George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
All we need are people who have not heard of it or have no opinion becasue they have not taken the time to think about it . . .
I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
- Status
All we need are people who have not heard of it or have no opinion becasue they have not taken the time to think about it . . .
scombrid
Senior Member.
I find it annoying that the time stamp and source of that image is not provided so that his claim can be evaluated. That does not look like a contrail nor he specify how speed was inferred. I would like to be able to view archive satellite data and see if that image is legitimate and if he calculated the speed of the object (if there was actually something) accurrately. But I can do that. Typical bunk technique of not providing sources or verification.
Edit: The image to which I refer is later in the video and is a satellite image that supposedly shows a contrail that extrends from Area 51 to beyond Bermuda, supposedly created by an object estimated from that image to have been travelling at over 8000 miles per hour. It is hard to take such claims at face value without better evidence. Makes me think that better evidence doesn't exist and neither does Aurora.
Edit: The image to which I refer is later in the video and is a satellite image that supposedly shows a contrail that extrends from Area 51 to beyond Bermuda, supposedly created by an object estimated from that image to have been travelling at over 8000 miles per hour. It is hard to take such claims at face value without better evidence. Makes me think that better evidence doesn't exist and neither does Aurora.
The doughnuts on a rope image is old, from 1998 or older. See:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/rec.aviation.military/bPVDbkuy0zY
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Just think the Aurora Aircraft is an interesting analogy to the Chemtrail Conspiracy. . . .bunches of speculation, misconceptions, no admission by the authorities, however, history, opportunity, secrecy, budget, secret and public patents, motivation, all point to the fact that it very well may exist or something just like it. . . Noble do you believe the Aurora exists?????
firepilot
Senior Member.
Sure, most people that believe in it, believe in it out of emotion, not out of evidence. And those who are fairly knowledgable about black aircraft programs, or at least as much as one can be without being a part of those programs, do not believe in it.
Lockheed may have tried some high speed projects in the past, but there is no evidence of anything going on at all. Just too expensive, and its more important anyways to loiter over a place unseen, than to dash through quickly
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I cannot disagree with you but the same things happened with the SR71. . . And it turned out to exist. . .
firepilot
Senior Member.
What about the SR-71?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It was speculated about for years before it was confirmed to exist. . .
firepilot
Senior Member.
It was confirmed to exist, before it ever even flew.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
24 December 1957: First J58 engine run.
1 May 1960: Francis Gary Powers is shot down in a Lockheed U-2 over the Soviet Union.
13 June 1962: SR-71 mock-up reviewed by Air Force.
30 July 1962: J58 completes pre-flight testing.
28 December 1962: Lockheed signs contract to build six SR-71 aircraft.
25 July 1964: President Johnson makes public announcement of SR-71.
So I had it confused with the . . F117 . . . It is a different story. . . It was operational for years before public disclosure.
. .
JFDee
Senior Member.
The SR71 is in the museum. Let's see - they reactivated the U-2 which has flown its last mission not long ago. And now there is Global Hawk and "the Beast of Kandahar". Much more cost effective, does not need a life-maintaining system for a human pilot.
If there ever was a project Aurora, it must have been scrapped by the bean counters quite a while ago.
If there ever was a project Aurora, it must have been scrapped by the bean counters quite a while ago.
firepilot
Senior Member.
Yes, but it only flew out of two very high security bases, almost only at night time, and only in a fairly limited geographic area.
firepilot
Senior Member.
The U-2 was never retired, and they are still quite active
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmmmm . . . Sounds like a good way to hide a covert aerosol injection program . . . That is what I would do . . . .
"The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk was a single-seat, twin-engine stealth ground-attack aircraft formerly operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). The F-117A's first flight was in 1981, and it achieved initial operating capability status in October 1983.[1] The F-117A was "acknowledged" and revealed to the world in November 1988.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk
firepilot
Senior Member.
Except that...once again...you are speculating, and playing "What If"
If you did actual research, you would know there is not the facilities at Groom Lake, or Tonopah, to hide some hypothetical fleet of aircraft like this.
The only reason the F-117s were able to stay secret, is that they only flew at night, were mostly on the Nellis ranges, and were always back in their individual hangars in the daytime.
And even with that, people who were knowledgable of aircraft, had heard enough to know that there was some kind of smaller stealthy attack aircraft out there. But with your chemtrail hoax, nobody who is knowledgable about these matters, thinks there is anything like that. "Chemtrails" is just a silly joke to anyone who loves aviation and knows a thing or two about it.
JFDee
Senior Member.
You are correct, of course. Not sure how my memory messed up there. Probably an article about a U-2 pilot going into retirement.
That's what you get from quick firing without proper research. Let that be an example to all ...
Spongebob
Active Member
That`s the point.
On each and every occasion I mention the "trails" in the sky and explain that there are many people who believe X,Y,Z, it is instantly dismissed as laughable. Which it is.
Not one of the people I am talking about had ever heard of "chemtrails", yet that is the reaction 100% of the time.
I could find three people no problem.
The result would be the same - especially if they were to read your conclusions then relate them to Micks facts.
The only way I could see you having a sniff of a chance is if you managed to find 3 conspiracy theorists who were yet to hear of yet another 'new' conspiracy theory...
Yeah...I don't get this argument...one thing has nothing to do with the other...
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Those people are fine. . . I just don't want people who have been indoctrinated by either side. . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You don't have to get it. . . .I know you won't . . . You are not who I concerned with. . . .
firepilot
Senior Member.
Doctrine, deals more with beliefs. While I could say that there is a set of faith like beliefs behind the chemtrails conspiracy, what debunks it all, is not doctrine of another side, but facts, science and history.
It is a very bad analogy to compare someone who not just does not believe in it, but actually had a command of facts to debunk it, as being indoctrinated. Its more like educated and knowledgable. And if i inform someone that contrails persist, that there are more jet aircraft flying, and that metal does actually come from the ground, thats not indoctrinating.
firepilot
Senior Member.
Because there is nothing to get. That is a nonsense analogy, that the existence of military secrets, is evidence of chemtrails.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes.. . When you add that fact along with several others, the picture begins to come into focus . . . . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Whatever you wish to call it is fine with me . . . I just want people who have not formed or expressed an opinion regarding CHEMTRAILs . . . simple
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Then you should win the debate without even breaking a sweat . . .
firepilot
Senior Member.
I do not win a debate. Its facts, knowledge, and information that wins.
What loses in a debate? Speculation, pretending, make-believe, "what if", junk science, and manipulating the facts to fit a conspiracy.
Its pretty obvious which side belongs to the chemtrail conspiracy.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Should I give up right now . . . And admit defeat . . . ?
firepilot
Senior Member.
No, what you should do is quit bitterly clinging to this silly faith belief in chemtrails, that blinds you to critical thinking. Start learning facts, devour information about the atmosphere and aviation. You seem much more interesting in speculating though, than learning.
Your lack of an argument doesn't have anything with your lack of concern for others.
THAT is ridiculous!!!
scombrid
Senior Member.
"The government keeps some secrets therefore my conspiracy theory is valid" seems to be quite common. It isn't uncommon to question a chemtrail vid or weather mod vid, or truther vid on Youtube and have replies come in which I am accused of "loving the government", "shilling for the government", and/or "believing that the government keeps no secrets". It doesn't follow that because I doubt a particular "theory(ies)" that I believe that there are no government secrets but the accusations fly just the same.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Thank you . . . I expected your reaction . . . no problem . . .
It would certainly save you time.
The thing is you bring a vast amount of evidence to the table, and you think that because the amount of evidence is vast, then that indicates something. You also have some personal intuition that tells you this is correct.
However, if you add together 100 things that are 1% relevant, then it does not add up to something that is 100% relevant. If anything, the multiplicity of weak facts should dilute your case - yet you take each thing as a brick, building your solid tower of evidence to noticeable heights.
But they are not bricks, not suited for building a case. They are, to be polite, handfuls of dust. You think you are building a tower of bricks and steel, but you are building it with dust.
You're welcome. I'm proud of my reaction...and stand by it.
- Status
Similar threads
