Photo Credit: Photo Studio Andrea Tedeschi courtesy. The article was updated after initial publication. Thanks to the initiative of a player, Marco Casati, whom I thank for the first time a supporter of the existence of the phenomenon of "Chemtrails" accept a dialectical pair.
Marco has in fact contacted Tom Bosco, Nexus Italy (pictured right), appeared recently in Lugano to present his thesis and the author of an article that in addition to speaking of "chemtrails" I'm concerned directly and obtained from him the availability of a comparison.
So I wrote a forest, offers a formula that, without the pressures of time and the supporters of a convention, let us explore together the respective positions and perhaps defuse the controversy. With the permission of the Forest, here our public correspondence.
May 7, 2009 Good morning Mr. Bosco,
, I am happy the invitation of Marco Casati, who contacted her to propose an interview / debate on the subject of "chemtrails." Unfortunately, the late hour prevented me from staying at the conference in Lugano to talk directly to the session of questions from the audience.
I thought, if she agrees to an exchange of mail to be published progressively and simultaneously at the respective sites / blogs, not so much an interview, then, what amounted to a chat, to find the common ground, sift together data of the problem and get better acquainted. Like a chat "deferred", over time, between a question and answer, to collect sources, documents and images that can contribute to the discussion and give our readers their chance to learn more about the issue, especially in view of the next two events on this television.
If you are interested or would like to propose another plan, I can answer at paolo.attivissimo @ gmail.com or at topone@pobox.com.
Thanks and best regards Paul
Attivissimo
Lugano, Switzerland
television appointments in question are those of The Gay Science and Rebus.
May 9, 2009 Dear Paul
Attivissimo,
I liked his proposal for a civil confrontation in the network for debate, if ever there were still needed on thorny topic of chemtrails. As you know, I had decided not to get entangled in useless controversies and endless discussions, as exemplified by the case of Massimo Mazzucco regarding the issues 11 September 2001, at the end do not carry any of the two opposing "sides" to recognize the reasons of the other and determine conclusively which side is the truth as he likes to say, Duncan M. Roads, editor of the Australian magazine NEXUS which I hereby direct the Italian edition, "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." Pulled by Marco Casati, I was not considering whether he should reconsider my decision, when such a Peyote has seen fit to lend a sort of "trap" through his blog, contact me via email and pretending to be the "Michael" ( http://ilpeyote.blogspot.com/2009/05/ilpeyote-vs- tom-bosco.html ). Despite its later apologized and I have explained the reasons for such behavior, the fact remains that the current debate, if such it can still be defined, it has definitely exceeded the bounds of civil discussion of ideas and has been mired in a swamp of mutual accusations, sarcasm and resentments, provocation, offense free ...
As often happens, it confuses the message with the messenger, and by doing so you throw the baby out with bathwater. That she should accept or not, the phenomenon of chemtrails is terribly real, but nobody knows for sure whatever its motives, although many clues authorized to make assumptions rather consistent, though in some ways puzzling. The fact that these cases bring into serious question the model of reality normally perceived by the general population does not make them less credible and far from a can, even if inconvenient, truth.
network exists in a mass of documents, patents, analysis, discussion, such that anyone with common sense and a healthy minimum of will and intelligence will be able to evaluate and discern how things really are. For me, I see what I see, and this is backed by highly qualified people, as an aeronautical engineer, a former fighter pilot, or a biologist of his knowledge, but from what I read on his blog, I do not think she or its associates have shown the slightest respect for him and to the arguments presented by him, nor do I have reason to believe that this attitude would be different to others. As I said, "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert."
So, what should I do? Losing valuable hours to collect and categorize all the material in my possession, in order to refute point by point to the many issues related matters such as meteorology, climate, aerodynamics, chemistry, biology, geology, nanotechnology, electronics, geopolitics, economics, etc.., all critical to an understanding of the complex phenomenon of chemtrails in its entirety? I should add to the game of those who painstakingly submitting to scrutiny every tree to find the one to break, even see through the forest that surrounds them?
personally think is still missing a key piece of evidence to settle the issue once and for all of chemtrails, and I am working to get it. When can I have it, I'll be glad to open a discussion with you on this matter, so as to focus on a specific issue, but potentially curative. I hope to be able to realize all within the current year.
Given the record, I do not expect in any case his second thoughts on the matter. From its easy sarcasm, I understand his skepticism that spans virtually every area of \u200b\u200bhuman knowledge. Blessed is she who is comforted by the assurance of "science": the only certainty I have is that of having none.
Sincerely
Tom Bosco / NEXUS
May 9, 2009 This is my response to concerns of the Forest: The italics indicate the smallest of the above quotations.
Egregio Paolo Attivissimo,
ho apprezzato la sua civile proposta di un confronto in rete per dibattere, se mai ce ne fosse ancora bisogno, sullo spinoso argomento delle scie chimiche. Come ben sa, avevo deciso di non farmi invischiare in sterili polemiche e discussioni infinite che, come esemplificato dal caso di Massimo Mazzucco per quanto riguarda le questioni inerenti all’11 Settembre 2001, alla fine non portano nessuna delle due opposte “fazioni” a riconoscere le ragioni dell’altra e a stabilire in modo definitivo da che parte stia la verità : come ama dire Duncan M. Roads, editore australiano della rivista NEXUS della quale mi pregio di dirigere l’edizione italiana, “per ogni expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. " Pulled by Marco Casati, I was not considering whether he should reconsider my decision, when a Peyote has seen fit to lend a sort of "trap" through his blog, contact me via email and pretending to be the "Michael" (http : / / ilpeyote.blogspot.com/2009/05/ilpeyote-vs-tom-bosco.html). Despite its later apologized and I have explained the reasons for such behavior, the fact remains that the current debate, if such it can still be defined, it has definitely exceeded the bounds of civil discussion of ideas and has been mired in a swamp of mutual accusations, sarcasm and resentments, provocations, insults free ...
As often happens, it confuses the message with the messenger, and by doing so you throw the baby out with the bathwater. That she should accept or not, the phenomenon of chemtrails is terribly real
Hello Mr Woods,
this is the core of the problem. Never mind the controversy and personal pitfalls real or alleged: that there is evidence of the existence of "chemtrails"? Those that have been submitted so far were not convincing and in fact are not accepted by the community of experts. Indeed, very often the verification work has shown that such errors or false. May I ask
what is your "best evidence" of the existence of the phenomenon?
Once satisfied that the existence, we can assess the implications. But let's start with the basics.
, but nobody knows for sure whatever its motives, although many clues authorized to make assumptions rather consistent, though in some ways puzzling. The fact that these cases bring into serious question the model of reality normally perceived by the general population does not make them less credible and far from a can, even if inconvenient, truth.
network exists in a mass of documents, patents, analysis, discussion, such that anyone with common sense and a healthy minimum of will and intelligence will evaluate and discern how things really are.
Here, I would ask you to show me these documents, you already know and therefore should not involve too much effort.
For myself, I see what I see, and this is backed by highly qualified people, as an aeronautical engineer, a former fighter pilot, or a biologist of his knowledge, but from what I read on his blog, I do not think she or her associates have shown the slightest respect for him and to the arguments presented by him
Can I ask what are the technical arguments aeronautical engineer and former pilot?
As for the biologist, I presume you are referring to Dr. Pattera. It is not over: it is made. Dr. Pattera makes false allegations, he rejects the evidence of the facts documented in the literature and ridicule those who point out his mistakes by bringing facts to support. This is a behavior that does not induce compliance.
I refer to the issue of so-called "spiders Migration, which explain some phenomena apparently related to so-called" chemtrails "Pattera existence denied. But their existence is documented from the time of Darwin and just a puff of the Journal of Arachnology to find the literature that confirms the dispersion beyond 5000 m above sea level. If you like, I can give the details and quotes:
http://tinyurl.com/rcq8pu
, nor do I have reason to believe that this attitude would be different to others. As I said, "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert."
On this I beg to differ. There is no paper of literature that confirms the thesis of dr. Pattera or "chemtrails" in general. The vast majority of the experts confirmed that the "chemtrails" are simple contrail misinterpreted by non-experts.
is not "equal and opposite: it is a small minority of non- experts against a huge number of experts. For example, I know that none of the 52,500 pilots of the Air Line Pilots Association, the U.S. has ever expressed support for the theory of the existence of "chemtrails." No forecaster has expressed pro-trails, but many have done to make clear that the phenomenon is a mistake.
She, in her experience as a pilot, has seen through his eyes a persistent trail quotas (2000 m or less) by the alleged supporters of the "chemtrails"?
So, what should I do? Losing valuable hours to collect and categorize all the material in my possession, in order to refute point by point to the many issues related materials such as meteorology, climate, aerodynamics, chemistry, biology, geology, nanotechnology, electronics, geopolitics, economics, etc.., all critical to an understanding of the complex phenomenon of chemtrails in its entirety?
No. It would be enough to start from a single, very simple: "chemtrails" exist? What evidence is there? If the tests hold, then we talk about everything else. But it is here, in my opinion, we must leave.
I should add to the game of those who painstakingly submitting to scrutiny every tree to find the one to break, even see through the forest that surrounds them?
personally think is still missing a key piece of evidence to settle the issue once and for all of chemtrails, and I am working to get it. When can I have it, I'll be glad to open a discussion with you on this matter, so as to focus on a specific issue, but potentially curative. I hope to be able to realize all within the current year.
Interesting. May I ask what is this element?
Given the record, I do not expect in any case his second thoughts on the matter. From its easy sarcasm, I understand his skepticism that spans virtually every scope of human knowledge. Blessed is she who is comforted by the assurance of "science": the only certainty I have is that of having none.
contrary, Mr. Bosco. In the face of incontrovertible evidence, I'd be willing to change his mind, as is the technical community. I do not reject the facts: I only ask that they are well established. Do not confuse skepticism with caution and prudence with certainty. The mass of evidence so far indicates that it is reasonable to say that the "chemtrails" do not exist. But the scientific method requires that, before conclusive demonstration of a phenomenon, this phenomenon is accepted as scientific. This has not happened so far, but if it happened, I'd be the first to rethink my position.
supporters are, if anything, the existence of "chemtrails" unshakable certainty that show and come to say that the photo of contrail pre-1990 are false and that even Life commits them to conceal the conspiracy. Do you agree with these positions?
I ask, in conclusion, the consent to the publication of its kind reply. Although she has so far said no to a debate, I think it is right that our readers know that dialogue is possible and that there is willingness on his part and interest in doing experiments to settle the issue, and these attitudes are laudable and constructive.
Yours Regards Paul
Attivissimo
The reference to the famous Life magazine about some photographs of contrails published in the forties, as this picture is the edition of December 20, 1944 , available here , and taken by George Silk during the Battle of the Bulge:
The photo is also available on the website of the historical journal:
It is not the only image like this:
is one of the advantages of the debate by mail: the ability to retrieve and submit quietly images and documents that support his thesis. Tom Woods will of course also do the same.
May 11, 2009
Attivissimo Dear Paul, may well proceed to publish my previous reply. As soon as I find the time, as I can at least try to answer the questions that are raised here.
Sincerely
Tom Bosco / NEXUS
May 31, 2009 On May 28 Tom Woods has sent its response to my comments. The discussion then continues in this article .
0 comments:
Post a Comment