International Chemtrail Symposium May 29 2010

reply to post by Chadwickus


Go get a copy then. Why are you talking to the author about it.

Why don't you go read it for yourself. Your all talk. I went through the
steps to obtain the document. You just emailed the author. Give me a break.

reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned

If you want to pass around a link I got one here.

USAF Chemtrails, chemistry 131 manual, fall 1990 & 1991

Would love to get a hold of the entire document, though.

reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned

How about a copy of the response. Did you supply the doc #?

Someone else might want to post this because Dumb & Dumber have me on ignore!




[edit on 31-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by sandwiches
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned

Would love to get a hold of the entire document, though.

Well sandwich.....

Order it!

Edit to add:

Doh!! I forgot again!! Dumb & Dumber have me on ignore!!



[edit on 31-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by sandwiches


You see how "acid rain laboratory" on page two is underlined? I did that, personally. That is just a copy of a picture I posted on another forum.

Don't buy the microfiche, you won't get it. I am the only one, outside of depository libraries, that has it.

And I have found, that even if the library says they have it, they may not. I had to get this copy through an inter library loan.

To my surprise, they just gave me the microfiche. I'm sure many people would love to see this document go bye bye.



[edit on 31-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned


How about a copy of the response. Did you supply the doc #?

The people I mailed with told me that they have gotten similiar requests like mine in the previous years; therefore they would not respond any further since that would only seem to reinforce the notion that they have something to do with chemtrails.
They have denied and contextualized that the chemtrail textbook has anything to do with chemtrails in the sense that you are implying. They said that they have previously commented to that effect and from that point on they simply followed a policy of pointing to that explanation, I think there is a link to that on pg 2 or so.

They didn't need any doc numbers, as I linked them to the thread and they clearly knew what it was about - this is not the first time someone contacted them about it.

At this point they simply realize that whatever they say or do there will always be people to making stuff up about them. There's no way to fight it; fightin it is contraproductive most of the times.

That's the reason I'm not quoting verbatim; they did not want to give another statement since they have no urge to give one everytime this comes up.
The same goes for the authors name (it isn't Bird) - I guess the guy is happy that he isn't bombarded with accusing nonsense 24/7 and I have no intention of changing that.

----> Please just post the "acid rain" part of your docs or any part that deals with "chemtrails" in the sense that you are implying. I'd rather debate the data than bulverize about your motives.



[edit on 31-5-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned


To my surprise, they just gave me the microfiche. I'm sure many people would love to see this document go bye bye.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]

Actually you can order the microfiche online, besides, there are still physical copies available, if you'd care for them. Why don't you post the interesting parts now and then I can decide if possessing them is worthwhile? Up to now I have no reason to be interested in the textbook - I have my own, although it's not called chemtrails - the science is the same.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned


How about a copy of the response. Did you supply the doc #?

The people I mailed with told me that they have gotten similiar requests like mine in the previous years; therefore they would not respond any further since that would only seem to reinforce the notion that they have something to do with chemtrails.

In other words, you were bluffing. My, your concern for protecting the masses from us horrible Chemtrailers is admirable.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Show me where you can read the entire document on line. You have basically lost all credibility.

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned


In other words, you were bluffing. My, your concern for protecting the masses from us horrible Chemtrailers is admirable.

Now... I wouldn't go making accusations about bluffing in your position. Since you're the ultimate bluffer on this thread.

THere is already a link to their previous response in this thread. I don't see how it is unusual fo them to reference that response when they get asked the same question over and over again.

You see, when I mailed them, I was under the impression that you actually found something interesting and new. That's why I mailed them. I was quite dissappointed to find out that their original comments about the textbook were made back in 2006. Seems your just diggin up old, debunked stuff.

Anyway. Enough with the side-discussion. Please post the relevant pics, I'll be happy to comment on them.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

Show me where you can read the entire document on line. You have basically lost all credibility.

LOL. And you have lost all reading skills?

I said you can order a copy of the microfiche online - as you can obtain a physical copy still.

Show me that it's worth possessing and I'll order it.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin


You see, when I mailed them, I was under the impression that you actually found something interesting and new.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

I can just see it now.

"Can this guy bury us with this document?"

"I don't know, presented right, it could be ugly. Better get back to the forum and try to discredit him and the document."

OK, thanks. I'll submit a payment chit"

NK, like I said, I'll post it when I get good and ready, and not until then.

Just wanted the Chemtrailers to know that their efforts are not in vain.

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned


Just wanted the Chemtrailers to know that their efforts are not in vain.

That's fine. As long as you stay on the position that you have offered nothing in this thread that even pertains to chemtrails in the ordinary sense, I have no beef with you.

I can't wait to see your post though, since from what I learned I simply fail to see how it has anything to do with chemtrails in the way you believe in them.

do post though.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned


Just wanted the Chemtrailers to know that their efforts are not in vain.

That's fine. As long as you stay on the position that you have offered nothing in this thread that even pertains to chemtrails in the ordinary sense, I have no beef with you.

Why would you have a beef with me. I simply showed some pictures of a document that I obtained through a government depository library. It is titled, Chemtrails. Subtitled Chemistry 131 Manual Fall 1990

and is a lab workbook for a course at the United States Air Force Base. Get it, AIR FORCE. This is not a NAVY manual, not an ARMY manual. This is the AIR FORCE.

I didn't post a google link. I went out and got the document, after a considerable amount of effort.

Most people wouldn't get so defensive, unless they have something to hide.



[edit on 31-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned

The NASA contrail science relies on a chart called the Appleman chart. The Appleman chart, made by Herbert Appleman, to test when seeded contrails would form for weather modification.

No, the Appleman chart was created in 1953, before weather modification was thought of. It was used to forecast for the likelihood of contrails. It has nothing to do with weather modification. It was important to military because it would give surveillance aircraft and fighter jets position away to the enemy, and multiple contrails would obscure targets for bombers

Any FYI, weather modification, such as cloud seeding is done at much lower altitudes where rain clouds occur.

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 31/5/2010 by OzWeatherman]

Hmmm, interesting. So we know that the word chemtrails has previously been used in a totally innoculous context - as a title for a basic science course, to make it sound more interesting.

I wonder if the equivalent astronomy course is called startrails?

If they wrote a course on criminology they could call it contrails

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Another shill goes on the ignore list. You have nothing to offer to the conversation. Buh Bye

Wait a sec?

Are you just ignoring everyone who disagrees with you?

Show us this mind blowing evidence already

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned


and is a lab workbook for a course at the United States Air Force Base. Get it, AIR FORCE. This is not a NAVY manual, not an ARMY manual. This is the AIR FORCE.

Please stop lying. It's not. It is a chemistry text book that is used at the USAFA, not the Air Force per se. It was authored by a member of the USAGA chemistry faculty, not by some active USAF offcial that has anything to do with chemtrails.
The USAFA is, as far as the schooling goes, a normal school like any other. They teach chemistry like any other, so they have a chemistry textbook like any other. The textbook may be specifically tailored for USAFA cadets, meaning that atmospheric chemistry is overrepresentated when compared to normal chemistry text books.

I didn't post a google link. I went out and got the document, after a considerable amount of effort.

Most people wouldn't get so defensive, unless they have something to hide.

Most people, like me, get defensive when someone claims to be in posession of something that is evidence of "chemtrails" when it is clearly not.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman


Are you just ignoring everyone who disagrees with you?

Show us this mind blowing evidence already

It seems I'm the only "disinfo shill" that he hasn't put on irgnore by now. I wonder if I can keep of his list until he posts his "smoking gun"

(BTW, there is no smoking gun. The people I've mailed who used the textbook at the USAFA categorically state that it has nothing to do with chemtrails in the sense that he is implying. They do remember working on "acid rain" nomenclatura and such, though.)