Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 01:20am PT
|
Russians are sure convinced -they even named the class and the sub type it came from...
According to Whom? and based on what? the KCAL footage?
The Pentagon didn't just say 'no threat'...
Col. Dave Lapan, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said later Tuesday that while there is no evidence that the contrail was left by a missile the department is still investigating.
No Defense Department units reported launches at the time. The North American Aerospace Defense Command and the U.S. Northern Command did not report any foreign missile launches off the California coast, Lapan added. Regardless, there was no threat to the United States, he said.
and the FAA didn't say there were no planes in the area...
“The FAA ran radar replays of a large area west of Los Angeles based on media reports of the possible missile launch at approximately 5 p.m. (PT) on Monday. The radar replays did not reveal any fast moving, unidentified targets in that area,” said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor. “The FAA did not receive reports … of unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area on Monday afternoon.
and how about what the helicopter pilot actually said.
This was not the first one of these he had seen in the previous days..
Watch the interview with him...at about the 40 second mark.
Helicopter Pilot Interview
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 02:03am PT
|
Ron, that story is NOT a CNN story. It is an iReport!
Here is what the CNN website has to say about iReports:
Welcome to iReport, where people take part in the news with CNN. Your voice, together with other iReporters, helps shape how and what CNN covers every day.
So you know: iReport is the way people like you report the news. The stories in this section are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post. Only ones marked 'CNN iReport' have been vetted by CNN.
Sorry Ron, no 'CNN iReport' on this one.
Just a made up story submitted by some dude that is laughing his ass off right now.
See the report here
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Near Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 02:19am PT
|
Monolith -
Those 2 pics you posted, the second of course was a contrail.
Explain how you can see the ENTIRE "contrail" from the "airplane" in the first picture from the horizon on. How is it still so thick 1500+/- miles away?
I'd draw pictures but my mouse hand is killing me. Too much gym climbing.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 02:46am PT
|
1500+/- miles away?
Huh? Where did you get that from.
Maybe a couple hundred max.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 03:33am PT
|
"your climbing credentials are important, raymond. got any? it would make you a lot more credible, at least to me. if you're not a climber, that's fine. admit you're here to stomp on conspiracy theorists because you hate them. honesty is good for the soul. i'd be much more comfortable with you, if that's all the case, and you own up to it. however if you're a climber, talk about that too. you never know when having something in common like that can help a discussion."
What the hell is wrong with you Tony? All forum users except you could probably only use something like 30 seconds to find a couple of my climbing posts on this forum.
Are you really that dense that you can't do anything except spouting nonsense?
"no, links are not okay, except for background and reference for people who wish to pursue them."
So an article from 1970 talking about "chemtrails" and showing pictures about "chemtrails" is not a valid evidence against your claims?
"if you read all the books i've read in my life you'd probably be thinking exactly like me, but i don't expect you to do that."
To late. I have already read a book.
"i could link you to any number of web pages which take chemtrails seriously, but you probably wouldn't look at them either. frankly, none of them are that good, but i still think the subject is worth taking seriously, not only because of what i notice in the sky but because of our increasingly manipulative and lying government."
So you equate science articles to conspiracy webpages. Your choice.
"as for that 1970 article, all i'm getting from your link is a brief abstract. sorry, doesn't seem to say a hell of a lot."
Sorry, I forgot that you can't use links. You can always click on the link called PDF and find the full text.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 03:51am PT
|
Raymond, you have to understand the conspiracy droids here are very paranoid, so when they see a new name in these threads they assume you are a government agent. I've been accused, as well as GC. Tony even thought the people behind contrailscience were reading this thread and reacting.
Funny isn't it?
It is one thing to be paranoid but it is just stupidity when he can find evidence against his accusation by clicking on two buttons and scroll down a little on a page.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 10:30am PT
|
the only sure way, dingus, is to avoid these threads entirely. once you check in, fishhooks galore. we're gonna get you too.
the pdf didn't link for me at first, and it looked like one of those pages where you have to pay to go beyond the abstract. and yes, raymond, you seem to have had a lot of interest in climbing until the past year. is your last name really phule? if it is, you have nothing but sympathy from a fellow who has had to live with a dumb last name all his life. if it isn't, i suggest you consider changing it. you will eventually find it burdensome.
your article gives one photo of a large contrail and one photo of an overcast sky. there's some commendable environmentalist concern about these things, which seems to have dead-ended with that article. sierra clubbers devote too much to their green junketing to be concerned about aircraft pollution. for credibility, your article gives out loads of scientific gobbledy-gook to demonstrate what a plowboy who went to high school could tell you: like their good buddies the clouds, contrails block the sun, reduce ultraviolet, increase infrared, and won't affect the earth much unless there's a lot of them. i wonder if i could get a job writing abstracts.
there are a couple items out there which you fellas probably haven't come across, but i'll bet klimmer knows about them. (klimmer? you still around?) you might be able to find them on the internet if you dig for them, or they may be gone by now. i bring them up because they have a lot to do with why i won't let go of this issue. i have to say up front that i don't trust them, but that doesn't mean i should ignore them. they're unverifiable, but hard to forget. as tom cochrane said on one of the other threads, there is a maze of truth and disinformation going on, and there seems to be deliberate efforts to scramble the two.
one of these items is a photograph circulated rather widely about three years ago of an airplane interior supposedly equipped for spraying chemtrails. very elaborately equipped. someone took great pains to hoax this. the other is a narrative by an alleged airport employee telling of chemtrail systems installed on regular commercial flights and kept hush-hush, with those in the know forbidden to talk about it. if you don't think things have gotten real serious around airports, go stand in a check-in line. i have also met a number of people who work in aerospace who seem to believe in "chemtrails". they have experience and credentials and will speak about it privately. for some reason aluminum and boron compounds are mentioned consistently. often it's tied to the h.a.a.r.p. program. i'm afraid 1943 popular mechanics illustrations and two photos over boulder, colorado, in 1970 aren't enough to trump all this, at least for me.
in a not unrelated matter, since there seem to be so many scientific eggs here, check out the chemistry of the shoe bomber, which has been used as an excuse to ratchet up airport security to the point of aggressive and wholesale humiliation. the reply to "don't touch my junk" is now "you give up a lot of your rights when you buy that airline ticket". i seems you can't even just turn around and go home--you've become eternally suspicious because you got proprietary about your junk. meanwhile, as i delight to point out, air traffic and air defense doesn't seem to know what goes on 30 miles off los angeles.
i forget the other chemical, but i remember the important points. one of the chemicals is 100 percent hydrogen peroxide. what you can buy at the drug store is two percent. supposedly you could smuggle these two chemicals onboard in a couple perfume bottles, mix them in the bathroom, and blow up the plane. heck, why even mix them in the bathroom? just mix 'em right in your seat while people are watching the tube, we're all headed for our 70 virgins, right?
doesn't quite work that way. this particular explosive has a bad reputation even among terrorists because it's difficult to produce and then difficult to handle safely after it's produced. this information was reliably reported in one of those leading british newspapers a short time after the shoe bomber, but, as with other things, you'll probably find a good information war raging over it now. in order to get this explosive, you need a laboratory with strictly regulated temperatures, something like around 50F, and you have to vent away all the sulfuric acid fumes which are immediately produced. the explosive doesn't blow right up--it appears in the matrix as tiny, snowflake-like crystals, which must then be carefully harvested and perhaps dried and stored properly, who knows and who the hell cares? no airplane interior offers 50-degree temperatures and the fumes would overwhelm the guy in the restroom before he could slip the laboratory filter out of his hat. it will also distract his seatmate from the movie du jour.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 11:08am PT
|
Michaeld, the contrail length is more like 100 miles and out to sea.
The recent episode was filmed for about 10 minutes with jets known to go about 500mph.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 11:12am PT
|
chickens from outer space are on the way.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 11:32am PT
|
I am impressed that you managed to find my climbing posts, hurray.
I try to take this slowly. I linked to that article for a single reason. The article shows that "chemtrails" existed 1970 and the article says that they where common at that time.
Thus the conclusion is that your memory about no "chemtrails" at that time is clearly wrong.
Do you get that point?
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2010 - 01:17pm PT
|
i must concede, raymond, that the article from the meteorological journal shows a track that looks like a chemtrail, and an occluded sky the likes of what we get all too frequently in california. i was moving from chicago to minnesota in 1970 and, as i say, did not notice any such things, either over the plains of illinois and the big city of chicago or similar environments in minnesota. could have been the prairie winds, but they didn't seem very apparent when i moved to california in 1980 either.
now sit back and try to be a little scientific yourself. you've got basically one photo there and some professional scientific concern. nowadays you've got a whole paranoia movement, plus a number of nonparanoids such as have posted here, who seem to agree there's a lot more of it than there used to be and they're looking for explanations, crackpot or otherwise. you don't have any study which has dealt with the extensiveness of this over time, and i don't think you're going to find one, which is one reason i've been asking for those with outdoor experience over time to speak up a little. my observation is that the issue seems to have eluded the environmental movement entirely, which has been much more concerned about urban automobile pollution than emissions on a global scale, except from the point of view of the global warming controversy. and for that puppy, let me refer you to the end of the recent yosemite glacier thread for a look at the "reliable" science which percolates down to the public.
i did look up that chemical i referred to. it's called TATP. here's the article published by the register of london:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
this thing is nicknamed "the mother of satan" for a reason. dangerous to make, unpredictable. terrorists really don't like to deal with it. and you need a well-equipped laboratory and considerable skill to produce and use it effectively.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
|
now sit back and try to be a little scientific yourself. you've got basically one photo there and some professional scientific concern. nowadays you've got a whole paranoia movement, plus a number of nonparanoids such as have posted here, who seem to agree there's a lot more of it than there used to be and they're looking for explanations, crackpot or otherwise. you don't have any study which has dealt with the extensiveness of this over time, and i don't think you're going to find one, which is one reason i've been asking for those with outdoor experience over time to speak up a little.
An article claiming that "chemtrails" where common 1970. I consider that as much stronger evidence compared to what you remember.
First. Isn't very obvious that contrails are much more common today due to more flights being flown?
The second thing is that you then get into the most important thing about all this in my opinion. There are obviously a lot of interesting questions about contrails and it is also possibly that something fishy is going but the problem with everything I have seen so far are using arguments that is so easily disproved my basic meteorology.
What you call "chemtrails" and their behavior:
is not a new phenomena.
is easily explained by basic science.
You and the other believers in "chemtrails" need to start to find something that is actually hard to explain for people to take you seriously.
Are you sure that there it not exist a lot of research about contrails?
http://scholar.google.no/scholar?q=contrails&hl=no&btnG=S%C3%B8k
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2010 - 03:15pm PT
|
so, where were you in 1970?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2010 - 03:21pm PT
|
And that is relevant because?
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2010 - 08:52pm PT
|
because--to be scientific--you have one photo of a chemtrail taken over colorado around 1970. not exactly a scientific sampling or comprehensive body of data addressing this issue.
since you're so reticent to disclose any personal experience--i'm not asking for a credit card number here--i assume you're a relatively young fella who has simply grown up under chemtrail skies and thinks they're normal.
assuming they're chemtrails, of course. for me, it's an open question. you don't seem to understand what an open question is, but you're sure hellbent on closing this one.
here, by the way, is the photo i referred to:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/humans/chemtrails/news.php?q=1202441784
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 03:08am PT
|
because--to be scientific--you have one photo of a chemtrail taken over colorado around 1970. not exactly a scientific sampling or comprehensive body of data addressing this issue.
Do you always seem to consider lack of evidence that you personally know about as very strong evidence for your theories? How much work have you actually done to collect real evidence on this issue? How many days have you spent on libraries reading old books and papers?
Also the scientific evidence in that article is not just one photo. The evidence is the whole peer reviewed article that claim that "chemtrails" where common at that time. The peer review system should give credence to that claim.
since you're so reticent to disclose any personal experience--i'm not asking for a credit card number here--i assume you're a relatively young fella who has simply grown up under chemtrail skies and thinks they're normal.
And you also assumed that I was a new member of this forum that didn't even climb. I thought that was insulting and don't want to answer your personal questions.
I have also to admit that I don't know how the sky looked when I was young. I don't know how common lenticularis clouds was to give one example. I doubt many people actually care about the sky enough to be able to know many years later the numbers of "chemtrails".
assuming they're chemtrails, of course. for me, it's an open question. you don't seem to understand what an open question is, but you're sure hellbent on closing this one.
So exactly where have I claimed that it is impossibly that someone is spraying chemicals? All I have said are that all your evidence and all arguments I have seen that is supposed to prove that someone is spraying is easily disproved by standard science.
It really isn't strange that some contrails linger around for a long time. It really isn't strange that some contrails have "holes" in them.
Nothing suggest that those two conditions is something new.
So I guess the US goverment have a at least a couple of thousands of those planes flying constantly around all over the world without passengers making chemtrails in the sky?
You also said before that it was very hard for people to discredit that pic. So why is the explanation given in the comment wrong?
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 11:35am PT
|
raymond, i'm having a little trouble following your reasoning in this last post, but i also have the feeling we're starting to get somewhere. you seem a bit contradictory. care to take another crack at it?
in addition to suspicions about what the government may be doing--well deserved suspicions for an increasingly secretive government--i'm also a bit proprietary. it's my motherf*#kin' sky as much as anyone else's. if you're gonna make a f*#king mess out of it, you better come up with some damned good reasons.
i think your sentiments are rather outrageous: " I doubt many people actually care about the sky ...", but i have to admit you're right about a whole generation, my own son included, which seems to have grown up with its entire emotional focus going into a computer screen, most of it developed by the eternal vistas of video games. if you don't care about the sky, i don't think you belong on supertopo.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 11:50am PT
|
Hard to discredit Tony? You mean this pic proves chemtrailing?
It's a jet equipped for weight and balance testing to certify the design.
Why would a chemtrail plane need all those banks of electronics up front Tony?
Your mind is so 'open' you let all kinds of garbage and paranoia fall in.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 12:07pm PT
|
not my area of expertise, mono. care to explain? do we pump mercury from barrel to barrel to "balance"? i could think of something easier, but do tell.
please read my posts, by the way. i said this pic has been widely circulated. i said i myself am suspicious of it.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 12:07pm PT
|
Monolith,
You've been had too - don't you see the Miller/Coors labels on those kegs?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!