Tom Woods replied to my round of considerations in debate on the phenomenon of "Chemtrails." I'm on vacation until Monday, so for now I simply point out the 'intervention Woods, referring to comments and responses coming days.
June 1, 2009
I'm back back from vacation: full public below the 'intervention Tom Bosco as it appears on its website today, with only two changes:
- repagination The text was to be clear, adding initials "PA" and "TB" to clarify the writer, but without altering the content.
- The URL of the video, if the original encrypted and therefore not copiaincollabile here, has been replaced with the equivalent non-encrypted version.
CHEMICAL SCIE: The Neverending Story ...
"You can not see a thing unless you believe there is." - Terry Brooks
Or, at least, if not at least take into account the possibility that there might be. I think the crux of the case is this: from what I have been able to see, the side of the skeptics with a vengeance that she magnificently represents has always done its utmost to try to remove any question exceeded the bounds of the "normalcy" and put into question the very foundations of what we call "shared reality". So it is that in the cauldron of "urban legends" from "sbufalare" (personally I find it bleak and at the same time maleficamente geniale l’uso di questo neologismo, parte di un preciso e raffinato protocollo di condizionamento psicologico, confezionato ad hoc da gente che conosce bene il proprio mestiere…) trovino pari dignità Wanna Marchi e l’11 settembre, il mago Otelma e le scie chimiche, allo scopo di ingenerare la falsa impressione che il substrato di origine di tutte queste svariate questioni sia riconducibile a null’altro che all’imbroglio, alla frode o alla vera e propria paranoia di alcuni individui.
Vorrei aggiungere che trovo estremamente difficile, in questo preciso momento (28 maggio, ore 15.03), attenermi alle regole di un confronto pacato su questo argomento, tale è il disgusto che provo nel dover be here to discuss in a "politically correct" about the existence of so-called "chemtrails" while in the sky above my head raging air activity unprecedented since this morning at 9 (when the sky was clear, blue skies and there was a plane to pay) is a show that started hallucinating not define justice. At any time watching the sky, I could observe and count a minimum of six aircraft until even 9:00 to 10:00, all with their beautiful persistent contrails that blend together. The sky is now a milky brew, and I should accept the idea of \u200b\u200bbeing a paranoid, noted that the traffic is completely normal and that those are very normal contrails Condensation ...
That said, we enter into the substance of his remarks.
[PA] [...] 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.
Sorry, very busy, but who would have represented this community of professionals? On what basis they have expressed proprie valutazioni? Dando un’occhiata ai vari argomenti a sostegno della realtà del fenomeno delle “scie chimiche”, tutti presumibilmente analizzati, spiegati e destituiti da qualsiasi fondamento proprio nel suo sito, ho trovato affermazioni sorprendenti, quando non addirittura fuorvianti, di questi sedicenti “addetti ai lavori”, come questa:
2.08. Dai radiosondaggi si può capire se sussistono le condizioni per la formazione o la persistenza delle scie?
No. Quest'idea nasconde una serie di passaggi logici dati per scontati che vale la pena esaminare. I radiosondaggi sono misurazioni eseguite da pochissimi centri meteorologici in Italia, tramite il launch of balloons equipped with sensors. These probes lead up to very high market shares (including 30,000 m) and provide the middle ground control data of temperature, humidity and pressure throughout their journey. order to examine the data of radiosondes and whether the formation of contrails is possible, they should be true at least three major assumptions:
1. The soundings should provide consistent results and error-free;
2. The values \u200b\u200bof the soundings should not vary significantly at a distance of many miles and much time from the point and time of measurement;
3. The training requirements should be compared permettere, con precisione assoluta, di definire se la scia di condensazione si formerà o meno. Nessuno di questi tre assunti è vero:
1. I radiosondaggi, come ogni strumento, commettono errori spesso abbastanza vistosi; siccome viene usata una sola sonda, non è possibile fare un trattamento statistico dei dati cercando di avvicinarsi al valore vero.
2. Come si è già detto, la variabilità delle condizioni atmosferiche è molto alta: una misura puntuale non può in alcun modo fornire con precisione la situazione in quota, né il variare di tale situazione col passare del tempo.
3. Le condizioni teoriche per predire la formazione derivano models that are simplifications of the real conditions and which are far from infallible in their predictions, especially if you try to use them without knowing it and without knowing the characteristics, limitations and fallibility.
Extraordinary. This means that when, as a driver, I will compile a flight plan it based on these weather data for the various units, I will not give me too much pain to try to understand if, for example, or meet conditions less favorable to the formation of ice on the wings, or a strong head-wind that could make me consume more fuel than expected and even prevent me from reaching its destination, because "the variability of weather conditions is very high. " In other words, the techniques of piloting and navigation are still taught in flight schools around the world are just an approximation, if not a waste of time, however, since the climatic conditions at high altitude would be a kind of statistical exercise, when the lottery. Fortuna wants (and so-called experts conveniently forgot to mention this fact) that the collection and interpretation of weather data for the various units and routes are also based on information provided by pilots in flight, which ensures that the reports relating to terms and conditions net to be regularly updated and thus reasonably accurate.
[PA] Posso chiederle qual è la sua "best evidence" dell'esistenza del fenomeno?
Direi proprio quella che il passo citato sopra cerca convenientemente di smontare: il fatto che in innumerevoli circostanze un numero spropositato di velivoli si trovassero ad emettere lunghe scie persistenti occupando uno spazio di cielo che in quel momento, stando ai dati forniti dagli enti preposti, non offriva condizioni meteorologiche favorevoli alla formazione di scie di condensazione. A maggior ragione quando alcuni di questi velivoli, occasionalmente, si trovavano a quote considerevolmente inferiori alle minime necessarie a innescare detto fenomeno (fatto del quale sono stato personalmente testimone svariate volte).
Uno di these cases is well documented in this short video, shot around Turin October 6, 2003, of which I possess full version, which certainly offers a better quality and definition:
It seems quite clear (although it based on the statements of the operator who carried out the shooting), which framed the aircraft is flying at an altitude considerably lower than the canonical 8,000 + yards ... You can see that it issues rather than continuing along the trails the entire trailing edge of both wings. Of course, even in this case everyone will see what wants to see, as one who brings up strings of Berenice and other aerodynamic effects of condensation which could theoretically explain the observed phenomenon (but certainly not the length of the trails emitted from the plane in question), but the weather of that day do not justify it .
[PA cites TB] 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.
[PA] Here, I would ask you to show me these documents, you already know and therefore should not involve too much effort.
Excuse me, but at this point I feel cheated: she knows very well these documents, reported in all the main sites that deal with the phenomenon of chemtrails.
Patent potentially linked to the phenomenon of chemtrails (I selected the most interesting):
U.S. Patent 4,948,050 (Picot)
U.S. Patent 4,412,654 (Yates et al.)
U.S. Patent 3,813,875 (Paine et al.)
U.S. Patent 6,315,213 (Cordani)
U.S. Patent 5,003,186 (Chang et al.)
U.S. Patent 3,899,144 (Werle et al.)
The patent system HAARP (item essential for the project below)
U.S. Patent 4,686,605 (Eastlund)
Own Weather by 2025
The Space Preservation Act 2001, where he appears just the term "chemtrails"
These two documents are truly enlightening:
Climate Change Global Warming
For more documents, I suggest the following web pages: 1 , 2
However, even the RAI has confirmed the existence of these "chemtrails", although he did talking about the Russian (Communist trails!)
[PA cita TB] Per quanto mi riguarda, io vedo quello che vedo, e in questo sono spalleggiato da persone estremamente qualificate, come un ingegnere aeronautico, un ex-pilota da caccia, o un biologo di sua conoscenza: ma da quello che ho letto sul suo blog, non mi sembra che lei o i suoi sodali abbiate mostrato il benché minimo rispetto nei suoi confronti e verso le argomentazioni da lui presentate
[PA] Posso chiedere quali sono le argomentazioni tecniche dell'ingegnere aeronautico e dell'ex pilota?
L’ingegnere aeronautico penso lo conosca bene; si tratta dell’ing. Luigi Fenu, che ha scritto questo interessante articolo challenged a controversial report published by the magazine Focus and interesting PowerPoint presentation on contrails.
Former AMI pilot is an officer with over thirty years of service, which was finally convinced of the anomalous nature of these trails when he observed a long, dense and persistent flow to the side of Mount Terminillo ( I think it was the Terminillo) and if you check, this peak reaches 2217 meters (even if it was the Gran Sasso, 2912 m, we remain well below the 3000 meters). I believe that a professional with thousands of flying hours under his belt knows how to interpret correctly the phenomenon in the light of its experience.
[PA] 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 sheet to find the Journal of Arachnology the literature that confirms the dispersion beyond 5000 m above sea level ...
Let us admit the existence of these "spiders Migration: what evidence you can provide to support this working hypothesis? The analysis revealed a Dr. Pattera seems artificial component in the samples examined by him. In this case, I think you're failing. And then, Pattera is not the only one who has submitted documentation in this regard: 1 , 2.
[PA cites TB] ... nor do I have reason to believe that this attitude would be different in respect of others. As I said, "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert."
[PA cites TB] 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 not a small minority of 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 thesis that delle "scie chimiche". Nessun meteorologo si è espresso pro-scie, ma molti lo hanno fatto per chiarire che il fenomeno è un abbaglio. Lei, nella sua esperienza di pilota, ha mai visto con i suoi occhi una scia persistente alle quote (2000 m o meno) asserite dai sostenitori delle "scie chimiche"?
Non a 2000 metri o meno, ma sicuramente tra i 2500 e i 3000. La prima volta, e la più eclatante, è stato nel maggio del 1999, intorno a Rovigo. Due velivoli su rotte parallele, separati da circa 5 miglia nautiche, da est verso ovest. Uno spettacolo che non dimenticherò mai.
[PA cita TB] Quindi, che cosa dovrei fare? Perdere ore preziose per raccogliere and cataloging all the material in my possession, in order to refute point by point to the many issues relating subjects 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?
[PA] 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.
Well, I seem to have provided a pretty solid argument. I am also convinced that chemtrails are part of an integrated system for the control and manipulation of the climate, which apparently is the central element of the HAARP project. In this I am in total harmony with General Fabio Mini. The European parliament he is worried.
I also believe that one of the critical areas of this program is off the Atlantic coasts of France and Spain, at the Bay of Biscay, where a constant and intensive documents the attempts (often successful) to "lock" or "divert "The damp and cold fronts arriving on the European continent. I listened more di una testimonianza diretta da passeggeri in volo sull'Atlantico che parlavano di istruzioni a chiudere tutte le tendine parasole, di giorno e di notte, da parte del personale di volo, proprio in corrispondenza di quest'area. Naturalmente chi ha sbirciato da dietro le tendine ha visto coi propri occhi qualcosa che rasentava l'incredibile...
Sulle eventuali ragioni di tale programma, posso senz’altro rimandare al famoso documento “Possedere il Clima entro il 2025” redatto dall’USAF, che ho citato sopra e che lei senz’altro conosce bene.
[PA cita TB] Personalmente ritengo manchi ancora un elemento di prova fondamentale per dirimere una volta per tutte la questione delle scie chemical, 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.
[PA] Interesting. May I ask what is this element?
What should have been collecting agencies with appropriate means, if they really had wanted to settle the matter once and for all, and despite the urgings of thousands of citizens did not. A sampling of the atmosphere at high altitude, combined with the occurrence of the phenomenon in question.
[PA cites TB] 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.
[PA] 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 bulk of scientific 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 yet, but if it happened, I'd be the first to rethink my position.
Here we are in a Catch-22 paradox: "There are no scientific studies proving the existence of chemtrails, and then carry out a study aimed to prove its existence is not necessary." It seems to me that all the scientific literature which is referred always starts from the assumption that in the case of contrails, but I've never seen any evidence that categorically proves that it is only and exclusively to this natural phenomenon, as certain physical mechanisms are common to both ways (for example, condensation nuclei). This is because it has never started a research program (if we exclude the much reviled independent researchers ...) in order to investigate the presence or absence of metallic debris at high altitude, as claimed by proponents of the thesis "chemistry." And I do not you come to mention the ridiculous test on jet fuel by Discovery Channel: where is it written that any chemicals would be sprayed through the exhaust of the turbine?
[PA] supporters are, if anything, the existence of "chemtrails" that demonstrate unshakable certainty and reach to say that photos of contrail pre-1990 are false and that even Life commits them to mask the conspiracy. Do you agree with these positions?
I think I already answered the question of the picture Life, and also the question of unshakable certainty. I do not deny there are any disputes about the excesses of chemtrails, but I seem to be shared equally by both parties. For example, what do you think this picture of his companion "Peyote" that I found online?
[PA] I ask, in conclusion, the consensus 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.
I hope that his words are sincere, given the absolute seriousness of the matter. From what I have seen and read so far, I would be skeptical, but always ready to reconsider my position. Of course I do not expect that my plastic surgery can cause it to revise its. It is our approach that is diametrically opposite: his is characterized by a reductionist scientism that seeks to break down in all factors explained rationally, my type is more holistic, inclusive. It will be a professional deformation due to the fact that for years directing a magazine called NEXUS , which in Latin means "link". In other words, an information model that aims to find and show the connections between seemingly unconnected elements.
In conclusion, I am more than convinced that soon the tide will unequivocally justice to many issues currently under dispute. In fact it is already happening, but we have not yet clearly understood due to a cultural model and an outdated system media too supine to certain vested interests who would like everyone to continue to remain as is. But it is increasingly approaching the time when each of us must choose a side.
I've already made my choice a long time, and apparently this applies to you. I hope that, independently of each other's position, we can at least maintain a respectful attitude towards those of others. Anyway, I appreciated the tone within which civil, at least for the moment, we were able to confine this discussion. If it is necessary, the resume, although I'd rather be in the presence of radically new elements, whether in favor or against hypothesis or the other. If we are still here to talk about the reality of the phenomenon or the buffalo, there is a reason as well ... and personally I have quite clear ideas about it.
Below, some photos with commentary.
A classic "grid" of trails at sunset. Condensation trails, or something else?
Two examples of photography, before which I find really grotesque to hear about normal "contrails" ...
dificult to think that in airway civil traffic routes to follow this type ...
... but in this case and the following year, judging by the turning radius so tight ...
... this is certainly a relatively small military aircraft: fighters or fighter-bombers.
An MD-80 in a "sprayer": note the substantial wake emitted along the entire trailing edge of the wing ...
condensation trails? We need a good dose of imagination and courage to think that the simple water vapor can produce such effects ...
I heard bring up the effects of condensation "streamlined" for photos like this. I do not deny that could happen, but so long and persistent?
Oooops ... a plane leaves the trail and the other does not. Two portions of the atmosphere "in separate house?
Another example of different atmospheres in a confined space. According to a Swissair captain who commented this picture, it is possible but highly unlikely in this way, if not impossible. It is more likely the depletion of a reservoir and the passage to another, or something ...
Normal contrails? Really?
Examples of abnormal refraction due to particulate matter released from the usual "chemtrails" ...
A "Mammatus" rare cloud formation theory, but for some reason, more and more frequent in many places the old and the new continent ...
electromagnetic Climate Change? Meteorologists what they have to say about it?
0 comments:
Post a Comment