The early part of this debate is published here. The smaller print indicates that this is a paragraph of quotation from a previous mail.
July 24, 2010 Good morning Mr. Woods, I'll answer directly
in questo articolo sul mio blog, invece di farlo via mail come finora, perché vedo che il rapido accavallarsi di citazioni reciproche sta rendendo difficile ai lettori seguire il discorso e capire chi ha detto cosa. Le propongo di fare anche lei la stessa cosa, pubblicando la sua risposta nel suo sito o blog. Potremmo linkarci a vicenda e in questo modo rendere un servizio migliore ai lettori e non spendere tempo nella reimpaginazione delle mail per pubblicarle.
Nella sua mail precedente , parlando del recente video "Chemtrail spraying (NOT!)" e della sua mancata rimozione da Youtube, lei dice che "rimuovere l'originale significherebbe soltanto confermare la validità documentale del video e dare reason than that she likes to call "conspiracy" or "sciachimisti" . Not really. A video may be removed for many reasons. Removing a video does not necessarily confirm its validity.
She then asked me how do I know that the authors of the video have not been tracked down and silenced or subject to court martial. Obviously I do not know. But I do not even know her. In fact, the problem is that we are thinking about nothing, or almost. There is a video on YouTube we do not know the author and do not know the circumstances of the shooting. We can indulge in fantasies of all sorts, but in the end there are a few facts. It makes sense to base serious accusation (the systematic spraying of large areas with secret substances bad) on a video on YouTube anonymously? I think not. To such accusations, it takes hard evidence.
An anonymous video on Youtube is not concrete evidence. Yet she claims to be "absolutely convinced (as well as my partners) that it is a trail of chemistry . On what basis? Does not it seem risky to base his beliefs on an anonymous video? And if it was really a hoax?
you note that my explanation of the video (a joke made by pilots to taunt supporters of the "chemtrails") is only a hypothesis. True. But so is his alternative explanation, for which we do not have any element of support.
Let's compare the two cases.
My
: military pilots see a better aerodynamic contrail and the resume and put it on Youtube and make fun of supporters of "chemtrails." Proponents of the "chemtrails" bait and continue to do so despite the authors of the video avvisino them clearly that it was a joke, and it raises even more the hilarity of the authors of the video, which let on Youtube. His
: military pilots participating in a secret operation of spraying toxic manage to overcome all the security checks, violating military secrecy of the highest standard to be clear surround operation of this terrible flow, and can continue with impunity to a plane that makes a "chemical trail" and put the video on Youtube, to reveal to the world conspiracy, and no one to block them in advance. Do not make it for example on Wikileaks, where they guarantee anonymity, but put it on Youtube, where it is easy for authorities to trace their identity. When the video begins to spread, the organizers of the conspiracy decide not to remove the video for "do not confirm the validity of the documentary video" , although the video is a detailed visual evidence of the existence of secret spraying, but convinced the authors to say that this is a hoax.
Which one is the most logical? Which one is easier? Which one is more consistent with the (few) facts? Which one is the hypothesis most sensational and extraordinary, and therefore more in need of confirmation?
In my opinion, his hypothesis amounts to saying that the famous Modigliani heads were not a hoax created by three students from Livorno to make fun of art critics who believed the real, but they were true and sculptures by Modigliani students were forced by someone to say that it was a hoax.
She says "I'm sure that even if we could finally have a sample of the atmosphere at high altitude and this showed content of barium, aluminum or other substances which are incompatible with standard atmosphere, would be some argument for hauling water to his mill. " Apart from the fact that she can not be certain about what I could or could not do (although she did not " the gift of telepathy " gives me jokingly), that is an important thing. The samples have been collected , directly into the wake and since the seventies. Contrails aircraft from the ground can be analyzed with methods rigorous and scientifically accepted as the LIDAR (read for example, D. Atlas, Contrails to Cirrus in Journal of Applied Meteorology , 2004). If the advocates of "chemtrails" wanted farlo, potrebbero usare questi metodi. Ma sembra che preferiscano basarsi su video anonimi pubblicati su Youtube e su analisi di acqua piovana e terra raccolta da dilettanti. Per questo i sostenitori delle "scie chimiche" hanno un grosso problema di credibilità.
In secondo luogo, su che basi tecniche lei afferma che il bario e l'alluminio sono "incompatibili con l'atmosfera standard" ? Cosa avrebbero di così pericoloso bario e alluminio? Io vedo che lei fa molte affermazioni categoriche, ma non porta prove tecniche di queste affermazioni. Non è un modo corretto di procedere, specialmente quando si accusa qualcuno di crimini contro l'umanità intera.
Guardi, signor Bosco, tagliamo la testa al toro e andiamo al sodo. Lei mi propone video su video, ma così non si va da nessuna parte, come lei stesso ammette ( "questa controversia andrà avanti all'infinito!" ). Le faccio una domanda semplice e diretta, e la faccio per capire, non per insinuare: se lei è così convinto che "le cosiddette "scie chimiche" sono un fenomeno tremendamente reale" e che esista questo temibile complotto internazionale che sta avvelenando sistematicamente milioni di persone, che ci fa ancora qui? Perché se ne sta qui a farsi avvelenare giorno e notte e non si rifugia nei vari luoghi che, stando ai sostenitori delle "scie chimiche", non vengono irrorati?
Questa, a mio parere, è la contraddizione key supporters of the "chemtrails" say they have conclusive evidence that it rains on their manure, but do nothing to avoid. I would like to explain to me why, because frankly I do not understand.
