The early part of this debate is published here.
July 17, 2010 I am writing to
Bosco (the small print indicates a quote):
agree with me that it is difficult to remove something which has now been downloaded and posted elsewhere by hundreds of people, no?
But in the meantime) you remove the original b) tracks down and shut up (or rather, is undergoing court-martial or goes to court) responsible for the pubblivazione military secrets to the highest level. Neither of these things happened.
It is true that the person in question should have been more prudent to listen to his colleague: "Oh God, do not ... do not video it right now!" and "Do not Do not Do Any ... [inaudible]."
Or the colleague is playing to be the best joke.
I know, the humor of the drivers is sometimes difficult to observe.
Be ', and I have the pilot, I think, even with a smile, but in this case I just can not catch him ...
The humor is that it resume a perfectly normal phenomenon for those who make a straight flight by commercial airline and is four stupid to make fun of those who believe that it is a chemical trail. A little 'how to throw a frisbee in the air and film him while he shouts "A UFO, a UFO!".
and humor. The tone of the laughter and the voice of person, "pleads" not to resume, is unmistakable.
Maybe it will be clear to you, but not for me ... or for many other people, a couple of them professional pilots in business.
are native English speakers. So when an anglophone makes distinguish humor.
These professional pilots confirmed that this is a "chemical trail" and not an aerodynamic contrail?
Not to mention that 'It's like "is" as if sprayed. Are you saying that _somiglia_ in a spray, then it is not.
Or perhaps "it is as if originating from the spray."
No. Does not make sense grammatically.
Apart from anything else, the basic problem remains: why the authors of an alleged conspiracy would be so secretive and dangerous scoundrels to dissolve a video that shows their deadly work and then leave it even published?
In fact, when they realized the "crap" they put a piece ... (See my earlier comment) just as they say here in the Veneto, "This is the buso Tacon Pezo el" (the patch is worse than the hole).
So the organizers of the conspiracy are so DUMB that not only allow us to do even a video, not just let it be published, but even wrong also to manage the leak? Yet after decades these wimps can keep a secret giant conspiracy? It seems to me rather than adversarial.
I find it rather surprising that a driver like you are not aware of these phenomena and this documentation. He tried to discuss with his colleagues in flight?
am fully aware of these phenomena, just not what I observe in the video
What are the differences?
. And, yes, I have discussed with some fellow drivers.
What did they say?
In this regard, I will tell that time, I blend a rather interesting and I think it is time to translate it into reality, but do not ask me what it is ... I would not spoil the surprise! A little 'patience, and you will see ...
Me had already mentioned months ago, during this exchange of mail. I hope that the promise, sooner or later, is maintained. The more data there are, the less mysteries remain.
, but so ... As usual, everyone sees what they want to see. Of course, this may include my comment to our discussion.
Fine, I'll do it willingly.
I'm counting. Of course also add these notations ...
Absolutely. Cordial greetings
Paul
Since we have taken the debate, also responds to the foregoing of wood:
On Dec 16, 2009, at 15:11, Tom Woods wrote:
Any comment would be appreciated. ..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23201747/Lettera-a-Mercalli-Onorato-Delitala-1 °-M-llo-Domenico-Azzone-Expert-Weather-AM
Good evening Mr Wood,
I resume this old match to add to our debate: I saw the document, and note that Azzopardi said that "not all contrails made by aircraft (military and / or civilian) are all normal, at least from the date of the late 70s early 80s of the twentieth century ". So his statement contradicts those who argue that the contrail anomalous started in the nineties, and this is a gave very interesting.
More importantly, Azzone brings no concrete proof of this assertion, nor any empirical data, but only his visual impressions. It's a little 'bit.
Azzone I also note that, on an article of La Stampa of June 2009 on the alleged new clouds (the asperatus)
http://www.lastampa.it/cmstp/rubriche/commentiRub.asp?ID_blog=248&ID_articolo=47
wrote that "the typical behavior and should have - and for ethics, for moral, both for consistency and respect for both himself and to the chosen profession - the true scientist" is "acquire information first-hand, lift the noble ass from the chair and investigate in person in the act, perhaps using an ad hoc aircraft in order to aspirate the contents of / and cloud / i and shoot camera as well as examine the cloud and its eventual lysis and any additional phases the phenomenon. After doing all this and more, real and free the scientist considers it appropriate, may give its opinion on the matter. "
It 's a beautiful thought: why supporters of "chemtrails" do not practice this suggestion? What Azzone improperly called "official science" (as if there were an "unofficial") has already done and published the results since the Seventies:
[1] WA Hovis, Infrared Reflectance of High Altitude Clouds; Applied Optics;
1970 [2] TFLee; Jet Contrail identification using the AVHRR Infrared Split Window, J. Appl. Meteor.; 1988
[3] D. Atlas; Contrails to Cirrus, J. Appl. Meteor.; 2004
[4] RS Gao; on Measurements of humidity in a persistent contrail, Atmospheric Environment, 2006
[5] A. Petzold, Elemental composition and morphology of ice-crystal residual particles in cirrus clouds and contrails; Atmospheric Research, 1998
[6] B. Karcher, Aviation-Produced Aerosols and Contrails, Survey in Geophysics, 1999
[7] CH Twohy; Electron microscope analysis of residual particles from aircraft contrails, Geophysical Research Letters, 1998
Among other things, some of the techniques described in this publications do not even need to fly.
So I wonder, and I ask you: why the supporters of the idea of \u200b\u200b"chemtrails" do not equip it properly and use science to document their claims, as suggested by very colorfully Domenico Azzopardi? It would help
to carry off the bull.
Sincerely, Paul
Attivissimo
Finally, I catch up with the considerations of past forest that were still outstanding
Good evening Mr Wood,
I'll be back briefly on his remarks released by her here:
http://lacampanadelloziotom.blogspot.com/2009/05/scie-chimiche-la-storia-infinita.html
and were part of our debate. Answer only the main points for discussion and not to waste too would suggest to stay on a "question and answer" brief for nterventi future.
She wrote:
I find it extremely difficult, right now (May 28, at 15:03), abide by the rules of a peaceful confrontation on this issue, such is the disgust I feel at having to stand here and discuss in a "politically correct" about the existence of so-called "contrails chemical "while in the sky above my head raging air activity unprecedented since this morning at 9 (when the sky was clear, blue, clear, and there was a plane to pay for it) started a dazzling spectacle that define not 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 condensation trails ...
If they were anything abnormal, does not think that the meteorologists and pilots would shout in unison to the scandal?
Indeed, more simply, how do you explain that meteorologists and pilots do not complain of this anomaly, which she describes as a chorus so loud that it can not not be noticed? It seems very strange that those living and working with the sky has nothing to object. She explains it like?
And again, if there really is this huge process of spraying, with thousands of planes every day that wakes generated the disgust, where the effects of this alleged spraying? Should be very showy, otherwise the whole operation would not be effective and efficient. For example, if you wanted to poison the population, would be more efficient to do it through the aqueducts.
She also wrote that his "best evidence", the best evidence of the existence of the phenomenon, was this:
the fact that in many circumstances, a disproportionate number of aircraft they were to issue long persistent trails occupying a space of sky at the time, according to figures provided by agencies, did not offer favorable weather conditions to the formation of contrails. A fortiori when some of these aircraft, on occasion, were at odds considerably less than the minimum needed to trigger this phenomenon (a fact which I personally witnessed several times).
If contrails are formed in weather conditions that do not allow it, why the drivers do not report such a glaring anomaly?
to be the smallest in what you need, remember that the technical documentation (from Appleman on) does not define any minimum amount necessary.
She also mentions a video that shows how to test these anomalous units:
One of these cases is well documented in this short video, shot on the outskirts of Turin October 6, 2003, which 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 canonical 8,000 + yards ...
all? This is a "best evidence" very poor. With all the traffic of aircraft suspected that she describes, there is no better? Only a few seconds of a plane that you do not know the value (an estimate "occhiometrica" \u200b\u200bI think very little scientific argument - and remember that 8000 meters are not canonical)? A plane that you do not know the route, time or brands, with no indication of what were the local weather at cruising altitude?
It takes much more serious documentation before you say that we are bombarded by a flock of planes that spray substances mysterious secrets. Where is it? If the movement of supporters of the "chemtrails" wants to be taken seriously, he must bring evidence, data, experiments, no video on Youtube. That 's what we claim to any scientific statement.
As you mentioned patents as "potentially linked to the phenomenon of chemtrails" are generic descriptions of sprinklers or sprinklers for use in aircraft. Devices of this kind are used for spraying fields (low level) for decades. I do not see the novelty. One (No. 3813875) is about to launch rockets into the air and barium and then has nothing to do with planes. Another (6315213) speaks of polymers to adjust the rain as "cloud seeding" is not a secret and do not need planes that fly day and night to do it. And so on. But the basic question is another: why the military would be stupid enough to publish their patent technologies ipersegrete?
As for HAARP, just a minimum of energy calculations to understand that HAARP may not have any weather effects. The natural energies at play in the atmosphere are higher than those generations immensamentei by HAARP. If you'll pardon the metaphor a bit 'trivial, to think that HAARP can affect the climate or the weather is like thinking that a belch can stop a tornado.
She relates a curious episode:
I heard direct testimony from more than one passenger in flight over the Atlantic speaking instruction to close all the canopies for shade, day and night by the crew, just at this area. Of course those who have peeked from behind the curtains he saw with his own eyes something that bordered on the incredible ...
So even the hostesses are part of the conspiracy?
Finally, she mentions a "crucial evidence" saying that he was working to get it:
A sampling of the atmosphere at high altitude, combined with the occurrence of the phenomenon in question.
It 'been done? A year has passed since you wrote this intention by saying it hopes to "unable to realize it within the current year."
For photos of trails you mentioned, images are quite normal: I myself have taken a similar above my house. The planes tend to follow the same routes, so that trace the same path at different times. Pass a plane, leaving a contrail, the wind moves across and then get another plane to leave in its wake, and the wind shifts, e così via. Questo forma le scie parallele. Il traffico civile segue eccome rotte ellittiche o circolari: si chiamano "holding pattern". E in cielo ci sono anche aerei militari leggeri, che possono fare manovre strette e lasciare scie di condensazione. Tutti gli altri presunti fenomeni sono ben documentati come normali effetti di una scia di condensazione. Mi soffermo soltanto sull'ultima immagine [mostrata qui sotto] , quella per la quale lei chiede
Modificazione elettromagnetica del clima? I meteorologi cos'hanno da dire in proposito?
Mi sorprende che lei non conosca una "hole punch cloud" . Ne trova abbondanti esempi qui:
http://sciechimicheinfo.blogspot.com/2008/12/un-buco-nelle-nubi.html
and
http://sciechimicheinfo.blogspot.com/2009/01/nubi-insolite-ma- natural-5.html
It surprises me that you, instead of putting questions like these, do not do the simplest thing: ask a meteorologist. That's what I did. Do not just ask questions: you also have the diligence to seek the answers. Otherwise you will not get ahead.
Sincerely
Paul Attivissimo
The discussion continues here .
0 comments:
Post a Comment