I think that there is a good chance this whole episode was a psychological tease. Just an artistic style of psychological trolling designed for frustration? Read the opening post and see the contradiction, why even come here if a longtime friend is an ATC? Nevertheless, we gave out the info which was asked for, which can be used by anyone.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
Skirtz, the footage of the B17s preceded still photos depicting the sky completely covered by persistent contrails. These types of WWII photos depicting persistent contrails can be found all around the web. ContrailScience.com has a whole section dedicated to these old photos.Originally Posted by Skirtz
Getting back to your air traffic control friend, ask him if he ever had a pilot report strange, unusual or unidentified smoke, spray or vapors coming from their engines or any other part of their aircraft (or another aircraft). I probably worked a couple million flights in my 25 years and i've never had a single pilot advise me of any unusual smoke, spray or vapors.
Pilots are willing to report UFOs (I've had a couple of those) but not strange vapors emanating from the aircraft around them?
Food for thought.
Exactly Mick. Years ago ... like in the early 80s, when i came on the job ... not many aircraft had GPS (RNAV) navigational equipment. Aircraft were assigned a route and were pretty much restricted to flying their assigned routes. Even still, they would wander many, many miles left or right of course as they tried to fly the azimuth radial of their airway.
These days, aircraft can be given a direct route to a latitude/longitude fix and they freakin' nail it!!!! And they stay center line the whole way. I remember working the mid shift and giving an aircraft direct LAX when he was over Baltimore, MD. That aircraft turned and made a perfect bee line for an airport on the opposite side of the country. Never could have done that years ago.
Point is, we see a lot more direct routes today than we ever saw in the past.
Last edited by PCWilliams; February 10th, 2012 at 05:59 AM.
I was always annoyed at having to learn to fly radials, when I had I much easier GPS system. Reminds me of growing up, when we had to learn to use log tables.
The increase in direct routes is probably another reason why some people see contrails who have not seen them before. I should add it to the list.
It's often hard to distinguish between trolls and the ardent. I prefer to assume that people are not trolls. Even if they are, you can still give out neutral information. Use their questions as a foil to frame the facts.
(At least that's what I tell myself when I debate 9/11 truthers)
Wait till nextgen ATC gets rolling.
Theyare headed towards some fantastic technology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G39jsUNpu8U&hd=1
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
According to my contacts at FAA HQ, NextGen in it's current form is not going to happen. It's like the "sector suites" from the 1990s. Billions of dollars over budget, way behind schedule and impractical from a controller's perspective.
I was watching this video and laughing. I'm going to try and find some audio recordings of me working traffic. There is, literally, no space between my clearances. Just a constant rat-a-tat-tat of instructions and read backs for an hour straight. The idea that i'd have any time to screw around with these nifty bells and whistles is absolutely ludicrous. A busy controller simply doesn't have the luxury of browsing computer menus. Listen in on ORD TRACON.
It's a dichotomy: If i had time to browse computer menus i'm not busy enough to need assistance from this computer. If i AM busy, i'm battling information overload and don't have time to dilly dally with a computer.
Eventually, NextGen will fall so far behind schedule that the FAA will drop it and move to the next leap in air traffic technology.
ADDED: The current radar scopes were obsolete as of about 2006 and the current scopes were supposed to be retired 2 years ago.
Last edited by PCWilliams; February 10th, 2012 at 08:13 AM. Reason: Additional Information added
Wouldn't NextGen take off some of your normal workload though? I'd imagine it would (eventually) be routing airplanes without human intervention?
Seems like the ADS-B rollout is going to hold it all up though.
I imagine it would be helpful during slower periods. During busy periods a control room can be like a war zone ... no time for bells and whistles.
Technology like NextGen won't have a real practical impact until they incorporate direct controller-cockpit communication ... something akin to instant text messaging. I don't understand why they can't/won't do it. At least this way you can scroll down a list of computer-generated recommendations and, via a click of the mouse, send those commands to their respective cockpits for implementation. This would increase efficiency greatly. Right now, a controllers full potential is limited by how many clearances s/he can get out every minute. I've actually had to slow the flow of traffic simply because i couldn't get the instructions out fast enough. The speed of communication with the cockpit is the weak link in the chain.
I'd also like to see a day when cockpits can request direct routes via a data link directly to a computer that would either approve or deny the request autonomously, send the command back to the cockpit to implement, then notify the controller of the changed route.
I hope i'm making sense ... i'm rushing a bit. Need to get somewhere downtown.
This is cool:
NextGen wouldn't have helped.
There are obviously many strategies when dealing with the individual. I like to think the only thing that matters are the facts, regardless of whether they are delivered with sensitivity, sarcasm or ridicule.
Reading the comments Skirtz made, on both this forum and contrailscience, I'm left with the impression they were looking for an excuse to be insulted, ready to make a big display of their righteous indignation. Some may like to tip toe, mindful not to bruise the delicate sensibilities of the one asking the question. Others may choose to swing a load of facts and logic hoping to connect the target like a wet fish to the face.
One would ideally combine the two, swing a load of facts and logic without bruising their delicate sensibilities.
When dealing with the individual, facts are NOT the only thing that matters, if your goal is effective communication. Facts + tact.
And really, what's the harm? What's the downside to being excessively mindful of their feelings? You can still hit them with all the cold hard facts.
PCWilliams (February 10th, 2012)
Agreed.
I believe in being polite. I think being excessively mindful of their feelings is wasted effort as someone can always find a reason to be insulted. Gentle chiding, a little sarcasm and ridicule are certainly a part of my daily effective communication strategies. I use them and they are used on me.
But probably with people you know though - or at least you are face to face with?
Yes. Also on the phone... and while texting... and internet forums.
There are certainly some visitors that give the impression of being robust and self-assured enough to allow for a little irony here and there when replying.
In most cases though, any shift to a personal level - even with bullies - will give them room to 'wiggle' and will distract from the discussion about the central issues. Giving them no reason to see themselves as victims (or to reinforce their conception of debunkers as arrogant) may increase the pressure on them to face the facts.
I feel that sarcasm and ridicule is easily perceived as arrogance.
I read this thread through from the start - Jays comments are exactly the opinion I formed while reading. It was not natural behaviour, nobody could be so unbelievably over sensitive to direct answers. You guys provided clear and concise explanations and were polite while doing so.
At the risk of beating this issue to death, I'd like to ask you an honest question...
If I find some time, I'm thinking of posting a short review of a recent conspiracy radio show and calling it "Rosalind Peterson: The good, the bad and the ugly". The post would be as factual as I'm able to make it, but the theme would be based on the title, where I hopefully illustrate the good, bad and ugly reasoning found in the show.
So now, obviously I would be having a little fun with the title. Will that be perceived as arrogance on my part? Would something that reads like a dry police report be more interesting and effective?
I've seen people be VASTLY more oversensitive than that. While it might not be normal it's not incredibly unusual. Some people are just rather touchy, especially in areas where they don't feel comfortable. or where they are insecure about their own capabilities.
Communication needs to be tailored to the individual, but it's best start out neutral. I've had many discussion with Morgellons folk, who are often at the higher end of the sensitivity spectrum, and with some of them I eventually end up discussing their history of psychological problems, without problems, because I started out with just the facts.
I don't know how genuine Skirtz was. But it's not really important.
It's borderline, but inevitably some people would perceive that negatively. Given that you are seen as a "disinfo" agent, then some people would take it as you saying "Rosalind Peterson is bad and ugly". Even a few more neutral people might think similarly.
Things do not have to be dry police reports to avoid perceptions of ad-hominem. You can still be creative while avoiding giving them an excuse to ignore you.
I'm not being super polite just because I'm a nice guy. I'm polite because it's effective.
I posted this video on my facebook to see what reaction my controller friends would have:
Attachment 312
Attachment 313
Last edited by PCWilliams; February 11th, 2012 at 08:19 AM. Reason: Added additional graphic
I think the perception depends on the audience. People favouring the scientific side will probably be amused. That includes me; I still like your mock video with the contrailing geese which I find absolutely priceless.
The other side may be less amused and not inclined to read your report at all, or perceive it as just annother typical troll/shill/disruptor product.
The question is: who do you want to reach?
Maybe it's because I find fringe conspiracy theories funny and amusing that I try to have some fun and amusement with them. The fact you think some people might conclude I'd be calling her bad and ugly is exactly the tongue and cheek humour I'd be trying to achieve. I'm not sure if it's funny to anyone else, but when I think about it, it kinda makes me chuckle.
I don't think profanity and rudeness is effective, I just enjoy a little poke in the ribs. If it strengthens their conviction that I'm a disinfo agent, so be it, I'm really not that concerned. We've alluded to this point before, you can't please everyone and no matter how impersonal a stance, someone will always take it personally.
For me, this all stems from Skirtz's comments. I found all the "please" and "thank you's" a little sickly sweet and contrived. When Skirtz became all indignant and started demanding apologies, I could not take it seriously, it was ridiculous. So I wanted to ridicule. Just a little...
Perhaps I'm not taking the chemtrail conspiracy as seriously as I should.
Last edited by Pogopoint99; February 11th, 2012 at 04:30 PM. Reason: polishing
I have to admit, I "borrowed" some of those ideas from other people, but I'll take the compliment anyway.
We can't please everyone... if my message is lost on someone just because of a little ribbing, then I believe I would not be able to reach those people no matter how careful I was not to offend them. It's a risk I'm willing to take.
I'd love to see this video. Where can i view it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh332-Z82q0I'd love to see this video. Where can i view it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwRR3d1HDiE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1p0l7ZIILE
I've always wanted to finish some of the others I have in mind, but just can't find the time. Enjoy...
The chemtrails one is great!!!!! "Invisible chemtrails"! I was laughing!
You laugh, but I think Russ Tanner has just recently posted that he suspects a new type of chemtrail is being sprayed at such a high altitude that it is essentially invisible. Yup, their truth is stranger than my fiction.
Unfortunately I can't find the link.
Come ooooooon! Invisible chemtrails? Baaa haaa haaa! I'm fairly new to all these conspiracy stories, i guess there's a steep "shock curve" (sort of like a learning curve) because things like this still have me sitting here in disbelief. I just never knew stuff like these theories were really happening in the world.
People have actually fallen for that first one too! Its rather funny.
I admit to have pranked the chemmies before. I guess its morally questionable, but its so easy and great fun. I once posted on Carnicom back in 2002, about these strange white cone shaped buildings often under chemtrails. Many fell for it, of course it was just VOR navigational radio beacon buildings.
They were all speculating on what it could be, and coming up with wild explanations. A debunker would did not realize it was a prank, stepped in to inform them of what it was.
But until then, it was quite funny watching their imaginations run wild
Found it. It turns out he made the post about 2 years ago. Here you go, invisible chemtrails...
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails...=1621#Post1621
It is great fun ... that's why i made my "vinegar kills chemclouds" video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RTDVR2BnuY). You wouldn't believe the hate mail! People. Went. Nuts. I see it as a way of waking people up and telling them to question everything.
"… the new piercing-metallic type of chemtrail …"
What does this mean? Is this like armor piercing bullets? LOL!
"… I can still taste and smell the chemtrails in the air despite the absence of visible trails on most days."
This is classic conspiratorial logic … absence of proof IS proof. Can't see chemtrails? No problem, they're invisible. Can't name a single person in the illuminati? No problem, that's why they're called a secret society. Then, of course, any gaps in our understanding of human history are explained by aliens.
Fascinating.
From what I can gather, Russ believes himself to be a kind of human chemtrail barometer. He claims to have incredibly sensitive senses that allow him to smell or taste chemtrails. He's developed his own chemtrail intensity scale and has classified the trails according to taste, hence the reference to "piercing-metallic" chemtrails. He's a prolific poster on aircrap.org. If you go to his web site you can read, in great detail, an incredibly long list of ailments he claims have plagued him since childhood. These include excessive ear wax and drooling while sleeping.
As funny and amusing as that is, and I laughed several times while reading his stuff, on the flip side there is a real person that is completely convinced of this crap and I believe there is absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to convince him otherwise.
As predicted:
February 18, 2012
GAO: FAA Behind Schedule, Over Budget On NextGen:http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._206198-1.html
GAO Report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-223
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks