Chemtrails; what's up with this?
Tashi
Paul B. Anders
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SdnIuXipmA
You ask the question, "what's up with this?". I thought I'd help you
out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=106;t=000249;p=1
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html
http://supercell.org/thomas902.html
Brad Anders
Tashi
> On Nov 18, 8:27 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SdnIuXipmA
>
> You ask the question, "what's up with this?". I thought I'd help you
> out:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
>
>
> http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html
>
> http://supercell.org/thomas902.html
>
> Brad Anders
I'll return the favor.....
http://www.chycho.com/?q=chemtrails
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
This link is a good example of what I mean by a lack of critical
assessment. The title of the article is "Germany Becomes First Country
to Admit Clandestine Chemtrails Operations". To any reasonable reader,
such a title would imply that an official representative of the German
government has admitted to a government or military sponsored program
to create what are called "chemtrails". Yet, when you read the text of
the article, and read the closed captions of the referenced video,
what you find is that that nobody representing the German government
has admitted to any such action at all. Instead, you get the views of
a single meterologist, the complaint of a Green Party representative,
and the acknowledgement that military operations (but not deliberate
emissions of anything) took place near the border (BFD).
The report is also brimming with innuendo, unsupported data, and
leading descriptions such as "sinister clouds", "weather
manipulation", all unproven.
Anyone who has experience with the scientific presentation of data
would have serious problems with this report. If people who believe
that chemtrails are a real phenomena want to truly convince other
scientists and leaders that such activities are real and a threat,
they need to do a much better job of presenting their case. Perhaps
this has already occurred - do you have any references in peer-
reviewed journals in the discipline areas (e.g. atmospheric science)
that demonstrate the existence of "chemtrails" as being a distinct and
deliberately-created phenomena that differ from the normal contrails
of jet and piston-engine airplanes flying at altitude? For me, that's
convincing evidence, as opposed to inflammatory pseudo-news reports.
Brad Anders
Tashi
> On Nov 18, 11:03 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:36 am, "Paul B. Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 8:27 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SdnIuXipmA
>
> > > You ask the question, "what's up with this?". I thought I'd help you
> > > out:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
>
> > >http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=106...
>
> > >http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html
>
> > >http://supercell.org/thomas902.html
>
> > > Brad Anders
>
Brad, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand someone is
spraying something in our skies. I suggest you Google it. I couls
supply you with Air traffic controllers testimony about this, but
again with you, what is the point, your mind is made up. The
Government can do no wrong.
Brad Anders
> Brad, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand someone is
> spraying something in our skies. I suggest you Google it. I couls
> supply you with Air traffic controllers testimony about this, but
> again with you, what is the point, your mind is made up. The
> Government can do no wrong
So, if as you say, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist" to figure this
out, the why aren't there hundreds of publications by the "rocket
scientists" of atmospheric science, health scientists, radio
engineers, and other domains, validating the existence of chemtrails?
Don't answer, I'll do it for you - because there's a grand, multi-
governmental conspiracy to supress scientists from investigating
chemtrails and reporting on them. The same governements that can't
agree on the simplest accords, are labeled daily as being incompetent
(which they probably are), and can't hide anything effectively.
I'll let you in on a secret. It's really hard to shut scientists and
engineers up when the find something interesting, and believe me, if
chemtrails are all they're cranked up to be, they're pretty
interesting, and if they are a real phenomena that affect weather, RF
transmissions, global health, etc, you'd have scientists in these
domains trampling over each other to publish first on it.
So, I've got an alternate explanation, backed up by references in the
wikipedia article I cited to reviewed publications - scientists have
looked at this, and there's nothing there. All of the wacky patterns,
all of the so-called "evidence" of manipulation, etc., can all be
explained without the need to invoke the whole "chemtrail" saga.
Boring, huh? Sorry, just some more disappointment for you, I
apologize.
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
Brad what's your definition of scientist?
Brad Anders
> Brad what's your definition of scientist?
The first paragraph here has a good definition that I would agree
with, in the more restricted sense (re: scientific method):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
"Computer science" is listed, but I don't see how it follows the
strict definition. As a rule of thumb, anything with "science" in the
name isn't one.
William D Clinger
> "Computer science" is listed, but I don't see how it follows the
> strict definition. As a rule of thumb, anything with "science"
> in the name isn't one.
At a wedding reception some years ago, three guys were
just standing around talking when a fairly good-looking
woman walked up and joined the conversation. She was
single, and exhibited signs of curiosity concerning the
others' marital status. Repeating what she learned from
the first few seconds of conversation: "So you're all
brothers...and all of you are professors...you're the
computer scientist, you're the political scientist, and
you're the chemist..."
Interrupting her, the computer scientist admonished the
chemist: "Too bad you didn't become a scientist like
the rest of us."
Will
Richard Jernigan
The internet has revolutionized mass communication. Before the
internet, to reach an audience of millions you had to have a print
publishing facility, a TV or radio network. These entailed large
capital investments. The credibility of such operations was worth
billions of dollars. If the audience lost faith in the info presented,
you were in danger of bankruptcy and throwing thousands of people out
of work. Traditional media outlets still spend millions verifying the
info they receive..
I once sat in an airplane returning to Bangkok from Luang Prabang in
Laos with a free lance British journalist who had recently written an
article for the New York Times. He said just about every sentence in
the article had to be verified by more than one independent source
before the Times would print the article--and before the free lancer
got paid. His livelihood depended on being right.
Dan Rather notoriously lost his job pronto when he went for a fake
set of documents, supposedly about George W. Bush's service in the
Texas Air National Guard. It was easy to show the documents had been
produced on a computer word processor, when they were supposed to have
been written before such technology existed. CBS couldn't afford to
have their credibility compromised. They fired their star anchor man
in the blink of an eye.
But to get on the internet with your beliefs, all you need is a video
camera and a computer. These are within the reach of billions of
people. There are no significant consequences to being definitively
refuted. You can just keep on saying the same thing unless you're
libeling somebody and they get pissed off enough to sue you. Even
then, there is such a great proliferation of "information" on the
internet that libel is much less likely to be punished, or even
noticed, than in the era when mass media belonged only to a few big
organizations with huge financial stakes in being trusted.
Now anybody with a catchy idea, a video camera and a computer can
become a mass media star. It makes no difference whether what they say
is true or false. It just has to appeal to the hopes, fears, desires
or needs of millions of people.
The internet has partially fulfilled the dream of instant
accessibility to greatly expanded amounts of useful information. But
it has done it at the cost of hugely expanding the amount of bullshit
foisted on the public, like the claim that the Van Allen radiation
belts prevented traveling to the moon.
Just because it looks like the network news, which has serious
problems despite the money spent trying to get it right, doesn't mean
it isn't simply bullshit. Not that the perpetrators don't believe it--
but people believe huge amounts of bullshit all the time, with little
or no help from the internet.
RNJ
Tashi
That pretty much settles it I guess Richard. Nothing factual you
said, just a bunch of Bullshit but as you say this is the internet,
the place where even you use selective links to prove your
points...... LOL! You are always siting Clinger's Comedy show for
answers.
BTW, Goofle what Van Allen said about his discovery before he was
employed by NASA. Clinger thinks it's no different than living in
Albuq. NM, but NASA seems to consider this the Biggest problem to
interplanetary travel....... Hum.
William D Clinger
Tashi wrote:
> BTW, Goofle what Van Allen said about his discovery before he was
> employed by NASA. Clinger thinks it's no different than living in
> Albuq. NM, but NASA seems to consider this the Biggest problem to
> interplanetary travel....... Hum.
What Clinger actually pointed out is that the Apollo
13 astronauts' brief exposure to the Van Allen Belt
was comparable to several years of living in Albuquerque.
Interplanetary travel has a different and more serious
problem: not the Van Allen Belt but cosmic rays and
solar flares, with the duration of exposure measured
in years, not hours.
Will
Richard Jernigan
I thought we were going to forego the character assassination. Nothing
that I said in my previous post in this thread was addressed to any
person. It was my own comment on part of the internet revolution,
specifically noted as OT from the subject of "chemtrails".
If you dispute my contention that the absence of economic consequences
has enabled a flood of bullshit on the internet, please discuss it as
an adult.
RNJ
Tashi
> Providing an example in support of Richard Jernigan's essay,
>
> Tashi wrote:
> > BTW, Goofle what Van Allen said about his discovery before he was
> > employed by NASA. Clinger thinks it's no different than living in
> > Albuq. NM, but NASA seems to consider this the Biggest problem to
> > interplanetary travel....... Hum.
>
> What Clinger actually pointed out is that the Apollo
> 13 astronauts' brief exposure to the Van Allen Belt
> was comparable to several years of living in Albuquerque.
Clinger take off your tin-foil space suit and get real. How many
solar flares were recorded during the Apollo missions....... none?
Once you leave earth orbit it makes little difference if you are on
the Moon, or on Mars, when it comes to radiation.
> Interplanetary travel has a different and more serious
> problem: not the Van Allen Belt but cosmic rays and
> solar flares, with the duration of exposure measured
> in years, not hours.
Really? It's all about how long the exposure to radiation is, and
not the amount of radiation? You would have us think that once your
flying to Mars, duration of exposure is the only concern, and not the
intensity of solar flares, that there is just a constant level of
solar radiation emitted at all times? You are far more dopey than I
previously believed.
Tashi
Yes Sir sorry about that, but saying what you said is bullshit, is not
the same as saying you are full of bullshit. Character assassination
is not just limited to expletives.
So then, let me get this straight, "economic consequences" equates to
truth, and the lack of economic consequences equals to non-truth? So
in other words, we humans tell the truth only if there is a
consequence. The idea that we tell the truth only if money is
exchanged, would apply equally, to telling non-truth if money is
exchanged. The later being more the reality than the former in the
practical world.
Just look at politics for the answer Richard. Lobbyists offer
positive "economic consequences" to Congress, and other politicians
for their honest votes? Interesting take! I would argue the exact
opposite, the economic gain, job security, etc. for not telling the
truth is more the rule.
I would argue the internet is the best vehicle for finding the
truth. In your "attack the messenger" logic, the internet is the
messenger, and is evil and disingenuous, despite the content. Taking
away from the individual all cognitive thought process, and yield to
those in a place of authority?
We then have to ask does authority equal truth? Truth, and money,
make strange bed fellows.
Brad Anders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_space_travel#Radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Impact_on_space_travel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Ionizing_radiation_and_heat
See Van Allen's comment in the last reference, more detail here:
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining
assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the
Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one
example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
FWIW, while going to the moon has been proven to be feasible and
doesn't result in astronauts being exposed to a lethal dose of
radiation, it isn't clear at all if there is a workable solution for a
Mars mission. IMO, manned missions to Mars and beyond with current
technologies are unjustifiably dangerous and recklessly expensive, and
provide a fraction of what could be achieved with robot missions at
far less cost and near zero risk to people.
Brad Anders
Tashi
> Some reading on this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_space_travel#Radiation
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Ionizin...
>
> See Van Allen's comment in the last reference, more detail here:http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
>
> "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining
> assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the
> Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one
> example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
>
> FWIW, while going to the moon has been proven to be feasible and
> doesn't result in astronauts being exposed to a lethal dose of
> radiation, it isn't clear at all if there is a workable solution for a
> Mars mission. IMO, manned missions to Mars and beyond with current
> technologies are unjustifiably dangerous and recklessly expensive, and
> provide a fraction of what could be achieved with robot missions at
> far less cost and near zero risk to people.
>
> Brad Anders
I said before he worked for NASA.
Richard Yates
> IMO, manned missions to Mars and beyond with current
> technologies are unjustifiably dangerous and recklessly expensive, and
> provide a fraction of what could be achieved with robot missions at
> far less cost and near zero risk to people.
> Brad Anders
Almost completely correct. But don't overlook the risk of the robots
evolving and returning to get a piece of our action.
dofrenzy
> Almost completely correct. But don't overlook the risk of the robots
> evolving and returning to get a piece of our action.
Not to mention the Robot flu, R2PO
Brad Anders
> I said before he worked for NASA.
Any hope you could provide the pre-NASA quote link instead of calling
for another game of fetch-a-rock?
Brad Anders
Tashi
No it's out there on the world wide web. I'm not wasting my time
doing your homework today.
Brad Anders
Typical fetch-a-rock response, the "I'm not doing your homework" ploy.
You probably can't find it.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
OK, to keep our game of fetch-a-rock going, here's a page with a bunch
of Van Allen quotes:
http://www.todayinsci.com/V/VanAllen_James/VanAllenJames-Quotations.htm
Is it one of these? Or are they all too smooth, or too shiny, or too
round? Please let us know what's wrong with all of these, so that the
game can go on longer. Just like rocks, there are a lot of URL's out
there.
thanks,
Brad Anders
Tashi
Brad I'm not going to engage you on this. You can go back in the Moon
thread and read the links I provided, I'm not doing this all over
again. You obviously believe it's no problem to wrap yourself in
aluminum foil and travel to the moon, so good for you! Dream
on........
Brad Anders
This is another typical 'fetch-a-rock" response. All that is simply
needed here is for Tashi to click through, identify the reference, and
respond along the lines of, "the second one" or "the third one", or if
it isn't there, direct me to the right one. Instead, we get the "I've
already told you, go fetch the rock from that other thread" response
("this thread?" "No! That's the wrong one!" etc, etc.). FWIW, if
there's a quote out there from Van Allen where prior to his working
with NASA (which dates to 1959) where he states that manned spacecraft
travel through the radiation belts (discovered in 1958) would be fatal
or nearly lethal to astronauts, and that any form of shielding,
including what was used in the Apollo missions wouldn't work, I'd like
to see it. Maybe someone else could direct me to the reference.
In another thread, I believe it was Tashi who criticized me for "not
arguing the evidence". He's right, I didn't. Why? Because when dealing
with conspiracy theory adherents, "arguing the evidence" is always an
endless game of fetch-a-rock. They state a "fact" or some piece of
"evidence", and you refute it with a solid, verifiable reference that
is accepted by experts and backed with facts. It usually goes one of
two ways at that point. They come up with some reason your reference
isn't valid (e.g. generated by the conspirators, "common sense tells
you otherwise", blah, blah, blah), or they simply move to the next
rock.
I thought I'd try here to have a discussion on the facts just to see
if it was possible, and as I expected, it wasn't. So, I'll leave it at
that.
thanks,
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
> Clinger take off your tin-foil space suit and get real. How many
> solar flares were recorded during the Apollo missions....... none?
Here's the data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikes/moon/flare.htm
As the guy says, the quote from the report is instructive:
"As can be seen in the figure, it is only fortuitous that no
significant SPEs occurred during the lunar missions."
(SPE: Solar Proton Events, a.k.a. solar flares)
Of course, this data is from NASA, so by the rules of the game of
"Conspiracy Theory Fetch-a-Rock, it's of no value because they're
inside the conspiracy. On to the next rock.
Brad Anders
Alain Reiher
"Brad Anders" <pban...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad96fd1c-d664-4ff6...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Here's the data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikes/moon/flare.htm
Brad Anders
==========================
I like your approach to deconstruct the conspirationists loyalists ... I
know for sure that they cannot be defeated once and for all ... it's like
weeds in a garden ... you cannot relax on them ... this constant attention
is what makes them strong, and ... there's a craving for the attention ...
they know that ... and their victory is obtained through erosion ...
Alain
Tashi
> "Brad Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Allen did you call me a weed?
Tashi
He also said: "A word of caution before reading this: I am no
particle physicist, nor statistician. Do not use this as an
authoritative source."
Richard Jernigan
> So then, let me get this straight, "economic consequences" equates to
> truth, and the lack of economic consequences equals to non-truth? So
> in other words, we humans tell the truth only if there is a
> consequence.
That's not what I said. I said economic consequences deter the owners
of large investments in media outlets from appearing untrustworthy,
but there are essentially no economic consequences for being
untrustworthy on the internet.
Lack of economic consequences does not equate to untruth. Most people
tell the truth most of the time because they don't want to be seen as
liars. I would add that what is a white lie in one culture may be seen
as a serious offense in another.
Many people passionately believe things that are factually untrue.
There is nothing to restrain them from broadcasting these beliefs on
the internet. Dan Rather passionately believed in the Bush Air Guard
hoax, but he was fired for being wrong. CBS couldn't afford to be that
wrong.
>The idea that we tell the truth only if money is
> exchanged,
...is not what I said at all. You made this up from whole cloth. Most
people intend to tell the truth most of the time. But they can still
be wrong.
>would apply equally, to telling non-truth if money is
> exchanged. The later being more the reality than the former in the
> practical world.
>
> Just look at politics for the answer Richard. Lobbyists offer
> positive "economic consequences" to Congress, and other politicians
> for their honest votes? Interesting take! I would argue the exact
> opposite, the economic gain, job security, etc. for not telling the
> truth is more the rule.
>
Your opinion. Perhaps I have led a sheltered life. In science and
engineering, if you don't tell the truth you are almost certain to be
found out. The consequences are loss of promotion, loss of reputation,
loss of job.
The same is true in my daughter's profession as lawyer. You present
your client's case in the best light. You try to counter or ignore
facts that speak against your client. But lying will get you
disbarred.
In journalism making factual errors will get you edited or get your
stuff retracted. I f you persist, you will get fired. Making stuff up
will get you fired.
Of course politicians habitually shade the truth, to say the least.
Lyndon Johnson's uncle Huffman Baines and his wife were friends of my
parents. I was at Sunday dinner when Mr. Baines said, "When Lyndon ran
on his own for President, there was a group of us from Texas who went
up to Washington to try to talk him out of it."
"Why was that, Mr. Baines?" my mother asked.
"He lied too much."
Judge John Onion said, "But Mr. Baines, isn't a politician practically
obliged to color the truth from time to time?"
"Well, I suppose most people think so. But Lyndon lied because he
enjoyed it."
> I would argue the internet is the best vehicle for finding the
> truth. In your "attack the messenger" logic, the internet is the
> messenger, and is evil and disingenuous, despite the content. Taking
> away from the individual all cognitive thought process, and yield to
> those in a place of authority?
You're making up stuff again. I never said the perpetrators of
bullshit on the internet were evil or disingenuous. I specifically
said they might believe what they were putting out. I said that
despite the serious problems the mass media had in getting things
right, there was more bullshit on the internet.
Let me expand a little. The mass media suffer from serious bias and
errors of fact and emphasis. Serious big errors of fact tend to get
corrected. Small errors of fact and errors of bias and emphasis
persist.
On the internet there is a much greater incidence of simple falsehood,
which never gets corrected. The perpetrators of these falsehoods may
be fine, upright sincere citizens with the welfare of humanity at
heart. Even so, they are wrong. So using the internet as a source of
information results in having to wade through not only errors of bias
and emphasis, which all of us suffer from, but also from more plain
old bullshit.
>
> We then have to ask does authority equal truth?
This is the only discussion I can recall where you have not appealed
to authority. I don't mean political authority. I mean supposed
experts in the field under discussion.
>Truth, and money,
> make strange bed fellows.
This is often the case.
RNJ
Alain Reiher
"Tashi" <dewach...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a2980b4-63a6-4936...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You paranoid man! I called you a consirationist loyalist!
Alain
Tashi
Here ya go Space Cowboy........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
William D Clinger
> He also said: "A word of caution before reading this: I am no
> particle physicist, nor statistician. Do not use this as an
> authoritative source."
You won't see anything like that on Richard Hoagland's
web site.
If you're Tashi, you won't see anything like that on
Michael Cremo's web site either, even after someone has
directed you to the obscure paper in which Cremo admits
he is neither archeologist nor scholar, but is a Vedic
creationist [1].
Will
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't use the page author's conclusions as an "authoratative
source", you oblivious, obsfcating, obtuse, obelisk of confusion. The
data in question is in the chart is from NASA, that and his obvious
comment are all I cited, not his statistcal analysis, that's he's
talking about. So your attempt to ignore the fact that the data shows
there were no solar flares during any of the Apollo missions is hearby
negated. Pffft.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
You, know, you're really quite confused, aren't you? Let me try to
help you out, you seem unable to keep it all straight.
1. You've been claiming that one of the reasons the Apollo missions
were a hoax is radiation exposure. The most significant source in
question is from solar flares.
2. Nobody has argued that radiation isn't a problem, or that it a
significant flare could have killed an astronaut in the Apollo program
3. Nobody has argued that NASA wasn't stupid and reckless for sending
people to the Moon with inadequately shielded spacecraft. You may
remember that the Cold War was raging and Russian domination of space
and the moon were major concerns to the US government, hence the
justification for the risks.
4. The fact is that NASA was very, very lucky and no major solar
flares ever happened during the Apollo missions. I even posted the
NASA data in answer to your question.
Van Allen said that manned spaceflight was stupid in general, and
manned missions to the Moon and other planets using existing
technology are extremely risky. I agree, and I think plenty of other
people here, if not all, agree. But it happened anyway in the Apollo
program, and a bunch of crackpots and nuts who don't think it happened
are simply wrong. While shielding on the proposed spacecraft for
upcoming lunar and Mars missions is better than the Apollo shielding
(or lack thereof), it's still not enough to provide complete
protection, and in the case of Mars missions, it's nowhere near what's
required.
And any time you'd like to take it up with any of the Apollo
astronauts still around, be my guest. You won't be the first. I'd stay
away from Buzz, though.
Brad Anders
Tashi
Brad I'm noticing an onslaught of insults, so early in our
relationship. Par for the course, you loser.
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
Think of them as playful jabs to keep you in the game.
Brad Anders
Andrew Schulman
> ...you oblivious, obsfcating, obtuse, obelisk of confusion.
>
>
Are you related to Spiro Agnew by any chance?
Andrew
John LaCroix
> On Nov 19, 11:18 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:> ...you oblivious, obsfcating, obtuse, obelisk of confusion.
>
That is a good one, really good :^)
Tashi
> > On Nov 19, 11:18 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:> ...you oblivious, obsfcating, obtuse, obelisk of confusion.
>
> That is a good one, really good :^)
I knew your juveniliaistical sense of humor would like that.
John LaCroix
How's that small penis working for you these days?
Tashi
Further example of Juvenile behavior! Thanks for making my point John.
John LaCroix
No thanks are necessary. It's not often than you get the chance to
make a 'point' without posting links and blathering on and on. Glad to
help!
Tashi
Okey Dokey John.
Tashi
1) Why do archeologsts get paranoid, agressive when there is a mention
of a culture or civilization that is more then 10.000 years old. What
happend in this period of time that they had to be "programmed" by the
TPTB administred school brainwashing.
2) Why doctor Zari Hawass the director of Giza Plateu excavation zone
gets on the absolute agressive stand when there is ever a mention of
rainfall erosion on the Sfinx (last great rainfalls:11000 - 10000 bc -
end of the last iceage) or that that the Sfinx represents the lion
symbol of the age of Lion (12.000 -9500 bc).
3) Why Archeologists go into absolute silence when someone says
anything about the Serbian 3-side piramid near Sarajevo - Bosnia built
10.000 bc built out of a better material than modern concrete (super
concrete), or cities submerged into the sea on the coast of India,
Pakistan, Cuba, Japan, south Anatolia(Turkey- ancestors of the Minoan
culture) which flourished before the sea level rose after , you guess
it, the end of the last ice age.
4)Why is there absolute silence in the MSM about radioactive debris
found in old antique by "fire" destroyed cities in Pakistan and India
(near new delhi they were building a new residential area, when
workers became sick. They learned there are ruins of an old city
there, where human skeletons[thousands] werent in the middle of it but
on the outskirts of it, facing not the center. Even now archelogists
have a permision only for an half an hour to dig there out of health
dangers). No crater found, therefor no meteorite impact.
+ Nuclear green "New Mexico-Nevada" like glass found there (+ same
glass found on the Sinai penisula, Lybian desert, Mongolian Wastelands
near the chinese borders ... "I don´t think i am right with Sinai
thing, sorry.")
+ The nearest nuclear facility is hundrerds of miles away.
Tashi
> On Nov 18, 8:27 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SdnIuXipmA
>
> You ask the question, "what's up with this?". I thought I'd help you
> out:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
>
> http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=106...
>
> http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html
>
> http://supercell.org/thomas902.html
>
> Brad Anders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okv2VEUnkE0&feature=player_embedded
Wollybird
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tashi
> On Nov 21, 8:57 pm, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:36 am, "Paul B. Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 8:27 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SdnIuXipmA
>
> > > You ask the question, "what's up with this?". I thought I'd help you
> > > out:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
>
> > >http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=106...
>
> > >http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html
>
> > >http://supercell.org/thomas902.html
>
> > > Brad Anders
>
The court jester, can you tap dance too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6OYGEoWKYk
William D Clinger
sources of disinformation asked:
> 1) Why do archeologsts get paranoid, agressive when there is a mention
> of a culture or civilization that is more then 10.000 years old.
I wouldn't say they get paranoid, I would say they get
incredulous because they have people with little to
no education making assumptions about things they spend
their lives studying. If an archeologist made an
assumption on how to best treat cancer, I would HOPE
that an MD would get alittle aggressivly incredulous
about such an uneducated opinion.
-- HankMcCoy
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread520871/pg3
You really need to work on your Googling skills, Tashi.
You could have found that answer as easily as I did.
Will
Wollybird
> On Nov 22, 6:19 am, Wollybird <wollyb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:57 pm, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 9:36 am, "Paul B. Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 8:27 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SdnIuXipmA
>
> > > > You ask the question, "what's up with this?". I thought I'd help you
> > > > out:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
>
> > > >http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=106...
>
> > > >http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html
>
> > > >http://supercell.org/thomas902.html
>
> > > > Brad Anders
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have to admit, even by your standards, that was an unusually dim
witted link you posted ( and that takes some doing).
Tashi
Yes, and it was also taught the world was flat, and the sun
revolved around the earth.
Tashi
> On Nov 22, 9:00 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 6:19 am, Wollybird <wollyb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 8:57 pm, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 9:36 am, "Paul B. Anders" <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 18, 8:27 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SdnIuXipmA
>
> > > > > You ask the question, "what's up with this?". I thought I'd help you
> > > > > out:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
>
> > > > >http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=106...
>
> > > > >http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/linesinsky.html
>
> > > > >http://supercell.org/thomas902.html
>
> > > > > Brad Anders
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You have to admit, even by your standards, that was an unusually dim
> witted link you posted ( and that takes some doing).
I'm honored both you and Clinger took time out of your day to
investigate!