Maybe you need me to explain what irony is
Maybe you need me to explain what irony is
It was part of the great thanksputsch of 2012
http://metabunk.org/threads/412-quot-Thanks-quot-reset
I'm sure you'll soon build it back up again
It wouldn't make a difference if God himself (and I don't believe either) presented evidence to you personally, you'd still try to 'de-bunk' it, it's your default setting, for whatever reason. The pattern is self-evident.Originally Posted by Mick
Remember Milgram's experiment? Yes, you do. 66 per cent of people, in a one-off test (so, without training or speciific conditioning for the task at hand, save for being paid) elected to apply a lethal electric shock to an unknown person simply on the basis of 'getting the answers to questions wrong' and 'being told to by an apparent authority figure'. That 66 per cent needed no more persuasion to 'turn the dial' than that they were told to do it.
Ofcourse tens of thousands of people conform - it's because it's how we're conditioned. It's really not a tricky equation. Can you really not see it?
Last edited by lee h oswald; March 4th, 2012 at 10:03 AM. Reason: blindness
It was part of the great thanksputsch of 2012
http://metabunk.org/threads/412-quot-Thanks-quot-reset
I'm sure you'll soon build it back up again
But how? You've still got all your 'thanks' - some of those are from me, remember? I can't see any way of thanking you........anywhere...
if you had to cut an ellipse from a piece of wood.....how would you go about it?
I debunk if I think there's bunk. I don't blindly debunk topics. I think a lot of what George and you presented was bunk, so I tried to explain why.
Equally though there are hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions of people, in the US who do NOT conform. Why is there no overlap with the secret conspiracies? Why no whistleblowers with actual evidence? Is the government really that efficient?
Those are all new thanks.
I don't know why the thanks button vanished. I've just upgraded the software and it caused a bunch of problems. I'll look into it.
Depends. Is there a point to this question?
Good to know you've spent your time well
What 'bunk' is is purely subjective.
No overlap? Where have you been?
All new thanks? Popular, aren't you.
'Actual evidence'? Do you need me to publish the meaning of the word 'evidence'?
(Just look it up for yourself, save an argument)
You only just noticed the 'thanks' button is missing? How did you get so many when there's no button for it?
Actually, there's just one way to plot out an ellipse - so it doesn't depend on anything except the one correct method.
Wow! Welcome to the Thread Wars . . . In didn't know someone like yourself existed on this Forum. . . .LoL!!
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Ref: whistleblowers
Not mentioned is one AC Griffith, supposedly highest security clearance with the NSA and CIA and claims to have accessed the 'chemtrail' program. He says it is the necessary result of an extension to a US Navy military/civil surveillance program using metalllic particles to 3D map the entire earth/potential battlespace in real time.
Either way it's true or it's false. Either way, it's an (erstwhile?) establishment figure putting out information or disinformation. Either way, therefore, it's an issue for the establishment. This is called deduction.
Last edited by lee h oswald; March 4th, 2012 at 11:04 AM.
Griffith was a radio repairman at the 6925th Radio Squadron, Mobile - http://www.clarkab.org/organizations...hrsm/griffith/
That appears to be the limit of his "secret clearance" as far as online searching goes.
I deduce from this that his "qualifications" as a secret source have been exaggerated in order to lend credibility to his annopuncements, whoch have no otehr evidence backing them up at all.
This is called "appeal to authority" - and is common here the information is unsupportable by actual evidence.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Originally Posted by George B
" If after a thousand posts a person is incorrigible " Hmmmm. . . so I must bend to your will and logic or I am to be shunned by a rule you just made up . . . interesting concept . . .
I fail to see where anyone wrote any such thing! As usual...purposely misinterpret/manipulate what is written to suit you.
Why do you do that?!
It's implied. Implicit. Suggested. One doesn't necessarily need to say something explicitly to say it just the same. There is no purposeful manipulation of understanding of the text, the reply makes perfectly reasonable sense as inferred from the wording of the statement preceding it. Your complaint is commonplace among those who cannot formulate a sensible answer to counter a clear point.
Last edited by lee h oswald; March 4th, 2012 at 11:23 AM.
George B (March 4th, 2012)
Deduce what you like, as usual. A two minute Google and your information is complete, eh? And also 'as usual' you fail to understand the nuance of my post. I was not holding him forth as a truthful source. Look again. The answer would be in the actual words written.
Last edited by lee h oswald; March 4th, 2012 at 12:59 PM.
Well that's a little simplistic. One could take a cone, and cut it at an angle, then trace that, for example. Or use sunlight and a sphere projected onto an inclined surface. Or use an X/Y plotter with John Kennedy's Bresenham style algorithm, or generate a printed image with monte-carlo scatter plotting of (x/a)^2+(y/b)^2<1, or use the trammel of Archimedes, or resize a stock ellipse with a pantograph, or, as I imagine you were thinking - two nails and a piece of string.
There's usually far more than one possible explanation for how things might happened. You should never just settle on the first one you think of.
Jay spent rather a lot of time checking out Griffith's claims. See here:
http://metabunk.org/threads/210-How-...nto-chemtrails
1) While this is true great progress and lower emision standards have been implemented on ground transportation . . . it is not true of aircraft emisions . . . http://www.cgabusinessdesk.com/docum...ech_review.pdf page 12 . . .
"Over the past decade there has been a worldwide trend to lower sulfur content in motor gasoline and diesel fuel with some countries requiring near-zero sulfur today or in the near future. These limits have been mandated by government regulations driven by the need to reduce harmful emissions. A similar reduction has not occurred for jet fuel; the specifications continue to allow a maximum of 3000 ppm sulfur although the worldwide average sulfur content in jet fuel appears to be between 500 and 1000 ppm."
2) Is there a way to finger print or ID the Sulfur Compounds that come from China vs those possibly added to the Stratosphere by aircraft emissions . . . ?
3) In spite of Mount Pinatubo's eruptions in 1991 . . . interesting . . . with out Mt Pinatubo . . . the level sure would have been even lower . . . and maybe some spiked aircraft emissions and booster shots were needed to just get it to the level is was discovered to be . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo
Last edited by George B; March 4th, 2012 at 12:05 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Aha, I was testing it with my test account (larry) which had zero posts. It shows up once I make a post the button showed up. So I suspect it is actually there for you, and you were just looking at your own post, whcih will not have the button.
Hey George...It's good you can still lol! That's all good. And yes, I exist...!
George B (March 4th, 2012)
There are still limits, just not as agressive as for ground transportation.
And here's something to ponder:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/time...el-111216.html
To see what really happens when sulfur is removed from the fuel, Nadine Unger of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies took advantage of newly available earth system computer models that allow scientists to simulate interactions among various chemicals and gases in the atmosphere in a more realistic way than ever before.
What she found is that more warming indeed occurs when you remove sulfur, but that warming is more than offset by a different cooling effect: nitrates, which form from nitrogen oxides in the jet exhaust, also reflect solar radiation back to space. Because of some complex interactions among these compounds, and their competition for ammonia, more nitrate forms when there is less sulfate around.
Looking at the red and orange blobs in Unger’s figure above, you can see that nitrate levels are notably higher in the desulfurized fuel scenario (below) than in the standard fuel scenario (above). The end result of Unger’s simulations is that desulfurization of jet fuel produced a small, net cooling effect.
Unger used a global-scale model that assessed the impact of reducing the amount of sulfur in jet fuel from 600 milligrams per kilogram of fuel to 15 milligrams per kilogram, which is the level targeted by the U.S. Department of Transportation. She simulated the full impact of sulfur removal on all aviation emissions, including ozone, methane, carbon dioxide, sulfate and contrails—those ribbons of clouds that appear in the wake of a jet. Previous studies examined each chemical effect only in isolation.
So the conspiracy would actually work far better if they removed sulfur, not added it.
(Edit) Here's the paper's abstract with more figures:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL049289.shtml
Aircraft emissions can affect climate change through increasing carbon dioxide (CO2 ) but also via a host of other short-lived non-CO2 effects that are complex, involve impacts that are both warming and cooling and are unique to this sector. Previous assessments of aviation climate impacts have used a segmented approach whereby each effect was calculated separately and the effects summed. Integrated approaches using newly available Earth System models that allow simulation of more realistic interactions between effects are now possible. The NASA GISS Earth System Model (ModelE) is applied to reassess the net climate impact of civil aviation emissions based on a new inventory for year 2006 developed using the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). The model simulates all known non-CO2 aviation climate impacts except linear contrails and contrail-cirrus for which a recent estimate is assumed. For standard jet fuel, the net global climate impact for sustained constant year 2006 aviation emissions is +44 ± 10 mWm−2 (2/3 due to non-CO2 effects) on a 20-year timescale and +73 ± 10 mWm−2(over 1/3 due to non-CO2effects) on a 100-year timescale. For desulfurized jet fuel, the net climate impact is +40 ± 10 mWm−2 on the 20-year timescale, slightly less warming than the standard fuel case due to the complex interplay between sulfate and nitrate and the competition for ammonia. Ozone (O3 ) greenhouse efficiency (W per g O3
change) is 20–60% larger for aviation than surface transportation emissions.
Last edited by Mick; March 4th, 2012 at 12:15 PM. Reason: link
Wow! How long have you been haunting the environs of ContrailScience . . . ? You must not be easily intimidated . . . neither am I . . . LoL . . .
Last edited by George B; March 4th, 2012 at 12:36 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
This typifies your approach. You're wrong because you don't understand the environment in which you're attempting to understand. What did I say again? This: there's just one way to plot out an ellipse - so it doesn't depend on anything except the one correct method.
No matter how many times you Google, I'd like you to show me how many methods you can use to plot out an ellipse on a piece of wood. Show me - don't show me some words from a web page you just Googled. You create the illusion of authority and knowledge without actually demonstrating any - quite an art, eh? But really, one must have an idea of what one is talking about before being able to make a credible argument about it, don't you think?
Last edited by lee h oswald; March 4th, 2012 at 12:29 PM.
I was not able to get into or review Unger's paper; however, I don't know if I would agree with your conclusion . . . "So the conspiracy would actually work far better if they removed sulfur, not added it." If the above were true why wouldn't the geoengineers suggest the addition of nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere instead of Sulfur Compounds . . . because the volcanic eruptions are their model . . . ?
Last edited by George B; March 4th, 2012 at 12:35 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
In fact, please tell us all how to plot an ellipse on a piece of wood using one of your cited (and presumably you understand how it works having cited it) methods, let's say, make an ellipse in a piece of wood by...'us(ing) sunlight and a sphere projected onto an inclined surface' - your proposed method - I'm sure you've used it many times in the course of your woodworking hobby. Yes? I look forward to your response.
there's two aspects to this. one is just getting things wrong on a very basic level - misreading, wrong interpretation, invalid data. this is the bunk. easily solved through investigation, and it should always be acknowledged when it has been.
then there are the speculations being formed from the data that is technically correct, but incorrectly assumed to be valid to the claim.
there seems to be a difference in opinion of what is considered valid evidence for a claim.
if you think of this all in terms of doing a sudoku puzzle, then you can see that the possibility that a number will fit is not enough to actually mark it down. and to de-bunk is to prove that a given number cannot be true, because it is already in the line somewhere.
the issue in this debate is that numbers proven wrong are not being removed from the puzzle, and then also that numbers are being prematurely entered when there is no basis for it other than 'well it might be this'. that is not the way to do a sudoku, or to prove things in the world true for sure.
you just end up with a really messy scribbled out sudoku puzzle.
(actually i prefer ken-ken and kakuro puzzles now.)
George B (March 4th, 2012)
There is no "one correct method". I would probably make a paper template on the computer for a small ellipse. It it was a large ellipse I would use the two fixed points, some string, and a pencil.
But all of the methods I listed are valid. They all result from the fundamental geometry underlying an ellipse.
You might have been taught that an ellipse is a curve where every point is equidistant from two foci. And that would be correct. But that really is just one mathematical property of an ellipse that can be used to construct it. Another is that an ellipse is a conic section (and also it's a cylindrical section, but conic is the more general form). It's also a circle that has undergo an affine transform (it's been squashed or stretched) - hence the sun method. It's also defined by x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1, independent of the foci.
I could show you all of these methods. Some are more practical than others. Here's the trammel of Archemedes:
Here's the nails and string:
Here's a manual paper template construction method:
So which is the one true method?
Not a bad analogy . . . however, the entire atmosphere, biosphere, political activities of mankind, deception, etc. cannot be modeled in a sudoku matrix . . . what if I were to prevent you from placing a number in the proper square, change the numbering system to base 12 and change it back to base 10 or erase a number after you put it there . . . then maybe IMO the analogy is more proper . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Brilliant. No need for another word on that one.
Anyway, aren't you breaking the arbitrary rule of 'sticking to the subject' of the thread? I seem to remember being banned previously for not answering the question you asked. What's changed?
Well that's was pretty much a thought experiment. I did not cite it, I just invented it. It's plausible, but not incredibly practical. But since you asked:
Like I said, not incredibly practical. But it works.
Sudoku? If the 'issue in this debate' is that 'numbers proven wrong are not being removed from the puzzle' etc etc. What 'numbers' (presumably representing 'claims') are you talking about? How abstract do you want it to get? Sudoku is a very boring game of numbers - it has nothing to do with this discussion.
I can't resist geometry. And I think you'll find this thread has significantly more than one subject in it's many pages.
This was something of a sidetrack, but you said my approach was typified by not understanding the environment (of the subject in question). Hopefully this shows that is not always the case
And it got me out in the sun for a few minutes
Well that's was pretty much a thought experiment. I did not cite it, I just invented it. It's plausible, but not incredibly practical. But since you asked:
Like I said, not incredibly practical. But it works.
Love it - the jigsaw poised for action - what's it about to do though? Nothing, I can tell you that for nowt.
Oh, and if I saw my chippy make his ellipse like that - I'd sack him.
okay.Sudoku? If the 'issue in this debate' is that 'numbers proven wrong are not being removed from the puzzle' etc etc. What 'numbers' (presumably representing 'claims') are you talking about? How abstract do you want it to get? Sudoku is a very boring game of numbers - it has nothing to do with this discussion.
i thought it was apt, if my attempt to explain it a little clumsy.
Not a bad analogy . . . however, the entire atmosphere, biosphere, political activities of mankind, deception, etc. cannot be modeled in a sudoku matrix . . . what if I were to prevent you from placing a number in the proper square, change the numbering system to base 12 and change it back to base 10 or erase a number after you put it there . . . then maybe IMO the analogy is more proper . .
what you seem to be suggesting is changing the way the universe works and all the laws of physics.
if they're all up for grabs in that case, then nothing can be determined.
but malicious political/secret service intervention can't change the rules of arithmetic.
and that's (metaphorically) what we can examine in this case.
if something happens in reality, it has very real cause and effect that can be traced.
Are you blaming Mick because there is no evidence to support a belief in "chemtrails"?! Bunk is bunk...and in this subject, it's not difficult to recognize it as such. I see nothing more than speculation and assumption that the trails we all see in the sky are anything more than contrails.
Well that's not really the point is it? The point is that adding sulphur to engine exhaust would just make things worse because it inhibits the formation of nitrates IN THE EXHAUST. If you add sulphur dioxide by itself to the atmosphere, then all is well.
So your whole conspiracy to increase the level of sulfur in jet fuel seems like a bit of a none starter.
Where was any such thing IMPLIED...
IT was INTERPRETED by George (and no w you...I see a pattern)...no one implied any such thing..
The original poster was just saying that even after so many posts..George hasn't budged...or even TRIED to understand the information presented to him. No one said he "MUST" bend..or be shunned! He was shunned the very first second he admitted to being a "chemtrail advocate"!! The "thousand posts" was just an arbitrary metric...But, of course George got all defensive that his right to believe in bullshit was somehow taken away....but, not really taken away at all...
By the way, I have yet to see you formulate a sensible answer to counter a clear point. Will it be happening any time soon?
Seems to be more than you did - and no. Mr Griffiths history and purported involvement with the NSA have been investigated for a decade or more. And AFAIK the link I provided is all that has ever been found, either on the net or off it.
I would be delighted if your own research could throw some light upon his background - how about it?
Not at all - I completely got that you failed to make any concrete point, rather relying upon innuendo and nuanced suggestion so that you can't be shown to be wrong.And also 'as usual' you fail to understand the nuance of my post.
I was not holding him forth as a truthful source. Look again.
Never said you did - look again.
No question was asked.The answer would be in the actual words written.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
But, Mr Griffiths military clearance is all over the internet! It's implied. Implicit. Suggested....all over the place!
Of course it's true...because those who put value on what this person has to say..."BELIEVE" it's true!
People will believe what they want..regardless of what the facts...and any lack of evidence suggests...
Griffiths is a GOD...because he agrees with them...
Only traceable if you have some substance which is separable and above the background noise of the pre-existing environmental contaminates abundant in the natural and anthropomorphic influenced soup you must get your samples from. . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
As I said I was unable to review the paper . . . I am not sure a single paper is a definitive invalidation of the concept of spiked fuel which has been suggested by several writers. . . .however, this does not prevent sulfur compounds or other compounds from being added by other means. . . .
1) The conventional wisdom is that N2O is a greenhouse gas and this paper is a contradiction of those concepts. . . . Unless we are talking only about their RF in the stratosphere and this is still a departure IMO from the normal concepts (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...use_gases.html)
2) This was a computer simulation. . . and while important may not reflect all the unknowns that in reality may show different results. . .
3) I don't know the date of this paper but what was considered conventional wisdom before this possible realization is what would have governed the strategies and actions of the persons deciding what to do or not do. . . .They most likely would have thought the spiking of fuel was the best possible action. . . may still feel that way. . . .
Last edited by George B; March 4th, 2012 at 03:10 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Yet, a single instance of an AWACS making a circular contrail was enough to blow your skirt up!
Tell me, who gets to decide who is allowed to use what as evidence...or a lack of evidence as evidence.
Let's face it...no matter what is presented as evidence by the chemtrails "advocates", those of us who think the trails in the sky are contrails...and that there isn't any appreciable amount of ANYTHING in the sky to suggest a spray program...won't believe is "chemtrails". And those who can't see that a lack of evidence, is evidence of a lack of a spray program, will continue to accept the urban legend as fact...no matter what.
Some of us just need more than what's out there to come to the same conclusions as the advocates have...since they saw their first trail in the sky..
It's a witch hunt...and always will be.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks