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 22, 2010
Bosco writes to me:
On 21 Jul 2010, at 18:14, Tom Woods wrote:
agree with me that it is difficult to remove something which has now 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.
a) remove the original document would only confirm the validity of the video and to agree with what she likes to call "conspiracy" or "sciachimisti and b) how does she know that this has not happened?
It is true that the person in question should have been more prudent to listen to his colleague: "Oh God, don't... don't video it right now!" e "Don't... don't do any [incomprensibile]."
Oppure il collega sta recitando per far venire meglio la burla.
Questa rimane solo una sua ipotesi.
Lo so, l'umorismo dei piloti a volte è difficile da cogliere.
Be', sono pilota anch'io e, ritengo, anche dotato di un certo umorismo, ma in questo caso proprio non riesco a coglierlo...
L'umorismo sta nel fatto di riprendere un fenomeno perfettamente normale per chi fa volo a quote da aereo di linea e dire quattro stupidaggini per prendere in giro chi crede che si tratti di una scia chimica. Un po' come lanciare un frisbee per aria e filmarlo intanto che si grida "Un UFO, un UFO!!".
Vedi risposta precedente.
È umorismo. Il tono della risata e della voce dell'altra persona, che "supplica" di non riprendere, è inequivocabile.
Forse sarà inequivocabile per lei, ma non per me... né per molte altre persone, un paio delle quali piloti professionisti in attività.
Sono madrelingua inglese. So distinguere quando un anglofono fa umorismo.
Madrelingua inglese? Magari riuscirà a cogliere il tipico umorismo britannico, ma questi sono statunitensi... non è la stessa cosa! Come affermò il generale Patton in un suo discorso, "gli inglesi e gli americani sono due popoli divisi dalla stessa comunanza di lingua..." E poi, trovo paradossale che proprio lei parli come se fosse dotato del dono della telepatia...
Questi piloti professionisti confermano che si tratta di una "scia chimica" e non di una contrail aerodinamica?
Lei parla di confermare come se fosse possibile dare una risposta e una verità definitiva... se fosse così semplice, cosa staremmo qui a discutere? Io sono assolutamente convinto (così come i miei interlocutori) che si tratti di una scia chimica, she is absolutely convinced that this is a contrail aerodynamics, and there is no way for me to convince them otherwise ... this controversy will go on forever! 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, some would claim to pull the water to his mill. Even before the evidence of this extraordinary video had the intellectual honesty to admit that so-called "chemtrails" are a real phenomenon tremendously. To cite Andreotti, who said that "to think the worst is a sin but we often guesses", I find that curious His response to my email is strangely come only "after" the author of the video in question was withdrawn, providing you and all the skeptics with a vengeance (not to use other terms) a perfect escape ... I know that for a couple of days you go out literally in the ball! Of course, this is just my opinion.
Not to mention that 'It's like "is" as if sprayed. Are you saying that _somiglia_ in a spray, then it is not.
Or maybe it is as if originating from the spray. "
No. Grammatically it makes no sense.
Sorry, no I agree. This is not to say you're right, but just not at all certain that there has to her.
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 also wrong even to manage the leak? Yet after decades these wimps can keep a secret giant conspiracy? It seems to me rather than adversarial.
Maybe we have not understood, or more likely, pretending not to understand. No one has "left" that was made a video, it's just happened. No one has "left" that was published, it's just happened. The cialtroneria was in the way they handled the situation later, but this seems fairly typical of certain military mentality. More simply, it is verified that, after all these years, it could happen sooner or later ... and it happened. It's simple statistics ...
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?
I attached a photo as an example. Assuming that it actually shows the phenomenon of condensation aerodynamics we're talking about, and I have no reason to doubt it, what is observed seems to me very different from what you see in the video indicted. In addition, a proper comparison it could be done only by comparing it with another video, and not a static photograph ...
And, yes, I have discussed with some fellow drivers.
What did they say?
We all agree to judge this recovery as one of the best demonstrations of the phenomenon of chemtrails, but as evidenced by this latest debate, this will not help the party unrivet deniers' with a vengeance that she magnificently represents.
In this regard, I will tell you that time, I blend a rather interesting and I think it is high time to implement it, 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.
I was not referring to that, however, that if it was only that I had already been maintained for some time. But even this idea would significantly help to settle the vexed question ...
but there you are ... As usual, everyone sees what they want to see. Of course, this may include my commentary on the our discussion.
Fine, I'll do it willingly.
I'm counting. Of course also add these notations ...
Absolutely.
I also read his thoughts on the other points of debate are still outstanding. Unfortunately at this moment I really can not find more time to respond adequately, but I assure you that as soon as I can I will, although it may take several weeks. Just do this the attentive readers.
Regards to you, and soon
Tom
Later, Woods adds that other mail:
Dear Paul, I did not expect that this interesting video to add or subtract something to our discussion, but to be fair I'd like the site and I rated particular sequences that appear to 2:30 to 3:00, 3:36 to 3:59, 4:00 to 4:16 (especially the detail observable in the latter, or the double trail coming out of the second counting from the right engine). Speaking of contrails in this case it seems to me nothing short of grotesque (unless the turbines are not classified aircraft powered completely by water, and even then I'd have some doubts), but pass the ball to her. I would be grateful also if it complemented our most recent exchange with my last answer.
Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNfdsakIE18&feature=player_embedded #!
Sincerely
Tom Bosco
This is the video mentioned by Wood:
answer to Woods that I saw the video and that will take up the discussion as soon as possible because I'm working on another.
0 comments:
Post a Comment