Phoenix Oct 28 - got hit hard with chemtrails. - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

MareTranquility · #61 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

"And when one can see 3 multi-engine jets flying in formation, what airline would that be? It's also funny that for years the trails went along basically the same paths, but in the last 10 years on 6-7 occasions on single days we got the grid pattern. Another odd thing was that con-trails evaporate/disapate fairly rapidly, but on the days when we got the grid patterns the contrails were laid down so rapidly in both directions that the whole grid was visible at the end and the trails spread out into a haze and persisted till sundown. I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation for that. A friend of mine in the Air Force, seeing the grid pattern, could not come up with a reasonable explanation either."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Please read the articles in the post above. There is a solid scientific explanation for the variable persistence of contrails.

Matt

You might address the whole issue instead of picking out one piece of it and explaining away the whole thing.

MareTranquility · #62 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

You have got to be kidding, Mare. It's a big leap from accepting there are as of yet unexplained phenonema, which no doubt is true, to giving such outlandish explanations for them.

There are a number of explanations for what you call 'rods' for example that, by applying Ockham's razor, I favour over them being a 'lifeform'. The most obvious one is atmospheric optical effects. You're probably familiar with the phenonemon of 'fata morgana'. A very real optical illusion, often observed and photographed. Before it was explained, there were numerous 'other' explanations too. Heck, some of them were worshipped.

Another possibility is that it's a side effect of the optics of digital cameras. And I could find a few more rational explanations before I would conclude these things are lifeforms. And before you call me closed minded, I own all books of Charles Fort. Quite enjoyable and intriguing and a true challenge to come up with rational explanations sometimes, but when they get scientific attention, they are invariably explained (take spontaneous human combustion for example).

Why do you assume that others are not as smart as you? I asked about some other things that I have read about, I did not put my stamp of approval on any of them because I'm humble enough to know that I can't stand up and shout, "Bullshit!" like some people. I'm interested in finding out. I've seen the equipment used to photograph the "rods" and I've seen the videos, I don't know what they are and I'm certainly not giving "outlandish" explanations for them. I have reported on the things that the people studying them have said, have you studied them? If not, what gives you the right to denigrate me or the work of the people doing the research? I'm all for rational explanations, but let's do the research first, ok?

MareTranquility · #63 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Let's also ignore...

Have you have not done any research into this issue? If not, then this must be very embarassing for you. First you throw out all the evidence and then you make fun of the people who have been looking honestly at the issue. What in the world possesses you?

MareTranquility · #64 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

WRONG! READ the links I provided. Your claim above is completely incorrect.Again, READ the links provided.
Matt

There seems to be an unwarranted assumption that we are talking about contrails--and that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for there to be anything else up in the sky. Commercial multi-engine jets don't fly in formation, do they? I have seen this being done on the days when the grid patterns appear. There were flyways over the valley where I lived, jets flew over all day long, only on rare occasions did the grids of contrails appear--very odd behavior for commercial passenger jets.

I love the fact that there are so many know-it-alls on this site. We should just shut scientific research and let you folks explain everything to us. Ridiculous behavior for a moderator on a discussion site, in my opinion.

WarOnIgnorance · #65 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

Why do you assume that others are not as smart as you? I asked about some other things that I have read about, I did not put my stamp of approval on any of them because I'm humble enough to know that I can't stand up and shout, "Bullshit!" like some people. I'm interested in finding out. I've seen the equipment used to photograph the "rods" and I've seen the videos, I don't know what they are and I'm certainly not giving "outlandish" explanations for them. I have reported on the things that the people studying them have said, have you studied them? If not, what gives you the right to denigrate me or the work of the people doing the research? I'm all for rational explanations, but let's do the research first, ok?

I'm not assuming anything. Besides, being smart or not has nothing to do with this. It's all about rationality. You clearly stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

How about "rods"? A lifeform that seems to occupy the same space/time that we do, but lives at such a fast pace that it takes special equipment to observe or even detect them.

Of all the possible explanations you unequivocally and determinedly took the explanation that it's a lifeform. For that to exist there would have to be an evolutionary branch, totally independent of all other due to the unprecedented pace of the 'creature', and having an unparallelled metabolism (such speeds would require an enormous amount of energy). Add to that the fact that there are no observations of the 'creature' at rest (do they fly all the time ?) and that there are no records of dead or fossilized 'creatures'.
These simple observations, in the presence of much more probable explanations, allow me to call the claim of a 'lifeform' as an explanation outlandish, which translates via my native language to an equivalent of 'farfetched' which is not a denigratory term.
If (note that I say IF) the researchers you mention restrict themselves to finding collaborating evidence for the lifeform hypothesis while ignoring other explanations (which is usually the case in this kind of topics), they might still be called researches but not scientific ones and certainly not rational ones.

BTW, on Wikipedia I found this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki

In the early autumn of 2005, news bulletins in China and Hong Kong reported on a story which debunked the flying rods. Surveillance cameras in a research facility in Jilin supposedly captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. The curious research staff of the facility, being scientists, decided that they would attempt to catch one. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras captured rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera (done to save video space). This is the empirical evidence, showing that the "rods" themselves can be captured, and that they do indeed prove to be ordinary animals.

It's just Wikipedia and I didn't find the original articles it refers to, but there you go.

And a quick reminder:
Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''

MareTranquility · #66 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

B-29s are prop planes.....If you will check you will discover that I have been describing multi-enging jets, one of the naysayers talked about B-29's.

Seems to me dissipate and and spread are synonyms...Sometimes your "seemings" are not correct. Dissapate means to disperse or vanish, spread means to expand over a larger area. That is one of the things that seems to mark a difference between con and chem trails: contrails tend to dissapate while chemtrails tend to spread until the sky is hazy over a very large area.

How, do you know this? If you would like to have any credibility at all, you need to back these kind of statements up. It is your credibility on the line, if you would like us to be more educated on the matter, I think that it's up to you to educate us, because personally, I couldn't care less about contrails or chemtrails, in fact the only trails I care about whatsoever, are those that criss cross the mountains. Our crediblility is not at stake here, we are discussing something that we have admitted not knowing all the answers to, you and several others are here parading around your vast intellects and not one of you has given a substantive answer based on any research into the chemtrail issue. Assuming that they are contrails is easy, and posting about contrails is also easy, thanks, but it's not what we are discussing here. Unfortunately none of you is well informed enough to know that.

If you are not interested in this thread maybe you should go someplace else to post instead of burdening us down with you large load ignorance on this subject. I appreciate that it is probably enjoyable for you to take cheap shots at others and make fun of things you know nothing about, but maybe you've done it enough here and you should go someplace else. Thank you.

MareTranquility · #67 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

I'm not assuming anything. Besides, being smart or not has nothing to do with this. It's all about rationality. You clearly stated:

Of all the possible explanations you unequivocally and determinedly took the explanation that it's a lifeform. What the people who have been doing the research suggested was that they may be a lifeform. I didn't come up with the name or the idea, sorry. For that to exist there would have to be an evolutionary branch, totally independent of all other due to the unprecedented pace of the 'creature', and having an unparallelled metabolism (such speeds would require an enormous amount of energy). Add to that the fact that there are no observations of the 'creature' at rest (do they fly all the time ?) and that there are no records of dead or fossilized 'creatures'.
These simple observations, in the presence of much more probable explanations, allow me to call the claim of a 'lifeform' as an explanation outlandish, which translates via my native language to an equivalent of 'farfetched' which is not a denigratory term.
If (note that I say IF) the researchers you mention restrict themselves to finding collaborating evidence for the lifeform hypothesis while ignoring other explanations (which is usually the case in this kind of topics), they might still be called researches but not scientific ones and certainly not rational ones.

BTW, on Wikipedia I found this:

It's just Wikipedia and I didn't find the original articles it refers to, but there you go.

And a quick reminder:
Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''

Yes, there is dispute about what they are and how to prove one thing or another, that's why people do research, but I never claimed otherwise. One of the problems with your trashing of people on a discussion website DISCUSSING (HELLO! This IS a discussion website, isn't it?) is that it stifles the spread of information. It tends to make some subjects taboo. Which is stupid. Why don't you tell us about the lack of rational thought that resulted in the continental drift theory. Scientific history is filled with ideas that were trashed by people like you based on a very narrow definition of rationality--very much like religious people use.

You could very well have posted your information and made a useful contribution to this discussion, but no, you had to denigrate others to pump up you flaccid ego. Sucks to be you.

WarOnIgnorance · #68 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

Yes, there is dispute about what they are and how to prove one thing or another, that's why people do research, but I never claimed otherwise.

If it wasn't your idea that it's a lifeform, you should have quoted the statement. Why don't YOU do the research instead of relying on others and merely being a mouthpiece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mare

One of the problems with your trashing of people on a discussion website DISCUSSING (HELLO! This IS a discussion website, isn't it?) is that it stifles the spread of information. It tends to make some subjects taboo. Which is stupid.

Is this another conspiracy theory ? WTF are you talking about ? Who has stopped posting about what since the coming of WOI the Terrible ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mare

Why don't you tell us about the lack of rational thought that resulted in the continental drift theory. Scientific history is filled with ideas that were trashed by people like you based on a very narrow definition of rationality--very much like religious people use.

People like me ? You don't know shit about me, lady. There's nothing I like more than contemporary quantum physics and cosmology and that's a LOT weirder than these rods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mare

You could very well have posted your information and made a useful contribution to this discussion, but no, you had to denigrate others to pump up you flaccid ego. Sucks to be you.

That information I researched AFTER your reply. And I reread my original reply and the one above and I don't see ANYTHING denigrating in them. My jokes in this thread weren't at your expense FYI.

MareTranquility · #69 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

If it wasn't your idea that it's a lifeform, you should have quoted the statement. Why don't YOU do the research instead of relying on others and merely being a mouthpiece. I have been reading the things published on "rods" and I posted some of it. I am not in a position to actually do the hands on research, but I fail to see how that makes me ineligible to talk about other people's research and ideas. You are simply being a "mouthpiece" for the research work that you presented, aren't you?

Is this another conspiracy theory ? WTF are you talking about ? Who has stopped posting about what since the coming of WOI the Terrible ? It isn't so much that others have stopped posting, but that your contribution of cold water dumped on those of us actually talking ABOUT the subject is unnecessary, even if it's not aimed at me by name. I'm not sure what the "conspiracy theory" part of your comment is in reference to. There was no conspiracy when the scientific community committed character assassination on the proponents of continental drift either, but they set back the research by many years just by being unwilling to even examine the issue.

People like me ? You don't know shit about me, lady. There's nothing I like more than contemporary quantum physics and cosmology and that's a LOT weirder than these rods. You're right, I don't know anything about you except what I see you post. You don't like the response you get then maybe you should look at what you are saying. I'm sorry if I offended you, but you had an opportunity to make a sensible contribution of information to support your position and you had to make it an attack.

That information I researched AFTER your reply. And I reread my original reply and the one above and I don't see ANYTHING denigrating in them. My jokes in this thread weren't at your expense FYI.

Your remarks felt very denigrating--regardless of who they were specifically aimed at. Your remarks in post #65 were certainly aimed at me. You made a whole bunch of assumptions that are just as unwarranted as any that I made, and anybody with an interest in or a knowledge of quantum physics should know that.

Thematic-Device · #70 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Alright can everyone agree that the freemasons, under the secret control of the illuminati, have been secretly working on building a mind control laser which they fire from the lighthouse in alexandria, to control the minds of the pentagon officials taking the subway to work. (Also on the yellow line, coincidence? I think not) The pentagon is then used to combat Majestic-12, which is a group of the elite grey humanoid aliens with funky heads who manipulate CSIS to spread contrails over the earth, in order to terraform the world into a more habitable landscape, much like their own planet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

"And when one can see 3 multi-engine jets flying in formation, what airline would that be?

I dunno, but around here, thats no airline, thats the USAAF taking their warthogs out for a little spin, or on occassion their f-16s (but you tend to see them far less). Of course they tend to fly at pretty low altitudes.

But this has been explained. 5 planes which flew along the same flight plan at different altitudes viewed at an angle appear like parallel lines spread out horizontally. Certain conditions provide longer lifes for contrails then others, resulting in varying life spans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Chemtrails are obviously a plot to cause global warming which will defrost Siberia so the resources there can be acquired by the Illuminati world powers.
Next.

If the Illuminati really want Siberia, I'd let them have it. I think there are a number in siberia who'd offer them highly competitive prices too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

Immanuel Velikovsky was drummed out of the scientific community for his weird techniques--like dowsing faults from the back of yak in the Ural Mountains. But years later seismologists discovered that his dowsing technique provided extremely accurate maps of the faults in the Ural Mountains.

Velikovsky was interested in comparative mythology revealing a common event. I've honestly never heard word of such a theory he espoused which sounds similar to the one you claim.

Regardless he wasn't rejected by the scientific community because of Dowsing, it was because of his theories. Such as

Quote:

* Planet Earth has suffered natural catastrophes on a global scale, both before and during mankind's recorded history.
* There is evidence for these catastrophes in the geological record (here Velikovsky was espousing Catastrophist ideas as opposed to the prevailing Uniformitarian notions) and archeological record. The extinction of many species had occurred catastrophically, not by gradual Darwinian means.
* The catastrophes which occurred within the memory of mankind are recorded in myths, legends and written history of all ancient cultures and civilisations. Velikovsky pointed to striking concordances in the accounts of many cultures, and proposed that they referred to the same real events, all couched in the individual religious and cultural viewpoints of their authors. He put forward the psychoanalytic idea of "Cultural Amnesia" as a mechanism whereby these literal records came to be regarded as mere myths and legends.
* The cause of these natural catastrophes were close encounters between the Earth and other bodies with the solar system - not least what were now the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Venus and Mars, these bodies having moved upon different orbits within human memory.
* To explain the celestial mechanics necessary to permit these changes to the configuration of the solar system, Velikovsky proposed that electromagnetic forces played a much greater role than acknowledged in a purely Newtonian (gravitation-only) model.
* Velikovsky argued that the conventional chronology of the Near East and classical world, based upon Egyptian Sothic dating and the king lists of Manetho, was wholly flawed. This was the reason for the apparent absence of correlation between the Biblical record and those of neighbouring cultures, and also the cause of the enigmatic "dark ages" in Greece and elsewhere. Velikovsky shifted several chronologies and dynasties from the Egyptian Old Kingdom to Ptolemaic times by centuries (a scheme he called the Revised Chronology), placing the Exodus contemporary with the fall of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. He proposed numerous other synchronisms stretching up to the time of Alexander the Great. He argued that these eliminate phantom "dark ages", and vindicate the biblical accounts of history and those recorded by Herodotus. For further details, see the Ages in Chaos article.

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

But not dowsing. Do your research.

MareTranquility · #71 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

Alright can everyone agree that the freemasons, under the secret control of the illuminati, have been secretly working on building a mind control laser which they fire from the lighthouse in alexandria, to control the minds of the pentagon officials taking the subway to work. (Also on the yellow line, coincidence? I think not) The pentagon is then used to combat Majestic-12, which is a group of the elite grey humanoid aliens with funky heads who manipulate CSIS to spread contrails over the earth, in order to terraform the world into a more habitable landscape, much like their own planet.

I dunno, but around here, thats no airline, thats the USAAF taking their warthogs out for a little spin, or on occassion their f-16s (but you tend to see them far less). Of course they tend to fly at pretty low altitudes.

But this has been explained. 5 planes which flew along the same flight plan at different altitudes viewed at an angle appear like parallel lines spread out horizontally. Certain conditions provide longer lifes for contrails then others, resulting in varying life spans.

If the Illuminati really want Siberia, I'd let them have it. I think there are a number in siberia who'd offer them highly competitive prices too.

Velikovsky was interested in comparative mythology revealing a common event. I've honestly never heard word of such a theory he espoused which sounds similar to the one you claim.

Regardless he wasn't rejected by the scientific community because of Dowsing, it was because of his theories. Such as

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

But not dowsing. Do your research.

I have, mine just wasn't as superficial as yours. Is the Wiki your only source?

Have you done any research on issue of chemtrails? Or are you just speaking extemporaneously?

conformfailure · #72 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Okay, let's kick it off like this.

Are you saying that my conspiracy theory was refuted by another conspriacy theory?

From what you said. Aircraft manipulate the weather.

Now if I had made a post about the government somehow manipulating the weather, I'm sure I would have been met with heckles from the usual suspects.

But since they're the ones saying it refuting my claim by saying that planes manipulate weather then I guess it has the green light. It's all a matter of who's saying it I assume.

But, just to be clear, I am being told that planes create clouds, correct?

MareTranquility · #73 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by conformfailure

Okay, let's kick it off like this. Are you saying that my conspiracy theory was refuted by another conspriacy theory? From what you said. Aircraft manipulate the weather. Now if I had made a post about the government somehow manipulating the weather, I'm sure I would have been met with heckles from the usual suspects. But since they're the ones saying it refuting my claim by saying that planes manipulate weather then I guess it has the green light. It's all a matter of who's saying it I assume. But, just to be clear, I am being told that planes create clouds, correct?

There is a lot of nonsense floating to the surface of this discussion--and what's the point? If you think this is nonsense, don't read it.

One of the suggestions that was made at the conference George Bush had at the White House to look at the question of global warming, was that we could use commercial jet airliners to seed the upper atmosphere with powdered metal flakes to increase the Earth's albedo (not LIBIDO, gentlemen) and thus reflect more solar radiation back into space. That's one possiblility that doesn't require a conspiracy. Another is that the US and other countries are experimenting with weather modification and control--that's one of the uses for the HAARP project in Alaska. Increasing the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere or even changing it slightly might be a useful thing if one is using microwave energy to modify the weather. Another possiblility that doesn't require a conspiracy.

With the air samples, filter residue samples, and particulates that have been taken from chemtrail sites and analyzed there is another possibility that arises. The government could be doing large scale testing of biological contaminant or innoculant dispersion. One use for this is the suggested seeding of the Martian atmosphere, from very high up, with microbes genetically engineered to live and produce oxygen in an attempt to terraform Mars and make it more habitable for humans. Again, no conspiracy necessary.

We should all bear in mind that the US government has a long history of experimenting on Americans. From the US Public Health Service program on syphilis, to the CIA experiments disseminating LSD in the various places via aerosols, to the radiation release experiments done on the people around the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, to the American soldiers that were deliberately exposed to radiation as they were marched into ground zero immediately after a nuclear detonation. We are dealing with people who have no scruples, how many years was the poison EDB (ethyl dibromide) used in jet fuel before it was outlawed? Just this spring the head of the Air Force publicly recommended testing the new microwave weapons on the American people.

An open mind is no use if you don't put things into it--doesn't mean that you have to believe all of them, but just that you know about them.

MareTranquility · #74 (**permalink**) 10-30-2006

Another article about "rods" or "skyfish" as the Japanese call them. :-)

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mys...5214-skyfish-0

conformfailure · #75 (**permalink**) 10-31-2006

odd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amnNg...elated&search=