who acknowledge the existence of chemtrails from following up on the subject.

There is not a single piece of evidence to support that supposed “Chemtrails” are anything more then normal persistent contrails.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
How come the chemtrail debunkers never try to explain what chemtrails 'are'.

Both Essan and OZ have done this on multiple occasions. I think OZ has an entire thread on the science of contrails.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The resident chemtrail Debunkers on ATS will usually offer themselves as 'experts' or 'authorities' on chemtrails and will always give you a 80-90% dose of real info layered in with their hidden propaganda message.

Please show me the 10-20% of my posts that are untrue.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Another trait I’ve noticed from our debunkers is the the sheer volume of their presentation coupled with a lot of technical jargon, scientific looking graphs and pictures to bolster the image of scientific validity and depth of investigation. When you read their posts, you can spot the party line-loud and clear and will notice the data they supply is just another red herring and if only ever partially relevant.

I am the one who posts those few pictures. After explaining this stuff multiple times over the years, I decided that a picture is worth a thousand words and could possibly delay my getting carpel tunnel syndrome by a decade if I just took a few minutes with paintbrush and made a few. I hosted them on Photobucket, and now just pull them out as need be. Took me on night, and they are far from a professional presentation that a government agency would post.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
This Newly Leaked Air-force “counter-blog” response plan explains alot:

*These operations equate to a formal declaration of psychological warfare on the American people. The military is engaging in direct propaganda and indoctrination.

Nowhere in that picture does it say anything about debunking, rather it says to correct inaccurate information. Secondly, Didn't GreenEyedLeo already pick that apart as being something someone made on powerpoint, with no evidence of it being related back to the military in anyway, including having incorrect phone numbers attached to it? The website listed on it similarly not having .mil or .gov in it?
Yet here you are again posting known untrue information as though its fact, yet we are the bad guys on this topic.


reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 11:40 PM by defcon5
Originally posted by SuperSpark
It does seem rather odd that a good ol' ground crew guy/gal would expand their knowledge to encompass all the classic chem-trail counter-points

First off I have been much more in my life then just a good ol' ground crew guy. I was made a supervisor very quickly because I have quite a bit of aviation knowledge, as I wanted to be a pilot at the time. Later I decided that spending up to 18 hours a day locked into a room smaller then most closets was maybe not a good career choice for me. However, I still pursued civilian pilot training, though I never completed it. Outside of that I have done a lot of various things, many of which related back to that in some way, and my interest in the subject has never died.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
(including doctored photos of engine exhaust and persistent contrails in the 80's).

What photo was doctored sir? If you mean the photo from the space shuttle, you can find the original in the NASA STS photo archives. Maybe you can explain the famous scene in the movie “Patton” where he has a persistent contrail going right over his bald head? I guess I must have traveled back in time to edit that movie as well, eh?

Originally posted by SuperSpark
What would be the passion in it unless they were being paid?

Why does anyone spend time on ATS without being paid for it? I suppose that I am paid for the hours of writing I have done in the “Conspiracies in Religion” forum as well?


[edit on 1/12/2009 by defcon5]


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 12:15 AM by defcon5
Originally posted by SuperSpark
Notice I replied with irrefutable facts from the FAA on commercial airline ceilings and there was nothing in response? They will change the subject next of course. Any reader will notice this and connect the dots.

Despite the fact that you all seem to have made up your mind that I am paid to do this, the truth is that I am not, and I have a life outside the time I spend on ATS. I believe that I told you guys I was heading off in one of my last posts last night. I have actually gone as long as 3 to 4 months at a time without logging into ATS...

Its certainly not because I am dodging your evidence. As a matter of fact what you posted really is irrelivant to topic we are discussing, and still does not prove your original statement that:
Aircraft and ATC's are not allowed there. Its a mystery above 45k feet to you, and appropriately so. That is defense turf.


As I have already shown Class A Airspace extends to 60K feet, therefore (A) an IFR Flight plan must be filed with the FAA to fly in that area, and (B) ATC still has control over the flights operating at that altitude. Whether or not civilian aircraft fly that high is a pointless argument, as I admitted that its generally all either freight or military at that altitude. Either way though its still filed under a flight plan, and its under control of civilian ATC. If the military wants to play in that area (which would include spraying anything), they have to close that airspace as a MOA, or TFR. If the area is closed as either an MOA or TFR, then a NOTAM has to be made public to all civilian pilots, so they know to avoid the area.

Here are the currant TFR's & NOTAM's in place, you must also check the effective dates: TFR's & NOTAM's

Please note that just because they are listed does not mean they are in effect right now, some are for a limited amount of time, in the FUTURE, for things such as shuttle launches. They list them in advance so that pilots have time to see when they will be in effect.

THESE ARE THE RULES FOLKS, THIS IS FEDERAL LAW....
and it pretty much kills the whole military chemtrail aspect of the conspiracy.
So if you think that you see a white military aircraft making a grid over your house, but there is no NOTAM, then what you are seeing is normal aircraft operations, thus a persistent contrail.


[edit on 1/12/2009 by defcon5]


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 12:27 AM by GenRadek
reply to post by defcon5


defcon5, all I can say is thank you for your expertise in the aviation field. I have a little knowledge when it comes to aviation like engine types, aircraft models, etc, but not the depth you have.

My field is mostly meteorology since weather has been my thing since I was a kid. And contrails I've always seen since the late 80s and I remember when Boeing upgraded their aircraft with newer engines. Then I noticed more contrails. As it stands its mostly common sense. More air travel = more contrails. Newer, cleaner burning engines = more contrails. And so far I have seen ZERO evidence for chemtrails. I epsecially love it when the chemtrailers say they have SO much proof of it and yet when I ask for it, its never there. If they bother to say anything it something either totally irrelevant or a rehash of what was already explained.
I especially love the "that cloud dont look right" evidence. And them showing pictures of sundogs, irridescence, contrails, halos, and using this as "proof" always gives me a good laugh. I can see we need to start teaching meteorology again in school and make it mandatory. What do you think?


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 12:58 AM by defcon5
reply to post by GenRadek

Thank you, but I am not a mechanic, nor did I finish learning to fly. There are many others on this site who totally eclipse my knowledge of the subject. The funny part is that they almost never come into Chemtrail threads anymore. If that does not show their disdain for the entire topic, I don't know what does.

I know what you mean about the evidence supporting chemtrails, most of it is either dead wrong, or comes from highly suspect sources. The thing that annoys me after awhile, is that we pick this wrong or fraudulent information apart, then someone presents that exact same information in another thread a few days or weeks later. Sometimes I am sure that it is done unintentionally, but I believe that there are others with an agenda to prove that chemtrails are real in public opinion. Most likely its the writers from various chemtrail webpages, who make a living off of those sites.

I had basic meteorology in grade school science, but maybe I was just lucky because I had teachers who were heavily into science in general. If schools are not teaching it, they certainly should start doing it again. I am not sure if it would help to fix this situation though. This seems to be an Internet hoax (like the spider under the toilet seat), that folks relate to because they do not recall seeing persistent contrails in their youth. If you think about that though, it makes sense, most of what you recall from your youth is situation specific not things like what the sky looked like. Also we tend to remember things better then what they really were in the past. For me its a no brainer because I grew up near an international airport in a colder northern state, loved airplanes, and I recall seeing contrails my entire life.


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 07:49 AM by Zepherian
reply to post by defcon5


Where the hell are you quoting from? I don't remember writing any of that on this thread, at least, so please provide a direct link to the posts you're using to attribute that text to me so I can review it in context.

I find it suspicious that you post such a worthless, confusing, derailing barrage of posts and don't get moderated for it. Try and be objective ol' chap.


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 08:12 AM by defcon5
reply to post by Zepherian


I cut and pasted the wrong name into the quote is all, its fixed now.

As to being moderated, I answered all the questions posed to me, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions. There is nothing they can moderate me for doing wrong there. Sorry if I really blasted your little theory by showing actual FAA rules in this instance, but such is reality. Unlike chemtrials which are paranoid fantasy...



reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 08:20 AM by defcon5
reply to post by Zepherian

As a matter of fact, you were the one asking for personal information. I would think that you would want to discuss that more, but obviously that was never your intention, was it? You have no interest in wanting to confirm my info through ATS, you simply wanted it for some reason.

You wouldn't perchance be one of the owners of those websites that we have been picking apart, would you?


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 09:16 AM by Essan
Originally posted by SuperSpark
reply to post by SuperSpark


Also, just so you know, I worked for LM and USAF a decade ago myself. I'm not a new kid on the block. I know what the sky looked like in the 70's and 80's buddy.

You probably do too if you thought about it. 60 second contrails and white puffy clouds unless it rained. Think about it. No perpetual growing trails merging into a shimmering, incandescent haze.


So what were Meteorologists studying in the 70s and 80s then? Or did they just imagine aircraft contrails spreading to cover the whole sky, and lie when they said it was a common occurrence?

Peter Kuhn - March 1970

Carlton & Lamb 1986

(I can find plenty more examples if you like)

The fact is that it's a complete myth that contrails do not persist and spread or that they have only done so since the 1990s. A myth which forms the basis of the whole chemtrail hoax.

Besides which - unless chemtrails were comprised of ice crystals the same as contrails we wouldn't see them anyway!

(Which perhaps explains why chemtrails are only visible when conditions permit contrails to form)


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 11:03 AM by Zepherian
reply to post by defcon5


No, I wanted people stating authority to prove authority. That is the sole intention. Had the people made the same arguments without the authority card I would have not gone down that route, as is obvious by the wording I used in my posts. Thank you for clarifying the name issue, it confused me greatly.

Essan: Thank you, I'll read up a bit on your online presence and if you and the sources seem legitimate I have no problem accepting your qualifications. I still don't agree on the chemtrails, as we have discussed in other threads, but it's good of you to back your claims of professional knowledge. Kudos.

Edit: after some browsing and searching I would guess Essan is being truthfull about his qualifications, however he did not exactly link to anything that proves them. No academic stuff, just meteorologically related online activity, which is what we have here in ATS from him. When I ask for identity I would expect at the least academic qualifications linked, as well as professional experience. What was linked falls very short of a CV. However, I'll repeat that I would guess it as true. The fact that I still have to guess does prove my point though.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Zepherian]


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 12:56 PM by SuperSpark
reply to post by Essan


You debunkers crack me up. You simply want to drown out OBVIOUS, common sense observations and deduction with loads and loads of cra_.

I make the simple observation that there were no persistent contrails prior to the 90's. The skies were filled with puffy clouds and jets with 30 second contrails. And you respond with posts of climatology technical papers that say otherwise, which would of course exhaust or overwhelm most people. I'm familiar with NASA's Atmospheric Effects of Aircraft Program (AEAP)
which has sponsored the Subsonic Assessment (SASS) Project and Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) II program (... not surprisingly all supporting NASA's fanatical "Global Warming" myth).

My tax dollars at work! Yhea! I have no doubt that when disclosure is finally unavoidable it will be spun as being a "miracle solution" to stop global warming.

It COMES AS NO SURPRISE THEREFOR that the United Nations' (the ultimate Global Warming myth promoters) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC are using these as tools, building on their momentum of sharing the nobel prize with al gore. No bigger joke has been made of the nobel committee since Jasser Arafat was awarded the nobel peace prize!

In short, as I mentioned earlier, I know quite a bit about ice particles in the atmosphere and aircraft. I know that my voice of reason will get drowned out by at least three posts for every one I make. BUT you can't silence it and you can't prevent people from looking up, using their common sense and becoming growingly pissed off.

Keep up the good work!

***************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Sno-Trains..A short History..(with short video)
  Posted 14 days ago with 16 member flags
Pictures: Civil War Sub H.L. Hunley Finally Revealed
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags
Neuroscience the new face of warfare: experts
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags
Congress Passes Bill That Opens US Skies To Unmanned Drones
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags
The Latest in Terminator Tech
  Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags
U.S. Navy to test 32 megajoule EM Railgun in the coming weeks
  Posted 2 days ago with 3 member flags