It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature [Archive] - Page 24

Boomer Chick

02-02-2005, 08:04 PM

Congrats, you made it to the end!

::: "Full, Global Shield" :::

This project is more particularly described in the Joint Services Program Plans and Activities , February 1990, issued by the Navy and Air Force. It becomes clear that the military has no intention of looking at the Northern lights as the aurora is call in Alaska. This project is intended for one purpose, and one purpose only: to learn how to manipulate the ionosphere in a manner exceeding the capabilities of similar facilities operating in the Soviet Union. This facility will be the largest of its type in the world and will be located in a latitude most conducive to the practice of the invention developed by Eastlund.

The bill went to the Senate House Defense Appropriations Conference Committee, which then waived both the Competition in Contracting Act and a 1988 law requesting merit review of defense grants to Universities. The initial project costs are between $25 and $30 million U.S. and it appears that those informing the Alaskan Senator about this project may have not given him clear and complete information. Full funding of the second phase of the project has varied from $90 to $150 million. The result was that the project got a reputation as a 'pork' project and was declared by the press a waste of money. The Senator was mislead by information distorted perhaps by those seeking his help in funding the work. Nonetheless, the project got the money needed to make it a reality.

In the May/June 1994 issue of Micro Wave News, Eastlund describes 'a full, global shield' of accelerated electrons created with RF transmitters. The HAARP project 'obviously looks a lot like a first step towards this', Eastlund said. He noted, however, that the applications he has described would require a significantly more powerful device with a much larger antenna - perhaps 20 square kilometers - than the full scale HAARP IRI.

The impact of RF on human physiology is well known to the Air Force and has been described in publications dating back to 1986. The use of RF in 'non-lethal' weapons systems is become increasingly a part of the military's public disclosures. It is clear to this researcher that the use of electromagnetic systems for high impact, low cost, low intensity military or police actions is the direction our government is heading. The research indicates that HAARP will provide additional information to military planners in terms of delivery systems which, in fact, will facilitate the full implement- ation of new Star Wars technologies. These technologies will raise new questions of ethics in terms of deciding what are appropriate weapon systems for use in our modern world.

Dr. Eastlund, after reviewing the HAARP proposal issued by the military, concluded, "...review of the HAARP RFP has convinced me that the planned antenna could be considered a first step towards the antenna described in the patents." He stated further, "The beneficial civilian uses of the antenna are as interesting as the military applications. For example, I am working on the use of the antenna for replenishment of ozone in the ozone holes over the Arctic and Antarctic."

Could it be that the systems already operating in the former USSR could in fact be contributing to the ozone depletion in the Southern hemisphere? Could this be one of the 'secret' weapons systems referenced by soviet radicals in recent international media reports?

"Angels Don't Play this HAARP" and related text (c) 1995 by Nicholas J. Begich and Jeane Manning

________________________

Of course we know now that Poker Flats in Alaska sports the latest HAARP array system .

Review of book that debunks HAARP as Tesla's progeny project:

http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/teslahaa.htm

__________________________

More on HAARP science from Begich:

http://www.earthpulse.com/

What are "nonlinear" processes? This relates to the idea of a small input of additional energy creating a disproportionally larger output of energy. A research scientist, Al Zielinski, recently sent us the following example of nonlinear effects:

Experiment #1
Imagine we had an unlimited amount of dominoes and we lined them up from here to, let's say, Paris. Then we could tip the first domino with 10 grams; it will fall down and cause the second domino to tumble, too, etc. The first action of 10 grams will cause all the dominoes to tumble including the last domino in Paris.

From this experiment we should understand that it is not the 10 gram action that causes all the dominoes to tumble, but the 10 gram action just creates an imbalance of the first domino. It is the gravity, however, that causes the dominoes to fall. In other words: only a 10 gram action is required to trigger a gravitational activity of all our dominoes from here to Paris.

Experiment #2
Imagine we had an unlimited amount of special dominoes of which only the first one we line up here is of normal size, and all the subsequent dominoes we line up again from here to Paris are of continuously increased size. By the time we reached Paris, the last domino block would be 1000 meters high and weigh millions of tons. Again we tip the first domino here with 10 grams, which will fall down causing all the subsequent dominoes to tumble. By the time the gravitational action reaches Paris, the last domino in Paris will smash the Eiffel Tower.

From this experiment we should understand that it is not the 10 gram action here that will smash the Eiffel Tower in Paris, but it is the gravitational energy that is picked up on the way to Paris that smashes the Eiffel Tower.

In other words: only a 10 gram action is required to trigger a non-linear gravitational activity which will cause the destruction of the Eiffel Tower.

With the above examples in mind imagine the nonlinear effects of 1 billion watts of effective radiated power being directed at the ionosphere by the HAARP transmitter. This is the first phase capability of the project. The second phase will increase the effective radiated power levels even further -- to 4.7 billion watts! In our book we point out that energy in certain frequencies when reaching the outermost portions of the ionosphere can be amplified up to 1000 times by natural processes. This phenomena has been recorded by scientists at UCLA who have observed the results of these power amplifications at a fraction of the power level which HAARP will transfer to this region. This is extremely important in considering what may occur with this level of energy. A serious environmental disaster may well be the result.

halva

02-02-2005, 08:11 PM

Boomer Chick

02-02-2005, 08:15 PM

Nick Begich on HAARP's capabilities:

http://www.earthpulse.com

Plasma is a term for an electrically conductive state of matter generated from a gas. It can be created by action of extreme heat, powerful electromagnetic fields and by high levels of focused radio frequency energy such as the energy created with the HAARP instrument. 21st Century magazine suggests that, "The term plasmoid refers to the fact that under certain conditions a plasma can develop a self-contained, self-stabilizing structure based on the magnetic and other effects of internal configurations of electric currents within the plasma." This particular concept is important when referring to the concept of "painting the ionosphere" which was described by the military in the HAARP documents. This is in fact what the military will do with HAARP for certain applications. These plasmas are much different than those described in fusion research in that they involve very low electron energies. What is known is that although they are "cool" by comparison to fusion plasmas they are remarkably long lived and strong when generated in certain gases. Those specific gases include nitrogen and oxygen, the major components of the earth's atmosphere!

So what does all of this translate into? According to the article it is suggested that this technology can be used for modifying the ionosphere over very large areas for "over-the-horizons" telecommunications disruption, creating computer errors and perhaps even creating negative biological effects. What is known from other government documents, HAARP planning documents and International Red Cross documents is that all of this is possible with these new systems. What is also known now is that a single complex system can combine radar tracking with a speed-of-light means of destruction - the plasmoid. This is but one application of HAARP. The writers of the 21st Century article were not acquainted with the patents regarding HAARP or they would have recognized that the United States military was not interested in the Russian overture of cooperation because we already possessed the means to produce these effects. What also rings throughout the article brings us back to where we began our research into the HAARP system two years ago - to the ideas of Nikola Tesla.

___________

Interesting unified theory of physics supporting Bearden by Dr. Myron Evans ... AIAS theory:

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/062503.htm

jayreynolds

02-02-2005, 08:29 PM

[SIZE=3]Jay, you are free to e-mail Scott Stevens or invite him yourself. I e-mailed him with some questions. Will post if and when I receive them. .

[b]I sent Stevens an e-mail yesterday. He has made no response.
he isn't prepared to answer hardball questions.

Boomer Chick

02-02-2005, 08:42 PM

Laurel,

Before the last American presidential "elections" you were putting a lot, if not most, of your political energy, into campaigning "for Kerry". We had not exactly an argument, but an exchange of different viewpoints, on this. How do you feel now about the time and effort you put in there, and what will you do when the time comes for another election show?

This is from the viewpoint of discussing what we are to do with the information you are providing us with.

I feel good about participating in our local and national elections. Extremely good. Halva, I don't recall any kind of disagreement about Kerry. I feel generally, that working to further truth, about covert projects, whether it's 911 or DOD related projects NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT..... is worthy.

My aim and purpose is to further general public awareness by participating on public boards, and to bring about increased awareness of meteorologists.

Generally, the overall education of a populace, especially ours, goes further to change the order of things than trying to influence politicians. Joining supportive groups, which I have, is also part of my personal work on 911 and other questionable projects. Writing to politicians, visiting them and talking to them is also a credible way to bring our representatives into various awareness levels, however, it's the least influential in many ways, but I participate. And as you know, Kucinich, one of our Congressmen, brought up a bill to the floor of Congress that addressed weapons programs that affected our atmosphere, but the part he added, was deleted.

Your question is out of time and out of order IMHO. Our election was stolen, may I remind you, and because I say this, it does not diminish my quest for truth in any area. I do not wish to get into a debate or discussion about this because it's off topic. I have my views and they resonate with many.

Our country and our system of government is vast and unwieldy. The country of Greece is smaller than many of our states, both population wise and geographically.

Many events will unfold before the next election. I have not decided what I will do for the next election although I'm pleased that the Democrats are organizing already and choosing their DNC leader. Kerry was always supportive of environmental legislation.

So what's your problem? May I help you further? If I may be of service, let me know.

NO COMMENT OR DEBATE ON WHAT I'M SAYING TO HALVA, PLEASE. Halva, next time, please e-mail me privately on an off topic question such as yours. Thank you. ;)

halva

02-02-2005, 08:44 PM

GLOBAL DIMMING

An article in the Guardian on 18 December has created some interest, as many readers concluded it seems to have thrown the whole topic of global warming into confusion. As an indication of the article’s impact, the number of references to global dimming on Google went from 21 to 6000+ in the week after it appeared, though there have been no references in newspapers or magazines that I can find, before or since.

It publicised the fact—known since the late 1980s but supposedly ignored or disbelieved until recently—that over the past fifty years the average amount of sunlight reaching the ground (the name for which is insolation) has gone down by about 3% a decade. It doesn’t mean the sun is sending out less radiation, but that less of it is reaching the Earth’s surface because of pollution in the atmosphere. This effect seems to have been named global dimming in an article in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology in 2001.

There’s no conflict with observed global warming, whose likely severe impact on the world’s plant and animal species a report in this week’s Nature makes clear. The sun’s heat is still being absorbed, but at a higher level in the atmosphere, probably on particles of soot and the like. The Guardian article argues that the adverse impact on agriculture could be substantial, since even a 1% reduction on sunlight is enough to affect the ripening of some crops.

Boomer Chick

02-02-2005, 08:51 PM

[b]I sent Stevens an e-mail yesterday. He has made no response.
he isn't prepared to answer hardball questions.

Glad you did that, Jay. I would imagine since Stevens recently appeared on two radio shows that his inbox is flooded. I do believe he said his site received over 3 million hits, so I would imagine thousands of e-mails.

Have you thought of calling in live with questions when people such as Begich, Stevens, Carnicom, Thomas et al are interviewed on radio programs? I've never done it myself, but I'm getting to that point.

:?:

halva

02-02-2005, 08:56 PM

Our election was stolen, may I remind you, and because I say this, it does not diminish my quest for truth in any area. I do not wish to get into a debate or discussion about this because it's off topic. I have my views and they resonate with many.

Many events will unfold before the next election. I have not decided what I will do for the next election although I'm pleased that the Democrats are organizing already and choosing their DNC leader. Kerry was always supportive of environmental legislation.

It was the aspect of the election being stolen that I wanted to focus on.

Investing time, energy and money in campaigning for somebody who firstly has policies that are very little different from the policies of the party you are voting against, and secondly who when he wins the election claims that he has lost it, must be demotivating.

The election process has been privatised now in the United States (a process which as always is in progress elsewhere also). Information on election results is no longer underwritten by any reliable public authority.

I don't think that this subject is more off-topic than much of what the debunkers post here.

If their comments start to irritate you, ignore-list them.

jayreynolds

02-02-2005, 09:21 PM

Have you thought of calling in live with questions when people such as Begich, Stevens, Carnicom, Thomas et al are interviewed on radio programs? I've never done it myself, but I'm getting to that point.

Carnicom won't dare debate me. I have astanding challenge going back five years. With a cooperative host, James Whale, I ambushed William Thomas on a British radio show in 1999, tore his ass up. I want Stevens in print, on the permanent record.

You posted about Begich. He's quite a liar.
For Instance:
" JS: Can you tell me a little bit about your background?
NB: I was born and raised in Alaska. I was a Senator and President of the Confederation of Teachers for two terms, and President of the Council of Education for two terms. I have a doctorate in traditional medicine."
(be sure to check the picture)
http://www.geocities.com/jilaens/haarp.html

Begich is son of a Congressman, but has never been a Senator.

His degree is from an Indian Diploma mill, on sale @ $750.00
http://www.altmeduniversity.com/courses/bpg.html
===========================================
DON'T TRY TO PULL THE WOOL OVER MY EYES, BOOMERCHICK.
I'M NOT SOME CHEMMIE SHEOPLE JUMPIN HOT FOR THE LATEST BANDWAGON.

halva

02-02-2005, 09:39 PM

By the way Laurel, I would like to emphasise that I am not starting this discussion in a spirit of cynicism. The point is to get us talking about our problems, not the problems of the debunkers.

If they want to talk about their problems they can go elsewhere.

If we can’t get them to go elsewhere we can ignore-list them.

I am in favour of supporting every initiative taken by American citizens that moves us in the right direction. That includes initiatives taken by people who are trying to get Democrats elected at the local, state and federal level.

At the pro-Kyoto demonstrations to be held on 12th February, some of the placards we will be holding here in Athens (apart from those addressed to the Greek government) will be saying: 9 American states support Kyoto. Why not the rest?

This is consonant with the strategy being pursued by American groups such as
http://www.kyotousa.org/index.php
and
http://www.iclei.org/us/ccp/

But we should also be talking about the question of where it is most useful to invest time and energy. That discussion can be going on in parallel with positive collaborative activity.

Boomer Chick

02-02-2005, 09:44 PM

Dear Mr. Reynolds,

May I ask you what motivates you? You seemed consumed with this issue. Is it so hard to imagine or accept that perhaps secret operations do go on in our very skies? What state do you live in? How old are you? Have you ever worked in the military? I ask these questions because I don't know you. I've heard about you and read some of your old stuff, but I truly don't know your history and why you feel the way you do.

Could you elaborate on your driving zeal in all of this? What, do you feel, could be the reason why some people suspect military weather modification combined with HAARP and other technologies? Are they all just making money off of ignorant people? Are they questioning authority and pushing the limits of wanting to find out the secret ops that might indeed affect us all? What about those of us who are curious and want to know what is going on?

I realize you want to debate with those who hold strong views in order to get everything down in writing. I acknowledge this. But why the extreme emotion?

If you are serious, you'll take the time to explain yourself.

Thanks,

Sincerely,

BC

halva

02-02-2005, 10:07 PM

Laurel,

Thank you for giving me some idea through your posting what Raynolds is talking to you about.

If you find you are not getting anywhere, or for any other reason feel like opting out of interaction with him, rather than leaving this forum or this thread, just ignore list him.

In the meantime, what about the points I made in my postings to you?

halva

02-02-2005, 10:19 PM

Dear Senator McCain:

In response to your letter of July 28, 2003, I would like to offer the following responses to your questions regarding the science of climate change. Your original questions are included in italics:

Question 1 -- First, is there a scientific consensus in your atmospheric research community that the earth has been experiencing a warming trend in the last century and that this global climate change would not be expected from the study of climate changes that have occurred in past millennia? What modeling or other evidence supports your conclusion?

There is strong agreement among the vast majority of climate scientists that Earth has been experiencing a warming trend in the last century and that this global climate change would not be expected from the natural variability such as that experienced in past millennia. By climate scientists, I mean scientists who are actually doing climate science, either modeling or observations, and publishing their work in peer-reviewed professional scientific journals. The enclosed article, On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth, appeared very recently in the scientific publication, Eos, of the American Geophysical Union. The authors are thirteen highly respected scientists from diverse institutions who answer your question unequivocally in the following statement: "…the conclusion that late-20th century hemispheric-scale warmth is anomalous in the long-term (at least millennial) context, and that anthropogenic factors likely play an important role in explaining the anomalous recent warmth, is a robust consensus view." The article also provides references to independently developed global climate models from different institutions (e.g. the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, the Hadley Centre in the U.K.) that all demonstrate, "that it is not possible to explain the anomalous late-20th century warmth without the contribution of anthropogenic factors."

It is noteworthy that the very recent document, The U.S. Climate Change Science Program-A Vision for the Program and Highlights of the Scientific Strategic Plan, which was transmitted to Congress by the highest levels of the Administration, prominently features a quote from the June 2001 NRC report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

The best evidence for a scientific consensus is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, which is open to all, and all comments are dealt with and addressed with a written record. Skeptics are involved both as authors and reviewers. I know that you are familiar with the IPCC Third Assessment Report. I want to endorse the conclusions of the report as representing the best, most accurate science that the resources of countries around the world are able to produce. Approximately 700 scientists worldwide contribute to the IPCC reports, and another 700 review them. The fact that this number of scientists, working directly in the field of climate and climate change, produce a consensus, policy-neutral document like the IPCC Third Assessment Report of Working Group 1 is an extraordinary achievement in itself and is likely without parallel in any other field of research.

The main observations of the IPCC Report lead, correctly in my view, to the conclusion that the global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6 degree Centigrade (1.1 degree Fahrenheit), that the increase in temperature in the late 20th century over the Northern Hemisphere is the largest of any century in the past 1,000 years, and that human activity has caused a major percentage of that late century warming. The warming of the planet has caused snow cover to decrease, glaciers to retreat, global average sea level to rise, and ocean heat content to increase. We are entering a climate regime never before experienced by human civilization.

Question 2 -- Second, is the scientific community in agreement that this climate change is due to the accumulation of enormous quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels?

Yes, as answered above. This is now very widely believed to be so, even among many skeptics, some of who now argue that the warming will be benign. As noted above, it is not possible to explain the anomalous late-20th century warmth without the contribution of anthropogenic factors.

Question 3 -- Third, does the scientific evidence point to the need to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now and the potential consequences of inaction?

This question is a lot tougher because it brings into play non-scientific issues and issues that I am not an expert in such as economic and other social factors. However, my personal opinion is that we should not wait to act until everything is known about all of these complex issues. The risk of climate change is very real and the peoples of the world, including those in the United States, should adopt a "no-regrets" strategy and take a number of actions to reduce the threat. This would include stabilizing the global population, reducing fossil fuel emissions, emphasizing conservation much more than we do now, developing alternative and renewable energy sources, and many other actions. In my opinion, these actions would be beneficial even without climate change. I believe we can do all of these things without reducing our standard of living. In fact, I believe that we can do these things and actually increase the quality of life in this and other countries.

In my judgment we should, as a nation, show leadership in this area and act not only to reduce the risk, but also to prepare for the unprecedented changes that are already likely to occur because of humanity's previous actions. This is the responsible course of action. Major disruptions to the U.S. agriculture, economy, and quality of life due to imminent climate change are definitely possible, if not likely. And the threat is not just short term; there are very long time scales involved. For example, concentrations of greenhouse gases take 50 or more years to change perceptibly because they depend on accumulated emissions. The oceans respond to atmospheric heating sluggishly and add a delay of 20 years or more, and ice sheets respond on a much longer timescale. Sea level will take centuries to reach a new equilibrium.

Hence, if we wait for proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the climate has changed for the worse, it will be much too late to do anything about it.

One of the main risks for the United States is that of a massive, persistent drought. As we know from paleoclimate records, such droughts have occurred in the past. Imagine the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, but lasting for many decades, perhaps centuries, and covering most of the nation, from the West Coast to the Mississippi. This is a real risk, especially because of the likelihood of summer continental drought, which is exacerbated by diminished snow pack in spring. Such a change could occur abruptly and would be devastating for the U.S. As you know from the situation in your own state, such drought has been persistent in the Southwest during the past two years, with consequences for water supplies, heat waves and wild fires.

In summary, prudence (the precautionary principle) argues that we should make an honest and good faith effort to slow the rate of change as well as prepare for changes that are likely to occur even if we start acting now. We are entering into the unknown; we have good guesses as to what may occur, but our knowledge is not enough to make really good predictions. I cannot say with certainty that any of the catastrophic changes suggested by many climate models and the paleoclimate record will occur, but likewise nobody can say with any certainty whatsoever that they will not occur. Again, prudence and risk reduction are called for given the scientific evidence that we now have.

I hope the research information and the personal opinions I have offered are of some relevance and assistance as you and Senator Lieberman offer your amendment to the Senate energy bill.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Anthes
UCAR President

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 04:27 AM

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 04:55 AM

There is strong agreement among the vast majority of climate scientists that Earth has been experiencing a warming trend in the last century and that this global climate change would not be expected from the natural variability such as that experienced in past millennia.
False. Natural variability during the last millenia led to the medieval warm temperatures which were warmer than today's.

Read about past climate changes.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/index.html

Look at possible causes:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/possible_causes.html

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 05:06 AM

questions for 'BC'-
What is your real name?
What is your age?
What State do you live in?
Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?
Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?
Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for chemmies to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?
What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?
What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?
In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?
What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?
Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an archetypical "chemtrail?
Many chemmies cite William Thomas in their case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?
Are you willing to ask hard questions and demand transparency and accountability among your fellow "chemtrail" believers and those who claim that "chemtrails" are a reality?

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 08:17 AM

I am choosing to call this a hoax because Scott Stevens is aware that photos from "Haik" were all ripped from airliners.net. He failed to perform even the slightest due-diligence to determine the source of the photo showing the tanker boom.

The refueling boom photo at weatherwars was ripped from airliners. net:
http://www.weatherwars.info/pilotsview.htm
"A delivery system of something into the 550 mph airstream... This is an attachment to the refueling boom of a KC-135 or KC-10A tanker."

It took 3 minutes to find the photo:
search military aircraft using keyword "boom"
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?&specialsearch=military&maxres=500&keywords=boom&keywrange=all&nr_of_rows=73&first_this_page=45&page_limit=15&sort_order=photo_id+DESC&nr_pages=5&engine_version=6.0

bingo:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/351902/M/
"This boom-mounted apparatus was used for inflight icing tests."

corroboration:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-135r-ait.htm
"The Airborne Icing Tanker is a modified KC-135R Statotanker aircraft, that simulates rain and ice allowing the military to determine the effects of icing and rain on aircraft. Such an aircraft allows testing to occur at Edwards Air Force Base rather than having to deploy other locations throughout the world to simulate the effects on test aircraft."

http://www.edwards.af.mil/capabilities/docs_html/rain_tanker.html
"This asset (currently mothballed) constituted a unique test capability. An NKC-135A air refueling tanker was modified to carry water instead of fuel in several fuel tanks for use in conducting in-flight icing tests. The water was pumped to a 3 1/2 foot-diameter icing array mounted in place of the fuel nozzle on a modified air refueling boom. Engine bleed air was used to atomize the water exiting the array nozzles and keep the water from freezing."

http://www.afmc-pub.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/news/archive/2004/Feb/0225-04.htm
(see photo of icing test in action)
"Global Reach Combined Test Force experts here used a modified KC-135 tanker to generate man-made clouds recently to see how the F/A-22 Raptor performs in rain and ice conditions."

Insurrectionchemistry

02-03-2005, 09:05 AM

http://news.independent.co.uk/

Timetable Of Global
Warming Destruction Unveiled
By Michael McCarthy
Environment Correspondent
The Independent - UK
2-2-5

A detailed timetable of the destruction and distress that global warming is
likely to cause the world was unveiled yesterday.

It pulls together for the first time the projected impacts on ecosystems and
wildlife, food production, water resources and economies across the earth, for
given rises in global temperature expected during the next hundred years.

The resultant picture gives the most wide-ranging impression yet of the
bewildering array of destructive effects that climate change is expected to exert
on different regions, from the mountains of Europe and the rainforests of the
Amazon to the coral reefs of the tropics.

Produced through a synthesis of a wide range of recent academic studies, it
was presented as a paper yesterday to the international conference on climate
change being held at the UK Met Office headquarters in Exeter by the author
Bill Hare, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany's
leading global warming research institute.

The conference has been called personally by Tony Blair as part of Britain's
attempts to move the climate change issue up the agenda during the current UK
presidency of the G8 group of rich nations, and the European Union. It has
already heard disturbing warnings from the latest climate research, including the
revelation on Tuesday from the British Antarctic Survey that the massive West
Antarctic ice sheet might be disintegrating - an event which, if it happened
completely, would raise sea levels around the world by 16ft (4.9 metres).

Dr Hare's timetable shows the impacts of climate change multiplying rapidly
as average global temperature goes up, towards 1C above levels before the
industrial revolution, then to 2C, and then 3C.

As present world temperatures are already 0.7C above the pre-industrial
level, the process is well under way. In the near future - the next 25 years - as
the temperature climbs to the 1C mark, some specialised ecosystems will start
to feel stress, such as the tropical highland forests of Queensland, which
contain a large number of Australia's endemic plant species, and the succulent
karoo plant region of South Africa. In some developing countries, food production
will start to decline, water shortage problems will worsen and there will be
net losses in GDP.

It is when the temperature moves up to 2C above the pre-industrial level,
expected in the middle of this century - within the lifetime of many people alive
today - that serious effects start to come thick and fast, studies suggest.

Substantial losses of Arctic sea ice will threaten species such as polar
bears and walruses, while in tropical regions "bleaching" of coral reefs will
become more frequent - when the animals that live in the coral are forced out by
high temperatures and the reef may die. Mediterranean regions will be hit by
more forest fires and insect pests, while in regions of the US such as the
Rockies, rivers may become too warm for trout and salmon.

In South Africa, the Fynbos, the world's most remarkable floral kingdom which
has more than 8,000 endemic wild flowers, will start to lose its species, as
will alpine areas from Europe to Australia; the broad-leaved forests of China
will start to die. The numbers at risk from hunger will increase and another
billion and a half people will face water shortages, and GDP losses in some
developing countries will become significant.

But when the temperature moves up to the 3C level, expected in the early part
of the second half of the century, these effects will become critical. There
is likely to be irreversible damage to the Amazon rainforest, leading to its
collapse, and the complete destruction of coral reefs is likely to be
widespread.

The alpine flora of Europe, Australia and New Zealand will probably disappear
completely, with increasing numbers of extinctions of other plant species.
There will be severe losses of China's broadleaved forests, and in South Africa
the flora of the Succulent Karoo will be destroyed, and the flora of the
Fynbos will be hugely damaged.

There will be a rapid increase in populations exposed to hunger, with up to
5.5 billion people living in regions with large losses in crop production,
while another 3 billion people will have increased risk of water shortages.

Above the 3C raised level, which may be after 2070, the effects will be
catastrophic: the Arctic sea ice will disappear, and species such as polar bears
and walruses may disappear with it, while the main prey species of Arctic
carnivores, such as wolves, Arctic foxes and the collared lemming, will have gone
from 80 per cent of their range, critically endangering predators.

In human terms there is likely to be catastrophe too, with water stress
becoming even worse, and whole regions becoming unsuitable for producing food,
while there will be substantial impacts on global GDP.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-03-2005, 09:16 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4226917.stm

CO2 Emissions Put Corals
At Risk Of Collapse
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Special Correspondent
2-2-5

Israeli scientists predict the world's coral reefs could begin to collapse in
as little as 30 years from now.

Studies show the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic as they soak up
manmade emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem researchers say this will make it
difficult for many coral organisms to produce skeletal and other hard parts.

The team's work on corals in the Red Sea suggests a tipping point will be
reached in between 30 and 70 years.

Then the forces of erosion eating away at corals will outstrip the organisms'
ability to make the reefs.

If the researchers are right, the economic consequences for nations that rely
on coral could be serious. Coral brings tourists, serves as a nursery for
fisheries and buffers small island states against the waves.

Chemical clues

The Red Sea work conducted by Professor Jonathan Erez and colleagues is
awaiting publication.

The team has been taking chemical samples of the seawater on the reef at
Eilat. These show how much calcium carbonate is being extracted from the ocean and
indicate how fast the reef is growing.

Levels of acidity fluctuate in the Red Sea seasonally, depending on the
cycling of water. The team says it has found that at times when natural causes make
the water more acidic, the corals grow more slowly. "This ecosystem, which is
the most productive and diverse in the ocean, is going to disappear as an
ecosystem," Professor Erez told the BBC Newsnight programme.

"The individual components may survive here and there but as an ecosystem our
grandchildren will not see coral reefs any more and I think this is too big a
loss for our society."

The Israeli open water study builds on experiments at Columbia University's
Biosphere 2 Center, which suggested that coral growth could be reduced by as
much as 40% from pre-industrial levels over the next 65 years.

Pace of change

Ocean scientists generally accept that the pH level measuring acidity and
alkalinity has fallen by around 0.1 since the Industrial Revolution. Absorption
of CO2 appears to be patchy with some areas worse than others.

The oceans currently have a pH of about eight, but experts predict this could
drop as far as 7.6, depending on whether CO2 emissions are cut. Professor
Erez believes that reefs could begin to crumble if pH drops by 0.3 or 0.4.

The effects could be equally serious for cold water organisms, although the
science on these is not so far advanced.

Professor Ulf Riebesell, from Kiel University, and a member of the UK Royal
Society's working group examining ocean acidification, told the BBC that if CO2
levels continued to rise, the oceans could be more acidic in 2100 than they
had been for 400 million years.

This is beyond the evolutionary memory of most sea creatures. And many of
them may not be able to adapt to the pace of change.

Complex climate

Dr Carol Turley, from Plymouth Marine Laboratories told this week's Met
Office and UK government-organised climate conference in Exeter she was very
worried.

Countless species, she said, depend on a relatively stable pH to extract
calcium to build their shells or skeleton. These include shellfish, snails,
starfish, sea urchins and some sea worms that play an important part in cycling
minerals in the ocean mud.

She is particularly concerned about the effects of acidification on plankton
at the bottom of the fisheries food chain called coccolithophorids. These
precipitate calcium to make tiny shells called liths. Each lith is only about 2.5
micrometres (millionths of a metre) across but when the algae bloom en masse
the effects can be seen from space.

Unpublished research from Norway suggests that increasing acidity harms the
coccolithophorids. This might have consequences for fisheries. Scientists think
coccolithophorids will probably be replaced if they drop out of the food
chain but they cannot be sure.

Coccolithophorids also play a role in climate change. The algae give off CO2
when they bloom and thus contribute to climate change. But they also produce
dimethyl sulphide when they bloom which helps the formation of clouds which
reflect back heat from the Sun. The science here is still in its early stages.

The chairman of the Royal Society working group, Professor John Raven, told
the BBC that scientists had been slow to spot the implications of the rise in
mankind's CO2 for the oceans.

"We were all taught that the pH of the sea was a constant," he said.

"We are rather embarrassed to find out that is not the case, because it is
really only basic chemistry that [tells you] it would not be possible for the
ocean to absorb ever-increasing amounts of CO2 without becoming more acidic.

"We have started a great experiment here and we don't know yet what the
consequences will be."

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 09:52 AM

Halva,

I'm not ignoring you. I was tired last night and could not respond to your inquiries. I didn't appreciate having to change horses in mid-stream, if you will, as you were requesting a totally different topic area.

Although I feel that CO2 from manmade emissions adds to the quotient of present climate changes, I feel that superior to that and beyond our human efforts and even with their successful (if ever) efforts........... the world is more affected by the sun than any other factor. That is my opinion from reading and that is where it stands.

In this regard, I value Jay Renold's input as I value all debunkers of any subject as long as they remain respectful of others and responsible for their own level of personal interaction with others. So far, I have no complaints and only wish to further dialogue through open and interactive relating with EVERYONE.

Now, I do suggest if and when you want to change thread topics.... start another thread. I am starting one on Climate Change today for Jim, you, and anyone who wants to discuss. We can continue over there and Jay Renolds and all others who wish to add to the discussion are welcome. It's a public board. And, I might add, I shall ignore who I wish to ignore and on my own terms, not yours.

OK, first of all, you are entitled to your views on military verses other ops. What is at stake here in all of this is a growing realization and observation that :

1. Operations of an international nature are being performed in our atmosphere. You see them, many in our country see them, many in other countries see them. The other aspects of our atmosphere relate to commerce and industry..... an ongoing concern for all nations. And I would of course include the oceans and the earth in all of this. So, part of the degradation of our environment is
a. ignorant by-products of mankind's industry (a general term)
b. purposeful ignoring of detrimental consequences in lieu of profit -- corporate, business, and private
c. possible secret and overt programs attempting to mitigate atmospheric problems which may or may not contribute to the problems
d. possible secret programs that are based in weaponry policies and defense that ignore the possible consequences to the whole world's stable electro-magnetic grid and health of its inhabitants through various particulate dispersels cooperating with the technologies -- laser, space based weaponry, communications technologies, holographic studies, various frequency wave studies and experiments
c. possible secret programs based on weaponry policies and defense that are aimed at studying the biological warfare systems based on atmospheric spraying and drift studies in order to defend populations and in the weaponry arena, to target enemy populations

2. Helpful to all environmental concerns are the legitmate efforts by governments, nations (scientists and programs) and environmental international and national groups to preserve and study the biosphere, including legislation designed to further the health and well being of all living inhabitants and systems international and national.

Now, what areas and concerns do you wish to discuss? I feel that ALL topics are legitimate topics and for various people various topics of interest could stimulate their involvement.

HALVA: "That's one reason I'm working with climate change, and by extension global dimming and (sotto voce) chemtrails."

This is your personal area of concern...climate change, global dimming in regards to chemtrails or other mitigative efforts? First of all, spraying does not occur in all regions of the planet. Global dimming, therefore, in my view, can only be caused by one thing...... the sun. The sun has caused the polar icecaps to melt and although CO2 is contributory, the sun by far, is the main cause of the effect. That's just my opinion from reading. Methane, as well, due to the Arctic's and Antarctic's melting and exposing mud pits and other sources of methane production, poses another threat to the gaseous equation in terms of radiative potentials and the rising of the atmospheric temperature. The ozone situation and its degradation could also be included in the equation. If the globe is dimming, then why is the planet's overall temperature rising? The sun must, therefore, be increasing in its output and the greenhouse effect with the radiative warming contributes and there's nothing we can do to change that, except to adapt and mitigate its consequences by switching from fossil fuels that add CO2 to the atmosphere and the methane production doesn't help either. But the notion that mitigating our CO2 production at this time will turn it all around, I feel, is fantasy. I'm afraid that due to core samples, this situation has happened before and again, adaptation will be the key. You add to that, the volcanic situation, which potentially is also heating up (so to speak) and the gases released in this scenario will also contribute to the changing global temperature and atmosphere. Climate change, therefore, is inevitable. So why don't you start a thread on "climate change" and all that's related to it? I can dig up the articles to support my conclusions and we can all contribute quite effectively.

I appreciated your links to active organizations related to Kyoto protocols. It doesn't hurt to try to mitigate CO2, not at all. But I doubt, as I said, that even if it could be achieved in the next ten years, that it would help the planet to the extent that everyone fantacizes it will. The main problem is Peak Oil. Concerning the Western civilization's dependence for all realms of life upon oil and oil derivatives..... the reality that the product will not be available is the main point to consider. Efforts toward the goal of alternative and renewable non-polluting fuels and chemicals is therefore on the world's tables for R & D and implementation. Many countries are "ahead" of the US on this pursuit.

OK, I hope this satisfies you.

And I wasn't going to give my real first name here. Thanks. Whatever.

BC

gaiacomm

02-03-2005, 09:55 AM

Boomer Chick... keep it coming!

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 10:02 AM

Jim Phelps stated HERE (http://www.tampaindymedia.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=441&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45&sid=e1eb844d13315bb41b52f7bc5cc4ff7e):

“The net intent has always been to use jet planes as catalysists for mediation of the IR absorption of heat from the Sun, aka global warming.”

“and [t]o mediate the global warming effects.”

“Jim Phelps was the inventor of both the naptha and kerosine based chemtrail methods at ORNL in the mid-1980's.”

What prompted you to do that, Jimmy? Fanatics like you were just recovering from the global cooling hoax in the mid 1980s, so why would you invent something to stop global warming.

You, know, I've wondered why no chemmies have actually gotten around to asking Jimbo questions about that. There are lots of questions chemmies should be asking of their 'bhoddisatvas'. Maybe they are trying to be polite, like when an elevator full of 'suits' realizes somebody let out a silent-but-deadly and they have 20 floors to go!

Looking at Jimbo's unsuccessful attempts to strike up conversation, it reads like a soliloquy.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7857&start=15

Jimbo, do you think the reason why no one writes back to you is
perhaps because they know???

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 10:47 AM

QUOTE=Boomer Chick]Dear Mr. Reynolds,
May I ask you what motivates you?

A-Yes. I will also have some questions for you.

You seemed consumed with this issue. Is it so hard to imagine or accept that perhaps secret operations do go on in our very skies?

A-I don't base my life on imagination. The acceptance of possibilities comes first before any investigation supporting those theories can progress. In terms of contrails, the difference from yesterday to today is obvious to many. The shapes and behavior of contrails has changed. People wonder why. Many people have seen contrails laid out across the sky in various patterns... this is unusual. Many in Canada and America have collected samples of gel like substances, fibers, and have ween tiny filaments in the air as well as the taste of metallic substances. These observations and experiences are not based in imagination, Jay, they were unusual physical events that stimulated inquiry. That's all. I do realize that the wording of my question could have lead you to your response. My bad. My tiredness.

What state do you live in?

A-Arkansas. Cool! I've never been there, but hear it's nice.

How old are you?

A-Forty nine & 1/2 Whew! Thought you might be much younger! :p

Have you ever worked in the military?

A-At University, 1973-77, I received US Naval Reserve Officer training. In 1977 I did apply for a US Naval officer's commission as required because my education was Federally subsidized. Only two of our class received commissions, I was not included. For approximately two years, at various times during the mid-80's, I worked as a civilian engineer for General Offshore Corp.In St. Croix, US Virgin Islands, which was a Navy contractor doing sonobout quality control testing.
There was always a civilian Navy representative as a witness, but no uniformed Naval people.
I have never received any renumeration whatsoever related to "chemtrails". That's interesting. Do you mean chemtrails debunking? So what have you done all this time? Are you disabled in some way, physically?

I ask these questions because I don't know you. I've heard about you and read some of your old stuff, but I truly don't know your history and why you feel the way you do.
Could you elaborate on your driving zeal in all of this?

A-Yes. I didn't read anything about your driving zeal! What drives you?

What, do you feel, could be the reason why some people suspect military weather modification combined with HAARP and other technologies?

A-They are ignorant and have been deceived, and in most cases the belief supports other paradigms [b] So you really can't stand and are angered by the ignorant being deceived? I can understand that. And in most cases the "belief" supports other paradigms? Like what? New age stuff? David Icke stuff? UFO stuff? Anti-military industrial mindsets? Pro-workers? Pro union? Pro people kind of stuff? Some or all of the above?

Are they all just making money off of ignorant people?

A-Strawman. Loaded question. Some "chemtrail" promoters are making money. There is no money to be had publicly debunking this hoax. Some promoters make money. Debunkers do not. Why not? Why aren't there books out there debunking the chemtrail myth? Wouldn't they sell? I don't know the concept of "Strawman", sorry. Maybe you could explain it to me. "Loaded question" ? Aren't all questions rather loaded? LOL!

Are they questioning authority and pushing the limits of wanting to find out the secret ops that might indeed affect us all?

A-Perhaps some chemmies might appear to question authority. OK Practically none question their own group's "authority", or are willing to hold their cohorts to the same accountability for secrecy as they wish to hold governmental authority. OK, so you see many who are curious who connect the dots as not as detailed in their holding the so-called experts on chemtrails to the test of factuality. Too willing to accept all that offered? Witness my questions regarding Deborah Stark's NSA/CIA involvement and the recent hoax promoted by Brian Holmes, who covered up hoaxed pictures on his website. These are just two recent examples of a long train of chemmie abuses of secrecy.
since few chemmies are willing to take on that role, I do. I know nothing about Deborah Stark and her NSA/CIA involvement. Why would anyone in the NSA/CIA want to perpetrate such a hoax? Who benefits from it? Would wanting a percentage of the populace to investigate and question what is going on with contrails and their odd behavior, the various substances falling down from the sky, would all of this somehow benefit the PTB? So what would the purpose of a hoax be from the NSA/CIA? Is doesn't make sense to me that a HOAX of this nature would even be in the gov's favor. Brian Holmes I'm not familiar with. If he used "hoaxed pictures" on his website, then for what purpose?.... would be your question. He wants hits on his site? He earns money or support from the hits? He is just jumping on a popular bandwagon with no real information? Hey, I can understand not respecting such people.

What about those of us who are curious and want to know what is going on?

A-Few chemmies show a fully developed curiosity. Most are willing to accept anonymous rumors and unsupported claims as evidence, many are out-and out liars. If ten chemmies had my own thirst for truth, and chemtrails werea reality, irrefutable evidence would be in hand Could the evidence collected so far be enough for you? And why wouldn't lab results and water and soil evidences be enough for you? What would your explanation be for the patterned contrails that many have seen over their cities, which to anyone would look like a grid system and not just the patterns of commercial airlines? The curiosity the chemtrail questioners seem to exhibit seems well beyond the norm. The norm is, that people don't notice anything going on their skies. They see nothing. Chemmies tend to go beyond the norm in terms of curiosity as I view it. Just my opinion and you can have yours. Looking up patents, reading government sites, investigating jet fuel components, interviewing mechancs working on planes, interviewing pilots, studying the physics behind various patents..... etc. all seem to be quite curious in their very nature. In the same vein, if the debunkers have irrefutable evidence to support their claim that nothing unusual is happening and that all government programs are for our benefit and for the nation's protection, then why aren't there books devoted to disclaiming Eastlund's work, Begich's work, Thomas's work, and extolling the wonderful consequences of jet fuel and the REAL reasons for patterned spraying and the various substances that have fallen on various populations. Where are the debunker books that explain the new space technolgies and experiments? Where's the real story? I want to read it!!! Please!

I realize you want to debate with those who hold strong views in order to get everything down in writing. I acknowledge this. But why the extreme emotion?

A-Emotion is normal. I am not a robot, and feel free to express my emotions. Got a problem with that? Who's a robot? No one I know is a robot. Emotions are good. But I wonder why you invest them in the way you do. That's all. The large bold and red letters do say a lot. I wonder where all that is coming from. Do you ever wonder? When my emotions get to high levels I try to notice and funnel it in a way that promotes my view without compromising my credibility quotient, you know? If we are trying to persuade or to bring our views to the table, often the anger type emotion repels others if aimed directly at them. Of course we can use our anger and funnel it while we express our feelings on topics and issues and even regarding people in government and power positions, but aiming it at another person often defeats our purpose of persuasion and getting to the truth of any matter. I appreciate your zeal, I appreciate your emotion, but I hope I can continue to relate with you on a level of mutual respect that goes both ways. I think the rudest thing I said to a group of others lately was : "turdmeisters!" LOL! It felt good at the time. But, in academic discourse, public discourse, and even professional debating as on the Congress floor or the floors of any Parliament, "turdmeisters" really doesn't cut the mustard. It may cut the cheese, but not the mustard. :p

If you are serious, you'll take the time to explain yourself.

A-If you are serious you will answer my own questions, to follow.

Will do! Only fair. Remember, we all have our points of view and sharing them is one thing, but hostility is another. Dedication to the truth is our mutual goal...... YES?

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 10:56 AM

False. Natural variability during the last millenia led to the medieval warm temperatures which were warmer than today's.

Read about past climate changes.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/index.html

Look at possible causes:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/possible_causes.html

A very valid response, I must say! Beyond that, I would include ice core samples related to previous CO2 and earth warming events in the prehistoric past. Will look for supporting articles on that.

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 11:05 AM

Carnicom won't dare debate me. I have astanding challenge going back five years. With a cooperative host, James Whale, I ambushed William Thomas on a British radio show in 1999, tore his ass up. I want Stevens in print, on the permanent record.

You posted about Begich. He's quite a liar.
For Instance:
" JS: Can you tell me a little bit about your background?
NB: I was born and raised in Alaska. I was a Senator and President of the Confederation of Teachers for two terms, and President of the Council of Education for two terms. I have a doctorate in traditional medicine."
(be sure to check the picture)
http://www.geocities.com/jilaens/haarp.html

Begich is son of a Congressman, but has never been a Senator. Jay, a Senator for the Confederation of Teachers is not the same thing as a Senator for the US Senate. This is a valid and true statement, not a lie. Sorry.

His degree is from an Indian Diploma mill, on sale @ $750.00
http://www.altmeduniversity.com/courses/bpg.html
===========================================
DON'T TRY TO PULL THE WOOL OVER MY EYES, BOOMERCHICK.
I'M NOT SOME CHEMMIE SHEOPLE JUMPIN HOT FOR THE LATEST BANDWAGON.

See my insert above. If you have evidence that he received a degree online when he was a Congressman's son, please provide more evidence on that. Thanks! Teachers do not usually get accredidation with online bought diplomas. I doubt that a Congressman's son would do that kind of thing, either. Your epithet of "liar" does not hold here. Sorry.

foot_soldier

02-03-2005, 11:17 AM

Jay Reynolds wrote:
.....Witness my questions regarding Deborah Stark's NSA/CIA involvement....

This is a lie. Reynolds, you are way out of line.

As you very well know.

For the record, then.

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 12:52 PM

Urinalysis again, Stu?
Saywhat? Does that mean you just plan to piss on all sound sceintific proof that destroys your case? Are you saying that your own "Urinalysis" turned up something that you are ashamed of? Or does that phrase have some other kind of convoluted meaning for you?

In any event, I think everybody noticed that, for the SECOND time now, you have avoided replying to the solid proof that demonstrates, celarly and without even teh slightest shadow of doubt, that anything further you say or attribute to Tom Bearden, is actually worthless trash and should be discarded.

Par for the course! Typical, and totally expected.

So from now on we know that we can take your failure to respond to a debunking post as a direct admission that you cannot refute it, and therfore agree with everything said in the post.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-03-2005, 01:16 PM

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 02:07 PM

This is a lie. Reynolds, you are way out of line.

As you very well know.

For the record, then.

The thinking that a person wanting to uncover the truth about aerosol spraying would be perpetrating a hoax and paid by the NSA/CIA is sooooooooooo convoluted in logic and thinking that it's beyond the pale of even remotely possible.

I know you are no implant from the feds, FS. No need to worry and the only person who uses this tactic is Jay that I can tell and it's all hot air. And remember that pychological tactic called "projection" where someone projects onto another the very parts of self that they either wish to reject or cannot tolerate? As well, to paint another very cogent person, opposed to one's own entrenched view, to discredit them in their own community with the worst of all labels is often used in the realm of control tactics. All old and worn out and certainly not a reflection of anything academic nor realistic.

POOF!!!

Pins of truth always deflate the ego-based balloosions of others.

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 02:20 PM

Saywhat? Does that mean you just plan to piss on all sound sceintific proof that destroys your case? Are you saying that your own "Urinalysis" turned up something that you are ashamed of? Or does that phrase have some other kind of convoluted meaning for you?

In any event, I think everybody noticed that, for the SECOND time now, you have avoided replying to the solid proof that demonstrates, celarly and without even teh slightest shadow of doubt, that anything further you say or attribute to Tom Bearden, is actually worthless trash and should be discarded.

Par for the course! Typical, and totally expected.

So from now on we know that we can take your failure to respond to a debunking post as a direct admission that you cannot refute it, and therfore agree with everything said in the post.

Well I thought it rather punny, myself! Didn't you get it, Stu? Your analysis? LOL! Killed two birds with one stone, and no, your little rule about a person ignoring your posts as automatically losing some debate or argument is not the rule here. It's not mine and it holds nothing but hot air! Yours! Your balloosions!

Poof!!! And your physics cannot compare to Bearden's! Don't even try!

And what was the Bearden stuff all about? His explaining Tesla and Eastlund technologies was what I was referring to here, and he does a fine job. Are you refuting the HAARP technology here? Is this what you want me to debate with you? Oh please. And because I am not a physicist (and neither are you, BTW) I CANNOT disprove the explanations of Bearden's explanation of the HAARP physics. Why don't you write the debunking book on Bearden, anyway? Why don't you point me to a physicist who outrightly debunks the whole HAARP/chemtrail synergy? Huh? Where's the book? Begich has book! Where's yours? Where's the book?

My evidence outweighs yours: Eastlund science, Eastlund's present projects, Eastlund patents, Owning the Weather published by Air Force personnel, HAARP technologies, evidence of spraying Teller-based and recommended particulates, a three page bibliography on weather experiments and papers by the military, and you have nothing!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? :rolleyes:

BC

gaiacomm

02-03-2005, 02:33 PM

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 02:44 PM

Pins of truth always deflate the ego-based balloosions of others.

I'll try to make it brief. You are a newbie and have catching up to do. 'Footsoldier' and I have known each other for over five years now. Her name is Deborah XXXXX. In 2000, she joined the group which wrote "Chemtrails Over America".
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa

Deborah has publicly admitted she edited the document seen at this website, which lists those participating as having these qualifications:

http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#Investigators

"Researchers assigned to this project have diverse backgrounds and are trained in and associated with a variety of disciplines including electronics, communications and environmental engineering, general medicine, biomedical research, chemistry, government/political, NSA/CIA, and military theory and technology."

I repeat,
Deborah edited the document stating the CIA/NSA involvement, not me.
She was the person that stated she worked for them as copy-editor., not me.
Here is her quote, and the thread where she makes the admission she worked as editor for this report:

"For the sixth time -- I copy-edited the first draft of the report and submitted one paragraph of my own regarding the ozone layer, which is, and always has been, my primary area of interest."http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=233447&postcount=35

I repeat,
Deborah was involved with these CIA/NSA people, and worked for them as copy-editor.
I am not saying this, Deborah has said this.

NOW, DEBORAH , WHO WERE THE PEOPLE YOU WORKED WITH THAT WERE "TRAINED AND ASSOCIATED" WITH NSA?CIA??

She cannot now back out, because she has gone on record as having admitted to working with these people. It is now her choice to either remain silent about it, or tell the names of the people who claim to be CIA/NSA and let us back track and check these people out to see who is lying and who is not. That is all I ask, and all any reasonable person would ask. .

This is not a lie. The facts are laid out above and are irrefutable. Deborah knows I have her backed into a corner with her own words. The question will be repeated until it gets an answer.

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 02:52 PM

Will do!
You might benefit from exploring my website. You will find a complete history of the "chemtrails"
hoax, various debunking articles I have written. A photo gallery, large collection of links, poetry, even a bio. Since I've tangled with pretty much every chemmie of any significance over the past five years, you shoulld ask yourself why almost none of them have the guts to link to my site.
Jay
My website(s) master link to mirror sites:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 02:58 PM

The acceptance of possibilities comes first before any investigation supporting those theories can progress.No, not in science it doesn't. On the contrary, scientists REFUSE to accept any possibility until they have been totally unable to falsify it, despite repeated attempts. There is no such thing as "investigation to support theories" in science. All investigation is specifically designed to FALSIFY theories, not to SUPPORT them. Only when it becomes clear that a theory cannot be falsified, does the theory receive some degree of acceptance. You seem to have been mislead in the Scientific Method and how it works.

In terms of contrails, the difference from yesterday to today is obvious to many. The shapes and behavior of contrails has changed.Yes, nobody doubts that contrails have change over the 8 decades in which they have existed. However, all changes are fully explained by simple concepts, and none requires recourse to gigantic convoluted conspiracies. Simple science, logic and reasoning fully and completely explain all changes.

The shapes and behavior of contrails has changed. People wonder why. That's fine, and they SHOULD wonder why. However, those people should approach people who do understand aviation and meteorology, and ask them for answers, instead of turning to internet conspiracy theorists, hoaxsters, pranksters, and scam artists for the explanation. Obviously, if you go to the wrong place, you get the wrong answers!

Many people have seen contrails laid out across the sky in various patterns... this is unusual.No, it is perfectly usual, and exactly what you should expect. After all, aircraft do follow "roads" in the sky called "airways", and just like roads on the ground, those airways do cross over each other, in "grid" patterns. Clearly a plane flying from Dallas to Montreal MUST cross over the path of another plane flying from New York to LA. Consider all the thousands of possible city-pair combinations that people want to fly between, think about where those cities are on the map, and you'll see exactly why the paths of planes MUST cross over each other, all the time. Just take a look at any aviation navigation chart, and you'll see just how many airways there are up there, all over the place, and in how many places they cross. There is NOTHING AT ALL unusual about grid patterns in the sky. It is EXACTLY what one would expect.

Many in Canada and America have collected samples of gel like substances, fibers, and have ween tiny filaments in the air as well as the taste of metallic substances.So what? What possible connection could that have to planes that are flying 6 miles overhead? Don't you think it would be far more reasonable to look for sources of those pollutants IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD of where you collected the sample, rather then to think that it must be due to something happening half a dozen miles over your head? If you find fibers, gels, filaments, dust, or whatever, then you should perhaps be looking over the fence to see what your neighbor is doing, or down the street to see what the supermarket is burning in their incinerator, rather than immediately jumping to the conclusion that it must have come from a plane that you saw fly over at 35,000 feet. In actual fact, it is a physical impossibility that something dropped from a plane directly over head could ever land on you: Rather, it will land hundreds or even thousands of MILES downwind of where you are, depending on what it was.

Experiment for you to try, boomer: Take a handful of flour from your kitchen. Walk outside, and climb to the top of an average garden ladder, reach as high above your head as you can, and let go of the handful of flower. Question: How much of it lands exactly underneath where you dropped it? Answer: none. You dropped it from an altitude of maybe 15 feet, at a level where the wind is practically zero. Measure the distance that the flour traveled before it reach the ground, and multiply that by 2,000. So if most of the flour landed, say, 50 feet away, multiply that by 2,000, and you get 100,000. That's how far away your handful of flour would have landed if dropped from a plane at 30,000 feet, with practically zero wind, all the way down to the ground. 100,000 feet is roughly 19 miles, so if an airliner drop flour over your house, with no wind, it would land 19 miles away, not on you. Now, factor in a wind speed of, say, 50 knots, consider that it will take hours or days for your handful of flour to fall from 30,000 feet, and you'll see that under realistic wind conditions, it would actually land hundreds to thousands of miles away from you.

And that is for flour, which actually falls quite fast as compared to atomized spray, which is what chemmies tell us is going on up there....

I don't know the concept of "Strawman", sorry. Maybe you could explain it to me.A "strawman" is a dishonest debating technique where someone fabricates a position that his opponent does not actually hold, but tries to pretend that he does, then proceeds to demolish that fabricated position, thus giving the illusion that what he REALLY demolished was the REAL position of the opponent. For example, if you hold the position that drinking one glass of wine per day is good for your health, and I then come back with an argument proving that drunk drivers kill thousands or people on the road each year, then that would be a strawman: You said nothing about drunk drivers, and instead of trying to deal with your REAL position that one glass of wine per day is OK, I raised the strawman of drunk drivers, showed that drunk driving is bad, and by inference implied that one glass of wine per day is bad. That's a rather obvious strawman: Most are far more subtle.

Could the evidence collected so far be enough for you? WHAT EVIDENCE? There is none. It would be nice if chemmies could actually come up with some, but in the 5 years that this hoax has been going on, none ever have.

And why wouldn't lab results and water and soil evidences be enough for you?Well, water and soil samples clearly cannot prove ANYTHING conclusively about what may or may not be going on 35,000 feet above your head. Lab results would be great, but so far no chemmie has made even the slightest effort to get a sample of a real "chemtrail", thoroughly document the chain of custody, and get the sample analyzed by a competent independent lab. It would be easy to do, but so far, in five years, none have done it. Rather, ALL chemmies chose to carry on believing in something for which there is no proof, no evidence, at all.

What would your explanation be for the patterned contrails that many have seen over their cities, which to anyone would look like a grid system and not just the patterns of commercial airlines?That's a leading question. You assume the answer in the question itself, and you state as fact that normal airliners do not fly in grid patterns, when in actual fact that is EXACTLY what they do. The answer IS that airliners (and all other aircraft too) do, in fact, fly along paths that cross, in exactly the same way as cars drive along streets that cross.

Looking up patents, reading government sites, investigating jet fuel components, interviewing mechanics working on planes, interviewing pilots, studying the physics behind various patents..... etc. all seem to be quite curious in their very nature. Of your examples, the following have NEVER been done by chemmies: interviewing mechanics working on planes, interviewing pilots, and studying the physics behind various patents. There are NO sworn affidavits by ANY pilot, mechanic, controller, loadmaster, dispatcher, etc, to anyone else related to the aviation industry. There are a couple of wild statements by unidentified anonymous people making outrageous claims, but the always seem to forget to provide any verifiable details, such as names, dates, places, facts, figures etc. If you have a sworn statements by an identified active pilot, mechanic, ATC controller, etc., then please do show it to us.

In the same vein, if the debunkers have irrefutable evidence to support their claim that nothing unusual is happening and that all government programs are for our benefit and for the nation's protection, then why aren't there books devoted to disclaiming Eastlund's work, Begich's work, Thomas's work, and extolling the wonderful consequences of jet fuel and the REAL reasons for patterned spraying and the various substances that have fallen on various populations.Wow! Talk about a leading question! It's impossible to answer that question as is, since it assumes numerous unproven claims, and actually makes no sense. In fact, debunkers do not need to prove ANYTHING! It is the CHEMMIES that make the claims, not the debunkers, so the CHEMMIES need to do the proving, not the debunkers. Why? Because that is how science, debate, and the legal system work! The guy who makes the claim has the responsibility of providing the evidence. Imagine the chaos if this were otherwise. Imagine how stupid it would be to have a system where I could say "Boomer killed JFK, and that is FACT!", then leave the responsibility to YOU to prove that you did NOT kill him, and insisting that if you CANNOT prove it, then you MUST be guilty. Pretty dumb, right? That's exactly why it is a rule that the person who makes the claim, must provide the evidence. If he does not, then the claim is worthless, and must be discarded.

... continues below ...

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 02:59 PM

... continued ...

Where are the debunker books that explain the new space technolgies and experiments? Where's the real story? I want to read it!!! Please! OK. If you pay me, I'll be happy to write one for you! :) Seriously, why are you trying to fob off the responsibility on to the debunkers? It is the chemmies responsibility to prove their claims, not ours to prove otherwise.

I realize you want to debate with those who hold strong views in order to get everything down in writing. I acknowledge this. But why the extreme emotion?Because we've been doing this for 5 years now, and only occasionally are we able to get through the thick layers of paranoia that surrounds the mind of a chemmie, and get the to understand that they have been hoodwinked. It is so easy, so simple, so BASIC to understand that contrails CANNOT POSSIBLY be chemtrails, that it gets to be VERY frustrating. That's why. When you've explained the same thing over and over again, 6 different times, to one person, just when you think they are finally starting to think logically, and have actually figures out a point or two, and then suddenly they flop right back into their self-inflicted pit again.... its very disheartening, and very frustrating. Can you blame us form losing out patience?

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 03:03 PM

Jay ----

What is your age? 56 married for over 28 years, children

What State do you live in? Colorado

Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails"? I have two BA degrees, one at San Jose State U in music and the other at University of Colorado, Colo. Springs in English lit + teaching credentials, graduate work in family therapy. I have always been interested in science and space. I used to teach in the public schools. I have seen chemtrails with my own eyes.... I've lived long enough to know I didn't see them before the late nineties and have lived here since '76.

I respect Dr. Michael Castle http://www.wnho.net/methodic_demise.htm

http://www.wnho.net/chemtrailnews.htm

Dr. R. Michael Castle is an Environmental Professional whom holds a National Certification for Environmental Risk Assessment with 15 years of field practice in Environmental Risk Assessment, Investigation, Analyses and Remediation. A Polymer Chemist for 22 years prior to establishment of the Environmental Consulting and Engineering Firm, Castle Concepts Consultants, Inc., and is on the International Advisory Board of the World Natural Health Organization, (Bio of Dr. R.Michael Castle, http://www.wnho.net/bio-mcastle.htm

Clifford Carnicom is a research scientist, and was a federal employee for 15 years with three different agencies: the United States Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. His technical background is extensive in the fields of geodetic science, advanced mathematics, computer science, and the physical sciences. * I have his DVD.

If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not? What are your credentials? Please notice Castle's references and experience. I also respect, regardless of your views, Will Thomas as an investigative journalist whose work attempts to uncover the truth regarding aerosol spraying. Other countries are investigating as well.
http://www.toolsforhealing.com/cd/Articles/C/Chemtrails-ItalianChemtra.html

Excellently documented comprehensive piece by Amy Worthington on the Chemtrail question:
http://proliberty.com/observer/20040501.htm. Investigative reporters play a huge role in alerting the public to operations and weather manipulation projects that affect our health and the planet's overall health. http://www.jackblood.com/index/id38.html Sometimes I look for articles in international news :

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-24c-05.asp
India weary about using earth’s atmosphere for military purpose especially HAARP and their impacts in South Asia
Staff Reporter
January 24, 2005

There is no direct evidence of human hand behind Tsunami as of today but Tsnami is not the only disaster that South Asia is vulnerable to.

Currently, there are dozens of nations operating more than 100 weather modification projects, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions all over the world, where the lack of sufficient water resources limits their ability to meet food, fibre, and energy demands.

In addition there are unclassified military projects in America, Russia, China, Japan, Europe and India that plan to use weather and climate to defeat the enemy.

The HAARP project is significant. HAARP stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. According to a report prepared by Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH, the HAARP Program is jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy, and is based in Gakona, Alaska. It is designed to "understand, simulate and control ionospheric processes that might alter the performance of communication and surveillance systems." The HAARP system intends to beam 3.6 Gigawatts of effective radiated power of high frequency radio energy into the ionosphere in order to:

- Generate extremely low frequency (ELF) waves for communicating with submerged submarines

- Conduct geophysical probes to identify and characterize natural ionospheric processes so that techniques can be developed to mitigate or control them

- Generate ionospheric lenses to focus large amounts of high frequency energy, thus providing a means of triggering ionospheric processes that potentially could be exploited for Department of Defense purposes

- Electron acceleration for infrared (IR) and other optical emissions which could be used to control radio wave propagation properties

- Generate geomagnetic field aligned ionization to control the reflection/scattering properties of radio waves

- Use oblique heating to produce effects on radio wave propagation, thus broadening the potential military applications of ionospheric enhancement technology.

Many other countries are conducting many other weather manipulation experiments.

Impact of these experiments is unknown and for countries in South Asia with little warning systems, it is even more dangerous.

Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? I use multiple resources. If none can be relied upon, why not? Many can be relied upon. Those that are well researched, especially. Those written by investigative journalists like Begich and Thomas and other academics who have bothered to research.

FAA official comes out regarding spraying operations:
http://www.humanunderground.com/FAAconfirms.html

Several meetings [what meetings? ] were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for chemmies to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". Where? I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? No, didn't know about it. If not, why not?

What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"? My personal definition? Whoa. Let's see. Well, I feel rather put upon at this point. Basically it's this: you know what? I feel that I'm being set up here. I want to be specific and not have someone jump all over me. I asked you simple questions about you and your zeal. I didn't ask you for your definitions of this and that.
I don't have the energy right now to state the chemtrail case and then have you try to debunk it. I have read enough from Carnicom, Thomas, and others and have seen the persistent trails myself to warrant my wanting to get at the truth. For now, you'll just have to be satisfied with this.

I respect you for your tenacity and your persistence in trying to get to the truth of the chemtrail matter. I do expect that you will remain respectful and as academic as you could possibly be in your interactions with me and others on this board. I expect some detailed evidence to refute any of the claims made by either scientists or investigative journalists to whom I shall refer over time.

Why do I care about the issue? Because I care about people. I care about the environment and I want to know what is going on in the air we breathe. Ignorance is not bliss when our lives are at stake.

Thanks!

BC

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 03:12 PM

Well I thought it rather punny, myself! Didn't you get it, Stu? Your analysis? LOL! Killed two birds with one stone, and no, your little rule about a person ignoring your posts as automatically losing some debate or argument is not the rule here. It's not mine and it holds nothing but hot air! Yours! Your balloosions!

Poof!!! And your physics cannot compare to Bearden's! Don't even try!

And what was the Bearden stuff all about? His explaining Tesla and Eastlund technologies was what I was referring to here, and he does a fine job. Are you refuting the HAARP technology here? Is this what you want me to debate with you? Oh please. And because I am not a physicist (and neither are you, BTW) I CANNOT disprove the explanations of Bearden's explanation of the HAARP physics. Why don't you write the debunking book on Bearden, anyway? Why don't you point me to a physicist who outrightly debunks the whole HAARP/chemtrail synergy? Huh? Where's the book? Begich has book! Where's yours? Where's the book?

My evidence outweighs yours: Eastlund science, Eastlund's present projects, Eastlund patents, Owning the Weather published by Air Force personnel, HAARP technologies, evidence of spraying Teller-based and recommended particulates, a three page bibliography on weather experiments and papers by the military, and you have nothing!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? :rolleyes:

BC
That makes THREE times now, Boomer. In science, what you are supposed to do when someone answers your claims with proof that your theory is wrong, is either to refute his proof using logical scientific arguments, or to accept his comments if they are in fact correct, and modify your theory accordingly. What you are NOT supposed to do is to ignore the proof that was placed before you, and fly off the handle! That is rather childish.

Anyway, apparently you didn't even read my post, or perhaps you just didn't understand it, so I'll summarize: I showed, logically, that there IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCALAR WAVE, which is the very foundation of all of Bearden's claims. Blow that one away, and there is nothing left. I demonstrated, conclusively, that the very concept of Bearden's "scalar waves" is self-contradictory, a logical paradox, and therefore that no such thing can exist. Period. Without his "scalar wave" foundation, the rest of his claims fall apart completely.

I'm sorry that you did not understand it.

gaiacomm

02-03-2005, 03:18 PM

Keep it coming Boomer... it will work in time!!!!!

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 03:36 PM

You might benefit from exploring my website. You will find a complete history of the "chemtrails"
hoax, various debunking articles I have written. A photo gallery, large collection of links, poetry, even a bio. Since I've tangled with pretty much every chemmie of any significance over the past five years, you shoulld ask yourself why almost none of them have the guts to link to my site.
Jay
My website(s) master link to mirror sites:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/

Jay, I read some of your old website stuff today. You really did a lot of work, even in the late 90's. I have no qualms about reading your present site. None at all. Poetry? OH goody!!! :D

Why do you feel you have to label people as "chemmies" BTW?

You know, when I first heard about chemtrails back in Feb. of 2002 on a yahoo board. I would not and could not believe it. Wouldn't accept the notion at all. Preposterous, I said. My educator, a guy named Richard from Seattle, gave me link after link to read. I started looking up, too. I was still skeptical for months even after reading. So I continued to read and now when I do a search on chemtrails, HAARP, contrails almost 2000 sites come up! It's incredible! There are books written with tons of information and with logical and deductive reasoning employed, lists of bibliographies and the "chemmies" have made quite a case. I'm open to refutations, but the overwhelming evidence seems to point to the "chemmie" side.

Jay, of all people in the world of the net, you would be the one to write a book refuting it all. Why don't you? There must be publishers who would publish it. Why don't you compile your information (even though I haven't read it all) and go for it? You seem to be the major online debunker from everything I've researched so why not put your book out?

As far as Deborah, FS, to link her present preoccupation to any of her past occupations is quite assuming, don't you think? And doing this to people that write on her affiliated site, is the same kind of assuming. I've worked in the schools, but I don't agree with some of the methods and ways of running things that I saw, so I'm not totally a representative of public school instrucction. But I know what I saw and some teaching was great and other teaching was not. Because someone has experience in an office working for a particular agency, does it mean that at this time, she or he is in fact, working for any of their interests? And if some of the people that write on her site have experience in some government field, does that mean they're automatically suspect? Even given what you say, it makes no difference to me, personally. She has her own agenda on finding out the truth and discrediting her with her past or other peoples' pasts is a personal kind of attack, isn't it? Is it fair? Well........ is it?

BC :confused:

Insurrectionchemistry

02-03-2005, 03:51 PM

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 04:33 PM

BC seems to have originated this:

" First of all, spraying does not occur in all regions of the planet. Global dimming, therefore, in my view, can only be caused by one thing...... the sun. The sun has caused the polar icecaps to melt and although CO2 is contributory, the sun by far, is the main cause of the effect. That's just my opinion from reading. Methane, as well, due to the Arctic's and Antarctic's melting and exposing mud pits and other sources of methane production, poses another threat to the gaseous equation in terms of radiative potentials and the rising of the atmospheric temperature."

==========

BC,

The Sun supplies most of the energy on the surface of the Earth. The Sun's energy is rather constant, except for the small 11 year cycle variation and some sun spots.

The problem is the energy absorption of the Earth's atmosphere, changing the reflectivity of the land masses, etc. Plus, acids damaging the CO-2 absorption.

Most important of all, the energy absorbing gases are higher in concentration over the poles and this effect leads to the polar melt issue. It comes from the Sun's ionizing radiation making ions that drift by the Earth's magnefic field.

The concentrations of pollutants is not a constant, by elevation, or by latitude. Warmer air means wetter atmosphere and hydrogen getting higher into the atmosphere--this is associated with UV-b effects. While the UV-b effects at the poles come from both ozone depletion and H generation.

All the global warming effects are due to these pollutants in the air, many from man and some being forced out of nature by the positive feedback effects of man's contributions to heat absorbing gases in the air.

I don't think you can rightly say the Sun doing its normal thing is responsible for the polar ice melt. The correct explanation lies in the higher concentrations of the heat absorbing aerosols and gases at the pole.

That is perhaps the most important issue to grasp for getting to the bottom of the pole melt problems.

IMHO,
is

OK, Jim (right?) I hear you. And I accept what you say. However, I have come across ice core research that proves that this exact situation happened before in pre-history including the high levels of CO2. Volcanism probably played into that one. And guess what? Volcanism will probably play a role in this one, too. And I do believe that the sun is not constant and if our scientists knew about the sun's heating up or discharging an unusual amount of energy, do you think they'd tell us? Another theory that seems plausible is considering all the other planets in the solar system heating up and behaving unusually which points to the increased energy of the sun.....seems to be a plausible explanation as well. I will list those links over in the climate change thread. It would be easier for me to continue this thread we're on, regarding climate change, over at the Climate Change thread I started. Perhaps the situation is bigger than you think, solar system wide, rather than planetary alone. You might also consider the changing magnetic pole situation in all of this as well. The earth's magnetism has a role to play, does it not? And another branching theory regards extra solar system bodies entering the gravitational fields and affecting the sun's energy particulates AND the magnetic grids which in turn is governed by the earth's inner core. The earth's inner core could certainly be influenced by both the sun's particulate energy AND gravitational forces from other bodies.

I think exploring all relative theories is in order.

Continue on the Climate Change thread?

Thanks!

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 05:35 PM

Keep it coming Boomer... it will work in time!!!!!

G ! Thanks, G !

:D :shock: :D

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 05:40 PM

What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"? [b] My personal definition? Whoa. Let's see. Well, I feel rather put upon at this point. Basically it's this: you know what? I feel that I'm being set up here. I want to be specific and not have someone jump all over me. I asked you simple questions about you and your zeal. I didn't ask you for your definitions of this and that.
I don't have the energy right now to state the chemtrail case and then have you try to debunk it.

Well, that pretty much says it all.
You can't even define "chemtrail".
Or you don't have the energy.
=======================================

Ok, you cited Castle as a reference.
You sent me to the website of World Natural Health Organization.
The site advertises that they sell credentials.
Do you know what the site is really doing?
You say you were a teacher.
They sell credentials for teachers like this:
EDUCATION
Private Primary Educator
Private Secondary Educator
Private Postsecondary Educator
Private Postsecondary Educator in Christian Education
Private Postsecondary Educator in Religious Education

Do you know why they say "Private"?

"Dr" Castle is listed as having an MS. No university, no degree name.
Do you know what that means?

"Dr." Castle is listed as having a degree, D.Hum. (Doctor of Humanities) (Honoris Causa).
Do you know what that means?

"An honorary doctorate is entirely legitimate and the title conferred may be used like any other. The degree is awarded to those who have demonstrated an Honoris Causa, or cause to be honored. For a small "support honorarium" (donation) you may participate in our Honorary Doctorate Program. This program is offered only to a select group of highly accomplished individuals such as yourself. As a professional, a degree -- or additional degree -- will allow you to make a greater impact. The expedient way of showing the world your knowledge, abilities, experience and talents is with your degree and use of your titles."
You can get one of those degrees from the "University of Berkley"
https://berkley-u.edu/honorarydegree.html

Berkley, do you get it yet?
Sort of an inside joke.
Mohammad flunked out of college, so he bought a degree from Berkley, and went home first in his village to become a "Doctor".

Boomerchick, educated people list their degree along with the institution it came from, and the year they received it.
Fakes can't do that.

Castle is in good company, however. Betty Martini also has one:
http://thewnho.tripod.com/bio-bmartini.htm
She's a real piece of work.

Boomerchick. Sorry to break the news, but you've been had by a scammer.
His "chemtrail" article is so pitiful it isn't really worth debunking.
http://www.wnho.net/methodic_demise.htm

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 05:42 PM

OK, Jim (right?) I hear you. And I accept what you say.

Big mistake.

jayreynolds

02-03-2005, 05:46 PM

Insurrectionchemistry

02-03-2005, 05:46 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/es_dc

Climate Warming Spells
Species Wipeout - Experts
By Jeremy Lovell
2-3-5

EXETER, England (Reuters) - Whole species of animals from frogs to leopards,
living in vulnerable areas and with nowhere else to go, face extinction due to
global warming, scientists said on Wednesday.

And the faster the temperature rises the worse it gets.

Steve Schneider from Stanford University, California, said there was clear
proof that species were reacting to the 0.7 degrees centigrade warming of the
atmosphere that had already taken place over the past century.

"This is a harbinger -- nature is already responding," he told reporters at a
meeting on climate change. "There is a direct threat to the viability of many
species on the planet."

The complication with rapid change was not only the need to speed up the rate
of adaptation, mostly through moving territory, but that at the margins, like
at the poles or high up in mountains, there was nowhere to go and human
settlements may lie in the way.

"The only way rapid climate change can affect species is through
extinctions," Schneider said.

Bill Hare from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said that as
the climate changed, fragile ecosystems would collapse, taking with them
their inhabitants.

Rachel Warren from the Tyndall Center for Climate Change told the meeting
that even a one degree temperature rise put butterflies and birds like the
Australian Golden Bowerbird under pressure.

At two degrees the pressure spread to fish, frogs, geese, snow leopards,
seals and polar bears among other species.

Much beyond that, the species wipeout became wholesale.

Scientists say climate warming is caused by so-called greenhouse gases such
as carbon dioxide and most accept that much of this is from human activities
like car exhausts or electricity generation and urgently needs to be curbed.

Almost alone in the developed world, the United States disputes the human
element to climate change.

The UN International Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2001 that the world
could warm up by between 1.5 and nearly six degrees by the end of the century
-- with clear proof that people were to blame for most of the rise.

On Tuesday, IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri said new evidence suggested that the
upper limit range might have to be raised.

Scientists have predicted that above two degrees the warming will push the
planet into the unknown as ice caps melt, sea levels rise and weather patterns
change at accelerating rates.

But Schneider said even at the lower level there could be serious adverse
impacts.

"There is a five to 10 percent chance we will have dangerous outcomes just
from what is already in the pipeline," he said.

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 06:17 PM

Some folks who know more about SOHO anomalies have weighed in on Scott Stevens Weatherwars.info site. Looks like Scott is gonna have some 'splainin to do when he gets here:
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessage?topic ID=3007.topic

Geeze! I guess everyone's getting their diplomas somewhere weird, heh?

No, Jay, just because I'm not up to giving you a definition of chemtrails and contrails right now doesn't mean 1) I don't know them 2) don't know my butt from a subway tunnel..... but it means just what it says. I knew you were setting me up and frankly, I don't need to give you my definitions just because you ask. Fair? Fair. I don't feel I have to prove anything to you, either. Why is that? It's because I know what I know.

Now, back to Deborah. Did you answer my question whether your attack on her was fair or not?

And you now realize that Begich was talking about a Senatorial position with a teacher's organization? He is accredited and probably has a U degree from somewhere. I don't really care where it's from, either.

Where's your book? Did you respond to my book question?

Again, the evidence mounts in favor of the "chemmies."

But, I will read the link you gave me to see if anyone has gotten through to Stevens, in terms of communication.

And, I will read your website. Why would people fear it? Do you have programs that monitor people's computers? I sure hope not.

OH! I'm leaning on the sun - solar system theory as well. I also lean in favor of the past ice core samples reflecting previous climate fluctuations. See my posting over at the Climate Change thread. Yes, I agree with you on this one. Although, as I've said, fossil fuels probably don't help the situation. And even if we were not producing CO2 and other particulates, I don't think it would make much of a difference. IMHO.

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 07:27 PM

Excellent article on scalar wave technology. Guy wrote one book explaining it and one book debunking it. The guy has a brain! Warren York!

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/york/esv1n4.htm

Excellent page with graphics on Tesla technology!

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm

Selling scalar antennas:
http://www.angelslove.net/scalar_antennas.htm

Info. on HAARP and Eastlund with quotes from science magazines and major media:

http://home.stny.rr.com/physics/Warning/haarp.html

Math and Physics minds must read on Maxwell's theories: (greek to me) press the buttons to go either way

http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~schneidj/FDTD/survey-html/node1.html

Introduction
Fundamental Issues
Absorbing Boundary Conditions
Differential-Based ABC's
Material ABC's
Other Techniques
Gridding
Orthogonal Grids
Other Grids
Material Modeling
Frequency Dispersive Material
Impedance Boundary Conditions
Thin Material Sheets
Active and Passive Device Modeling
Transformations
Error Analysis and Algorithm Comparisons
Higher-Order Techniques
Radiating Structures
Simple Antennas
Horn Antennas
Antennas for Pulse Radiation
Microstrip Antennas
Hand-held Antennas
Antenna Arrays
Other Radiating Structures
Microwave Devices and Guiding Structures
Waveguides, Resonators, Feeds, and Junctions
Microstrips
Vias, Interconnects, and Transmission Lines
Discrete Scatterers
Miscellaneous Applications
Hybrid Techniques
On-Line FDTD Bibliographic Database
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
About this document ...

I may not be a physicist, but if scalar waves didn't exist they wouldn't be referred to here:

phenomena for aircraft signature technology. Computational Fluid Dynamics Direct Numerical Simulation ... Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) MOD3D/RTM A 3D Scalar Wave Propagation Modeler / Reverse Time Migration code ...

dacnet.rice.edu/Depts/CRPC/HPFF/applications/index.cfm Cached page 2/3/2005

Boundary Element Software Technology Corporation Publications Selected publications: ... of time-domain BEM for two-dimensional scalar wave propagation, Int. Jour. Numer. Methods in ...

www.gpbest.com/publicat.htm Cached page

... and its consequence for the space-time scalar wave emitted by a point source', SEG (San ... equation imaging and inversion', 2nd Wave Inversion Technology Workshop on Seismic True Amplitudes ...

www.cwp.mines.edu/~mdehoop/publications.html Cached page

... FDTD Formulation for the Simulation of Optical Structures using the Scalar Wave Equation ”, IEEE Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, September 5, 1999. U.S. Patent and Disclosures ▪ J. B ...

people.umass.edu/welsalla/index_files/Page406.htm

Grab-bag of physics and science stuff:

http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm

... had given at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from October to December 1930 and at ... for a conformally invariant version of the scalar wave equation 244 (cf. [ 255 ] , p. 395). Bargmann in ...

www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2004-2/articlesu17.html Cached page

cources offered 2002
... Lectures will cover ray optics, scalar wave optics, laser and Gaussian beam optics, light sources ... who wish to use lasers in research and technology. Many demonstrations will be used to ...

www.chemistry.montana.edu/~optec/opticscourses.htm Cached page

Photonic & Acoustic Band-Gap Bibliography
... Spectra Web Site. Science & Technology: New-Age Crystals, The ... TR MOD PHYS 194: 227-261 2003 Wave Propagation in Periodic ... band-gap materials I. Scalar case, J. Comput. Physics 150(1999 ...

phys.lsu.edu/~jdowling/pbgbib.html Cached page

__________________________________________________ ______

Overall from this research experience online, I noticed people using the term "scalar" in a non-physics way, and other very deeply technical and scientific applications as well as software and computers used in equations addressing scalar science.

Point made! Bearden isn't the only duck in the pond !!!! Scalar waves and electro-magnetic science exists!

SCALAR WAVES EXIST !

BC :p

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 07:35 PM

Boomer, I am really disappointed. You were moving right along, explaining everything and then *BANG* you seemed to hit a brick wall. If you believe in something, why can't you describe or explain what that something is? Maybe "chemtrails" is like a religion where a person has faith. Or maybe it's more like a cult. Your reaction is fascinating, because I have seen it so many times before. It was predictable. You and several other very intelligent people seem to have been brain-washed.

Oh Yaak, don't you know this girl doesn't jump through any man's hoops? I'll define it when I want to! It's not cultish, it's not brainwashing, its' stubborness! Get it?

You want my definition? Pay for it! LOL! I'll not prostitute myself to a sadist on the subject!

When I'm good and ready I'll post my contrail - chemtrail definitions and not a moment sooner!

Can you deal with it, Yaaky boy? Sit on your notions in oceans of assumptions for eternity if need be. Your balloosions will rule you! Poof!

BC :p

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 07:57 PM

Dr. R. Michael Castle is an Environmental Professional whom holds a National Certification for Environmental Risk Assessment with 15 years of field practice in Environmental Risk Assessment, Investigation, Analyses and Remediation. Excellent. So he is apparently qualified to speak about environmental risks. Great. So what are his qualifications in Meteorology? Aerodynamics? Jet engine combustion? Air Traffic Control? Navigation? Does he in fact have any qualifications in these areas? If not, then why are you quoting him?

Clifford Carnicom is a research scientist,Cliff Carnicom is a joke! I hardly think you can bring Cliff to the table as a valid "research scientist". If he's a research scientist, then I must be Albert Einstein in person! Did you ever ascertain exactly what his academic qualifications are? What degrees he holds? Which Universities he obtained them from? What papers has he had accepted for publication in mainstream science journals? Have you checked anything at all about his background and qualifications?

Cliff is widely know for totally rejecting all scientific methodology, and even more widely known for rejecting any data that conflicts with his pre-conceived notions and agenda. He is also pretty good at botching simple experiments, purely out of ignorance of science. The last time I called him on a glaringly badly screwed up "experiment", instead of thanking me for pointing out the gross problems with his mythology and his lack of basic knowledge of the experiment he was trying to do, or correcting his methodology and repeating the experiment, he just banned from his website, period. In fact, he banned every single IP address in Chile from access to his website. (Of course, that doesn't actually stop me from visitng his website, but he thinks it does...)

And that is supposed to be the normal, responsible, scientific behavior of a "research scientist"? It wasn't even a particularly complex experiment that he had botched when I called him out on it: He put some unidentified sample of something in distilled water to "wash" it, then looked at it under a microscope several minutes later, and decided that what he saw must be red blood cells because of their shape. Can you believe just how dumb that is? Even a junior high school biology student could tell you right away what was wrong with that!

Sorry, but Cliff is no scientist. Although I have heard he might make a good dentist, especially when it comes to doing root-canals on himself in the bathroom mirror...

[/quote] I also respect, regardless of your views, Will Thomas as an investigative journalist whose work attempts to uncover the truth regarding aerosol spraying. [/quote]That's kind of like asking the inmates of Al Catraz to investigate the crimes that they themselves committed, isn't it? Sort of similar to asking a crooked narcotics cop who is on the take, to investigate his own dealings behind-the-scenes...

Many can be relied upon. Those that are well researched, especially. Those written by investigative journalists like Begich and Thomas and other academics who have bothered to research. ]/quote]How can they possibly be relied upon, if they have no science to back them up? No evidence? No proof? Not even a basic hypothesis that everyone agrees on? It's not the RESEARCH that matters so much as the SCIENCE. I can sit here for days and weeks and months and read all about how to do brain surgery. But would that qualify me to actually do brain surgery? Clearly not. Actually formal academic training, and first-hand, supervised, hands-on experience in SCIENCE is what is required, as a well as a scientifically sound approach.

[quote]What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"? My personal definition? Whoa. Let's see. Well, I feel rather put upon at this point. Basically it's this: you know what? I feel that I'm being set up here. I want to be specific and not have someone jump all over me. I asked you simple questions about you and your zeal. I didn't ask you for your definitions of this and that.
I don't have the energy right now to state the chemtrail case and then have you try to debunk it. I have read enough from Carnicom, Thomas, and others and have seen the persistent trails myself to warrant my wanting to get at the truth. For now, you'll just have to be satisfied with this.I'm trying to understand here: You absolutely believe in chemtrails, yet you cannot even describe what a chemtrails is? You cannot define it? Explain the characteristics of it? The physics behind it? How it behaves? How to recognize it? Don't you think that is rather strange?

Tell you what, why don't you think about it carefully, then write down your own definition of a "chemtrail", including how to differentiate one from a normal "contrail".

I expect some detailed evidence to refute any of the claims made by either scientists or investigative journalists to whom I shall refer over time. You seem to have it backwards: It is the SCIENTISTS that need to bring the detailed evidence, not the debunkers! We'll take a look at what they bring, and if it stands up to scientific scrutiny, we'll recognize that, and congratulate you. If it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny (which is VERY rigorous), then it will be discarded. But we don't have to bring any "evidence" Why should we? We are not the ones making the claims!

It all boils down to this: Debunkers make no outrageous claims. Chemmies do. If the chemmies want those claims to be accepted, rather than laughed at, then it is the CHEMMIES job to bring cold, hard, sound, solid scientific evidence that supports their claims. After five long years, not one single chemmie has ever been able to do that. Not one, not once. Why do you think that is, Boomer?

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 08:20 PM

And I do believe that the sun is not constant and if our scientists knew about the sun's heating up or discharging an unusual amount of energy, do you think they'd tell us?Well, you can BELIEVE what you like about the sun's output not being constant, but scientists don't care about beliefs, Rather, they have measured the sun's output for years, and they KNOW that it is not constant. Belief does not come into the equation. Science works DESPITE what you believe, not BECAUSE of it (unless your name is Cliff Carnicom). And yes, they HAVE told us, published in the usual scientific journals. The fact that you did not KNOW about this does not mean that they did not tell anyone about it: It just means that you didn't know about it, because you were doing your research in the wrong places.

Another theory that seems plausible is considering all the other planets in the solar system heating up and behaving unusually which points to the increased energy of the sun.....Not sure I follow you there: How would an increase in solar energy output affect the behavior of planets? The solar wind is an extremely tiny effect, measurable in the range of nanograms per square kilometer. Nowhere near enough to have even a tiny effect on planetary behavior. The only way that planets would be affected by the sun is if the sun were to somehow change it's mass drastically, thus affecting gravity, but the mass of the sun and the rate of change of that mass are extremely well known, and right on track, as they always have been. What mechanism do you think could cause changes in solar power output to affect planets?

You might also consider the changing magnetic pole situation in all of this as well. The earth's magnetism has a role to play, does it not?In what? What role does it play, and in what way does it play that role?

And another branching theory regards extra solar system bodies entering the gravitational fields and affecting the sun's energy particulatesWhoa!!! What on earth do you mean by "the sun's energy particulates"? Please define "energy particulates" What units do you measure "energy particulates" in?

AND the magnetic gridsWhat grids? Magnetism forms in LINES, not GRIDS! It is a basic axiom of magnetic field theory that magnetic fields only ever form in curved lines, which are closed loops. There are no "grids" in magnetism.

The earth's inner core could certainly be influenced by both the sun's particulate energy Are you talking about neutrinos? Is that what you mean be "energy particulates"? If not, then please define your term clearly.

AND gravitational forces from other bodies. Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? Why would anyone doubt that? However, if a massive body of some kind were to get close enough to have an appreciable effect at the Earth's core, it would already be wreaking absolute havoc on the surface! I kind of think that we would have noticed by now. I hope you are not going to start spouting about Planet X or some such nonsense.

think exploring all relative theories is in order. Great idea! I look forward to your responses to the above.

Continue on the Climate Change thread? Nope. Continue here.

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 08:23 PM

Urinalysis again, Stu? :D

I didn't just state Thomas's or Carnicoms's credentials, I obtained them from websites. I don't need to look up anyone's background and discredit them. I have enough common sense and logic to discern for myself whether they compile evidence for a convincing argument or not.

The evidence is overwhelming. Books, lab studies, observational studies, gov. documents, Congressional documents, photos, interviews with scientists, patents, papers by military personnel on the connected sciences of weather control and particulates, Tesla science, Eastlund patents, Eastlund science, bibilographies a mile long on papers and experiments, gov. sites explaining overt operations, meteorologists, other world organizations concerned, other countries concerned, .................... it's all piling up, peeps.

Am I happy they might destroy incoming missiles? WHOA YEAH!!!!

What's on the debunker side? Books? Gov documents? patents? interviews with scientists? planes not in the air making trails that persist and making people sick? What? They're really not there? It's not what I see with my own eyes? It's not really happening? It doesn't make the sky gray on a normal blue sky day? It doesn't make people sick when an FAA person's wife got asthma for the first time in her life after a day of spraying? You think people with jobs and families who work for gov. agencies would risk their livelihood for open testimonies? Huh! That's why many of testimonies are not credible to you, like the mechanic's and pilot's. They can't give their names. It's top secret stuff.... DOD, remember? That's the nature of the thing. But in time, if there is time, all those who want to talk, will. Oh yeah, I can see it now, right before the sky catches on fire and burns the hell out of all of us..... so and so times 12 comes out of the woodwork and lays it on the table..... " yes, this is what has gone on all these..... y.... " WHOOPS! WE'RE ALL GONE IN A FLASH!!!! Get it? Those babies are playing with energies they barely know enough about! We're all connected here. It's like little Johnny using the house as his lab while he mixes up toxic chemicals and tons of TNT explosives and gases in the kitchen while we're sleeping in the bedrooms..... GET IT????

Your wrong on scalar waves...... they do exist and physcists are studying them, HAARP is using them, and for all I know Gaiacom uses them , too.

Good try. Balloosions all over the place.

Peace, babes!

bc ;)

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 08:37 PM

ACADEMIC DEGREES:

M.S.

D.Hum. (Doctor of Humanities) (Honoris Causa)

ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION:

Sinclair Community College Chemistry Undergraduate Studies
University Of Missouri-Rolla Polymer Sciences For Undergraduate Studies
University Of Southern Mississippi Polymer Science
Purdue University - West Lafayette, Environmental Management And Education Program
School Of Civil Engineering Hazard Communication Training Program
Indiana University - Bloomington, S.P.E.A.. Environmental Risk Assessment Training
Indiana University - Bloomington, Certified Environmental Risk Auditor Training

Dr. Castle is president of Castle Concepts Consultants, Inc., and is a Certified Environmental Risk Auditor performing Environmental Audit/Assessments: Walk-through assessment and site survey, comprehensive Phase I audit/assessment, Phase 11 testing and analysis, Phase III site remediation management and closure. Environmental Compliance auditing of hazardous chemical inventory for SARA Tier I and II, SARA Title III (Section 313) inspection audit and Form "R" preparations, air quality permit preparation, RCRA regulatory permit review and Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) overview. OSHA/HAZCOM standard audit: training, documentation, labeling and material safety data sheet preparation. FIFRA Screening: assessment of pesticide license and screen for FIFRA regulated pesticides. UST and LUST Review: research into underground storage tank history and permits.
PATENTS:

Method Of Reclaiming Cured Polyurethane Elastomer - R.M. Castle, U.S. Patent 3,954,681 (May 1976)
Reactive Adhesive Coatings Containing Ionomic Polymers And C-Nitroso Compounds, R.M. Castle And R- Czerwenski, U.S. Patent (1980)
Macrex - (Macro-Polymeric Bound Matrix) Flame Retardant Fiberboard R.M. Castle (Patent Pending)

PUBLICATIONS:

Compliance Notebook - Checklist And Suggestions, R.M. Castle (1989)
Partnering Environmentally Safe Technological Concepts And Product Development Of/From Secondary Resources, R.M. Castle, Presented To Ball State University Center For Energy Research/Education/Service, Muncie, Indiana (January 1992).
New Environmental Remediations Affecting Fixture Manufacturers, R-M. Castle, Presented At 37th Annual Convention Of National Association Of Store Fixture Manufacturers, Hamilton, Bermuda, (March 1992).
NIMBY Svs.. An Environmental Coloring Book, R.M. Castle, S.J. Castle, N. Donat, Published By Jene' Environmental, Copyright TXU 561 739, (March 1993).
An Environmental Overview, Presented To The Richmond Rotary, November 1993.
MACREX - Turn-Of-The-Pne - An Overview, R.M. Castle, Team On Metropolitan Planning And Design Of The President's Council On Sustainable Development, (November 1994).
MACREX - A Pseudo Wood Material And Sustainable Technology For Ecological Policy Consideration, R.M. Castle, White House Conference On Environmental Technology (December 1994.

A Polymer Chemist for 22 years prior to establishment of the Environmental Consulting and Engineering Firm, Castle Concepts Consultants, Inc., and is on the International Advisory Board of the World Natural Health Organization, (Bio of Dr. R.Michael Castle, http://www.wnho.net/bio-mcastle.htm)

And what are your credentials? Jay? Stu? Huh? Well he's no physicist but he's open enough to new technologies and is aware of their implications and affects on our bodies. He also sells colloidal silver. Ok, well he's not the best representative of academia, so I see. I accept that he's just an aware person who wants to get on the clean up and be healthy bandwagon. Smart guy, anyway, not brilliant, but smart!

Scalar waves exist!

Peace, babes!

;)

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 08:55 PM

Why is that? It's because I know what I know.No, it's because you THINK you know what you know, but you cannot actually prove it scientifically, and therefore you do not actually know what you think you know. If you follow my drift... :)

Yes, I agree with you on this one. Although, as I've said, fossil fuels probably don't help he situation. And even if we were not producing CO2 and other particulates, I don't think it would make much of a difference. IMHO. Actually, on this one we agree totally. There is precious liottle evidence to supopr the theory of anthropgenic global warming, and mountains of evidence to support natural causes. Thank God the USA did not sign Kyoto.

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 09:11 PM

Stu babes,

Check out my sun post over at Climate Change. Comfy over there! Ooops, I mean hot!

Sun... hot... well psuedo science gets me going. You simply must debunk Hoagland on his latest treatise! Go Dogs Go! Remember that one? A children's book! :p

Have you read his and Wilcock's geometric theories over on Ascension2000.com? OMG! The stuff will get your mind really warped! Yeah, you got me on that one! :p :lol:

And you're right, I don't know physics, but I know what shows up on a search and I can read the dang stuff and see the equations, see the products, notice the topics for study at universities, but it would take me three lifetimes praying to God to receive instructions with a mathematic mind to barely understand the stuff. So, I accept that I don't understand it. But Stu, babes, scalar waves are being studied at the universities -- I gave you proof. Accept it, please. Thanks.

Thanks for seeing the plantetary dilemna as beyond our control. Adaptation will be the key to survival. That's about it. We'll do the best we can and hope some of us survive!

:shock:

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 09:20 PM

I didn't just state Thomas's or Carnicoms's credentials,I noticed that, but you have not dealt with the fact that he has none, and that his "research" is a total joke that isn't even very funny/

Tell you what, boomer, since you trust in his science so much, why don't you pick one of his "research papers", any one you like, and point it out to me, so that I can do some peer review on it. to see how well it stands up to close scrutiny using the scientific method. Are you game to try that?

[/quote]I have enough common sense and logic to discern for myself whether they compile evidence for a convincing argument or not. [/quote]Yes, but do you have the scientific background to actually follow the physics, chemistry and mathematics that he tries to muddle through? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do seem to recall that you have no formal training in physics, chemistry, or any other field of science?

The evidence is overwhelming. Books, lab studies, observational studies, gov. documents, Congressional documents, photos, interviews with scientists, patents, papers by military personnel on the connected sciences of weather control and particulates, Tesla science, Eastlund patents, Eastlund science, bibilographies a mile long on papers and experiments, gov. sites explaining overt operations, meteorologists, other world organizations concerned, other countries concerned, .................... it's all piling up, peeps. OK, let's just take ONE of those for the time being, and examine it in depth. I choose "lab studies". What "lab studies" can you point to that have convincingly demonstrated the existence of "chemtrails"? Just one. Pick your best one, by the most prestigious independent lab you can find, with the best documented chain of custody, etc. Give it your best shot. Let's take a look at what you consider to be THE most convincing lab study to date.

What's on the debunker side? Books? Gov documents? patents? interviews with scientists? planes not in the air making trails that persist and making people sick? What? They're really not there? It's not what I see with my own eyes? It's not really happening? It doesn't make the sky gray on a normal blue sky day? It doesn't make people sick when an FAA person's wife got asthma for the first time in her life after a day of spraying? You think people with jobs and families who work for gov. agencies would risk their livelihood for open testimonies? Huh! That's why many of testimonies are not credible to you, like the mechanic's and pilot's. They can't give their names. It's top secret stuff.... DOD, remember? That's the nature of the thing. But in time, if there is time, all those who want to talk, will. Oh yeah, I can see it now, right before the sky catches on fire and burns the hell out of all of us..... so and so times 12 comes out of the woodwork and lays it on the table..... " yes, this is what has gone on all these..... y.... " WHOOPS! WE'RE ALL GONE IN A FLASH!!!! Get it? Those babies are playing with energies they barely know enough about! We're all connected here. It's like little Johnny using the house as his lab while he mixes up toxic chemicals and tons of TNT explosives and gases in the kitchen while we're sleeping in the bedrooms..... GET IT???? If you've finished ranting, how about calming down a bit and dealing with one of these at a time? I'm really not up to handling 57 threads at once, so we'll have to just do one at a time. Which one would you like to start with? Since we are talking about something called "chemtrails", it seems obvious that the very first thin we need is a workable definition of "chemtrail" that we can both agree on. What definition do you suggest?

Your wrong on scalar waves...... they do exist and physcists are studying them, HAARP is using them, No, it doesn't work like that. Just saying "you are wrong" does not make it so. You will need to provide proof that I am wrong, which you can only do by demonstrating that scalar waves can, in fact, be given vectors without actually giving them vectors

Also, you cannot just say "physcists are studying them" without showing this to be true. You could do that by pointing to a recent research paper on scalar waves, published in one of the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals. Just tell which edition of which journal I need to look in, and the title of the paper, or the name of the lead researcher, and I'll go check it out.

You can't just say something and expect it to automatically be so.

and for all I know Gaiacom uses them , too. NO, gaiacomm technology is based entirely on kook-waves, which are the neuronical equivalent of demented inverse Octelical Protocol scalar brain waves, driven backwards over a wireless fibre-optic link. Or something like that.

Good try. Thank you! Pity I can't say the same about yours.

stuart_allsop

02-03-2005, 09:24 PM

Scalar waves exist!
No they do not. Not until you can convince me that it is possibly to apply a vector to a scalar without applying a vector to it.

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 09:34 PM

LOL!

I'm getting tired, time go call it a night. No, I see the big picture now, I see the interrelatedness of things, the connectedness of spirits and energies, the heat of the sun, the gravitational pulls, the hyperdimensional time/space continuum... breaking... angular momentums... consciousness ... interactions and physical manifestations....angels and principalities... and angles and geometries... and I'll find your gnat on the wall for you.

But it's time to rest. So find peace and keep it in your heart.

bc

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 09:41 PM

The next step chem cultists take when their belief system is questioned is name calling.

What is it that prevents you from admitting that it is impossible to describe something that does not exist.

Jay forced you to realize that you don't know what chemtrails are. Now you are angry. WHY? Talk about balloosions; Jay unloaded both barrels of a 12 guage shotgun into one of yours.

! ! ! BOOM ! ! !

:shock:

Whoa now. I was just getting ready to turn in. I'm not mad, silly, I'm being humorous. BTW, I liked your volcanism-sun graph over there. Check out my sun and climate stuff on the Climate Thread. Why can't we post climate related things there? Hmmm. Guess it's discussed everywhere.

BTW, I'll post my definitions when I'm good and ready. Balloosions! It's a great term! Think I'll keep using it. You sure like to blast away at this late hour. Balloosions are ego inflated, full of hot air, illusions. Get it? Nice term, heh?

Get some rest! We live another day... no telling when the CME's will get us!!!! I predict a volcano eruption by the 20th of the month! LOL! Like no one else is saying it! :D

Toodles and nighty night!

BC

Boomer Chick

02-03-2005, 09:44 PM

No they do not. Not until you can convince me that it is possibly to apply a vector to a scalar without applying a vector to it.

Oh geeze, got to swat that fly buzzing in my ear!

Try reading some of those university sites! That'll give you some scalar jerky to chew on! Seriously. I went there and it was over my music-poetry filled little hayd!

Rest for now!

bc ;)

halva

02-03-2005, 10:05 PM

Raynolds systematically employs pot-stirring mechanisms...

Just note how yesterday he tried to get Jim Phelps reacting to a news item about a Jewish rabbi infecting new-born babies with herpes. Raynolds condemns Jim Phelps for anti-Semitism and others for not denouncing Phelps for anti-Semitism. But Raynolds himself systematically stokes the anti-Semitic prejudice he then proceeds demagocically to condemn.

This is his routine methodology.

Jump on FootSoldier, kids.

Jump on Deborah the CIA agent.

Two or three tricks, repeated again and again and again and again.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-03-2005, 11:20 PM

Greetings,

A little homework lesson. Everyone knows there is a "Global Warming Factor" or "Global Warming Potential," aka "GWP," for most of the gases and particles. The GWP criteria sets the factor of CO-2 as 1.

What is the GWP for HF or hydrogen fluoride? Knowing that all the fluorine involved global warming gases have a huge GWP, then what is it for HF?

IMHO,
is

halva

02-04-2005, 01:42 AM

Just as a further footnote for Boomer Chick. There is no reason to assume that Raynolds is lying when he says that he has never been paid for his chemmie debunking duties.

What he has done is develop a niche market whose foundations rest firmly on the secrecy of the programmes producing the phenomena chemmies react to.

All the challenges, all the provocation, are underpinned by that.

It's true that in the years he has devoted to this hobby, Raynolds has built up a considerable fund of knowledge and expertise. All devoted to internet ego-projection at the expense of anyone asking questions about what they see in the sky.

If it is true that Raynolds has never been paid, this goes to show to what ends some people will go in their pursuit of subsitute libido satisfactions.

Why hasn't he written any chemtrails debunking books, as Boomer Chick interestingly asks.

One of the reasons must have to do with the general official status of everything surrounding chemtrails as part of an 'internet hoax'. This means that the debunking will also be largely an internet phenomenon, with publishing houses not being very keen to help in getting the 'hoax' off the internet, even through the act of debunking it off the internet and not on it.

This situation has led recently to some inadvertent self-revelation by Raynolds when a month or two back, apropos of nothing, he suddenly commanded us all to BE AFRAID of someone called Michael Crichton.

Raynolds clearly admires and perhaps envies Crichton, because Crichton's career in the wide world is not plagued by the restrictions that Raynolds constructed for himself when he opted to work in the 'chemtrails' niche market, i.e. by default, only on the internet.

Raynolds would clearly now like to be 'buddies' with Crichton because of their shared political views.

But as I indicated a week or two back: their relationship in my assessment is doomed to remain one-sided, with Raynolds as the eternal internet wannabe.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-04-2005, 01:44 AM

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5084&method=full

Scientists Fear Non-Linear Climate Changes
Climate triggers 'poorly understood'
Agence France-Presse, Feb. 2, 2005

Scientists at a global warming conference say they
see potential triggers for runaway climate change,
but admit that when and how these notional
doomsdays may be unleashed are debatable or quite
unknown.

The theoretical triggers are the apocalyptic side
to global warming, making a lie of the common
perception of it as an incremental threat that
will rise predictably, like a straight line on a
graph.

A widespread view of climate change is that the
Earth's surface temperature will gently rise as
more and more carbon gas is spewed out by fossil
fuels, trapping heat from the Sun.

Responding to the crisis

The change would be progressive, which means
humans would have enough time to respond to the
crisis and plants and animals have a better chance
of adapting to its effects.

But scientists at a conference on global warming
say there is also the risk of sudden,
catastrophic, irreversible and uncontrollable
climate change that could be triggered in as-yet
unknown conditions.

"There's still a great deal we don't know about
these rapid non-linear events," British scientist
Sir John Houghton, a leading member of the UN's
top panel on global warming, said on Tuesday.

One scenario centres on the future of the Gulf
Stream, the current that brings warm water to the
northeastern Atlantic from the tropics and gives
Western Europe a climate that is balmy for its
northern latitude.

What would happen to this oceanic conveyor belt if
cold fresh water were dumped on it from melting
polar ice and changed rainfall patterns, the
result of warm weather?

When this idea was first put forward in the late
1990s, some doomsters predicted the Gulf Stream
would stop, pitching Britain, Ireland and much of
coastal Western Europe back into an Ice Age.

Scientists fail to agree

But two computer models, put forward on Tuesday,
show how far scientists fail to agree on the
probability of this event and on its likely
impact.

University of Illinois professor Mike Schlesinger
said he had modelled a "business as usual"
simulation in which the world continued with
uncontrolled emissions of the carbon gases that
cause global warming.

"I was surprised to find out that it's 70-percent
likely that there will be a shutdown in this
circulation over a 200-year timeline," he said.

"Over Europe, the shutdown would cause a cooling
of perhaps one or two degrees, superposed on
(several degrees of) warming," he said.

"So what you get is a smaller warming in Europe,
you don't get an Ice Age out of that," he added.

Just as remarkable was this discovery the
shutdown caused such a disruption in global
weather patterns that Alaska became a lot warmer
in winter.

"This is serious news for the permafrost," he
said.

A more cautious standpoint

In contrast, Richard Wood, of Britain's Hadley
Centre for Climate Centre and Research, was far

more cautious.

"Little can currently be said about the
probability, except that it is subjectively
considered low during the 21st century," Wood's
study said.

His simulation, entirely hypothetical, of the Gulf
Stream shutdown suggests that parts of Britain
would be far colder than the so-called Little Ice
Age of the 17th and 18th centuries, when winter
"Frost Fairs" were held on the frozen River
Thames.

Worst hit would not be Alaska, but Central
America, where farm production would fall by 106
percent, according to this calculation.

Another doomsday worry is about the future of
carbon which is already stored in the soil in the
form of decayed leaves and rotting vegetation and
in the capacity of the sea to go on absorbing
man-made carbon pollution.

Scientists at the conference agreed that if
temperatures go beyond a threshold, this stored
carbon in the soil will be released into the air
and at some point, the sea, which has already
absorbed 48 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted
by burning oil, gas and coal, will no longer be
able to absorb any more pollution.

That means vast amounts of gas will be dumped into
the air, amplifying the global warming crisis at a
stroke.

A little-understood phenomenon

But carbon storage in such vast and complex
mechanisms is a complex and little-understood
phenomenon.

"The precise point at which the land biosphere
will start to provide a positive feedback (i.e.
release CO2 into the air instead of storing it)
cannot yet be predicted with certainty," says
Peter Cox of Britain's Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology.

"This depends on a number of poorly understood
processes, such as the long-term response of
photosynthesis and soil respiration to increased
temperatures and the possible acclimation of
photosynthesis to high CO2," he said.

AFP

Insurrectionchemistry

02-04-2005, 01:46 AM

again

A little homework lesson. Everyone knows there is a "Global Warming Factor" or "Global Warming Potential," aka "GWP," for most of the gases and particles. The GWP criteria sets the factor of CO-2 as 1.

What is the GWP for HF or hydrogen fluoride? Knowing that all the fluorine involved global warming gases have a huge GWP, then what is it for HF?

IMHO,
is

halva

02-04-2005, 03:35 AM

Jim, since I am the one who has most specifically enrolled in your class, let me answer and say that it must be very, very high.

Right?

So the conclusion is........?

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 03:49 AM

Boomer, I am really disappointed. You were moving right along, explaining everything and then *BANG* you seemed to hit a brick wall. If you believe in something, why can't you describe or explain what that something is? Maybe "chemtrails" is like a religion where a person has faith. Or maybe it's more like a cult. Your reaction is fascinating, because I have seen it so many times before. It was predictable. You and several other very intelligent people seem to have been brain-washed.

She didn't stop reading, she read all my questions.
Yes, they are a 'set-up'. They follow a logical progression which anyone interested in the truth would follow. The last one leads you to the point at which the person admits there is no evidence, that misinformation is being propagated, and the person having knowledge of the deception is obliged to expose it.
I've seen tis sort of reaction before. It shows that to some degree she has a conscience.
It tell me she knows.
It's also really not fair because I answered her questions.
She's not really interested in the truth, even though she knows she's leaping to very shaky ground, she's jumping back onto her 'rock' of belief.

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 04:17 AM

Why hasn't he written any chemtrails debunking books, as Boomer Chick interestingly asks.
Wayne, there is much more left to uncover before I can write my book on "Chemtrails". All the chemmie books are speculative, because the phenomenon isn't concluded.

Once the last chemmie gives up or dies of old age, I will consider writing the book.
Don't worry, your place in the book is certain.
Oh, BTW, asking Deborah to confess what she knows about the purported CIA/NSA trained and associated people is just research for my book, to increase the common level of understanding.

I find it fascinating that all yu chemmies aren't jumping on her to reveal what she knows about that, in the same way you aren't questioning whether or not Jim Phelps "invented chemtrails methods while working at ORNL in the mid-1980s".

Boomerchick, instead of asking me,
"Where is your book?"
You shouild be asking Deborah and Jimbo the questions so that the whole truth can be known.
I have a hint for you- they know!

halva

02-04-2005, 05:24 AM

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 05:40 AM

So Boomer Chick: the point arises - what is going to happen when it finally clicks with you that debate with Raynolds is more than a waste of time and more like a crime against your fellow humans.
Your openness to suggestions that the sun rather than atmospheric forcing may be a key factor, (or the key factor), in climate change provides a chink into which Raynolds is going to insert his chisel.
This is irrespective of the scientific validity or otherwise of that hypothesis.
The fact is that Raynolds the anthropogenic climate change "sceptic" is much more vulnerable politically than Raynolds the chemtrails debunker.
That in itself is reason enough for choosing the focus on climate change as a means of countering him politically.
Eventually you are going to get worn down by the manic single-mindedness of this adversary, and his hangers-on.
The question is: what then?
My suggestion is that if it comes to a choice between ignore-listing Raynolds and the others and leaving this thread or this forum, you should choose ignore-listing.

Wayne, when are you going to finally realize you aren't the end-all-be-all Stalinist who can order people around?
Everywhere you go it's the same-- boss, boss, boss.
Do this, do that.

The fact remains that Wayne hall has never ignore-listed anyone, and he never will.
Every time he has ordered others to ignore-list someone, he claims to have done so himself.
In a day or so, he reveals he hasn't ignored anything and ends up making some lame response directly to what the supposedly "ignore-listed" person said.

Wayne, you can't simply lie constantly and expect people to not notice.

halva

02-04-2005, 06:41 AM

What I would like to see is a roster system where one of us keeps an eye on you so as to minimise time wasting for the others.

We could do it by rotation. A roster system would also have the advantage that it would prevent you from playing us off against each other as you persistently try to do.

Your hangers-on are irrelevant and I do usually ignore them, except sometimes when I am at the cafe, which isn't every day. But one of us could also be given the task of monitoring them, if that should be deemed necessary.

All of these suggestions are superior as ideas to threats to call in moderators, or the F.B.I. or some other law enforcement agency, or to indulging in moral condemnation of your criminality.

Perhaps it will be time to start thinking about them when Boomer Chick begins to show signs of fatigue.

gaiacomm

02-04-2005, 07:21 AM

Tesla technology will help the environment if used as it was intended!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-04-2005, 08:07 AM

http://www.livescience.com/technology/050202_light_show.html

First Artificial Neon Sky Show Created
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
02 February 2005

By shooting intense radio beams into the night sky, researchers created a modest neon light show visible from the ground. The process is not well understood, but scientists speculate it could one day be employed to light a city or generate celestial advertisements.

Researchers with the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) project in Alaska tickled the upper atmosphere to the extent that it glowed with green speckles.

The speckles were sprinkled amid a natural display known as the aurora borealis, or Northern Lights. The aurora occurs when electrons from a cloud of hot gas, known as plasma, rain down from space and excite molecules in the ionosphere, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) up.

The HAARP experiment involves acres of antennas and a 1 megawatt generator. The scientists sent radio pulses skyward every 7.5 seconds, explained team leader Todd Pederson of the Air Force Research Laboratory.

"The radio waves travel up to the ionosphere, where they excite the electrons in the plasma," Pederson told LiveScience. "These electrons then collide with atmospheric gasses, which then give off light, as in a neon tube."

Pederson and his colleagues missed the show, but they snapped images.

"We unfortunately were indoors watching the data on monitors during the experiment and were busy scrambling trying to make sure the effects were real and not some glitch with the equipment," he said. "We knew right away it was something extraordinary to show up in real time on the monitor against the natural aurora, but did not confirm that it would have been visible to the naked eye until a day or two later when we had a chance to calibrate the raw data."

The experiment is detailed in the Feb. 2 issue of the journal Nature.

The research could improve understanding of the aurora and also help explain how the ionosphere adversely affects radio communications.

It is not yet clear if the aurora must already be active before an artificial sky show can be induced, says Karl Ziemelis, chief physics editor at the journal.

If no pre-existing aurora is required, Ziemelis said, "we are left with the tantalizing (some would say disconcerting) possibility that such radio-fuelled emissions could form the basis of a technology for urban lighting, celestial advertising, and more."

Insurrectionchemistry

02-04-2005, 08:17 AM

Halva writes:

Jim, since I am the one who has most specifically enrolled in your class, let me answer and say that it must be very, very high.

Right?

So the conclusion is........?
===========

Seemingly you have worked on and thought about gases like SF-6 and other fluorine based global warming gases, which can give you a clue.

The question is---why have you neglected the most significant of the fluorine global warming gases.

Correct belated answer. and if you realize that HF is a big factor compared to CO-2---then you know the principle driver for chemtrails. Chemtrails methods go after raining out the HF in the skies. (since the chemtrail methods rain out this poison acid, they also have to treat and compensate for that effect using Ti)

HF is bad, because it is on the order of the same molecular weight as air, but more lite, so it will suspend a long time and goes higher than others. It makes for a boyancy effect that the heavier SF-6 compound does not have, as it is much heavier than air and is dragged along like a pebble in a stream.

It is also one of the principle drivers for the HAARP project, which seeks to change the chemical storage factors by using plasma heating.

HF has huge source terms, and it suspends just like freon/SF-6/etc.---except much much better due to small size and MW. HF captures IR very strongly. It is rising in concentrations in the upper atmosphere. It is the principle global warming problem.

IMHO,
is

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 09:48 AM

Hey! G! Could you post some effective usages of Tesla technology in order to repair damages done to...... say, the ozone holes, helping adjust various molecular balances, etc? Thanks!

Halva, you're directing energy into changing social constructs instead of enlightening the readers to information for global awareness. I do indeed believe the sun is primary, our efforts to clean the atmosphere, secondary. All efforts are viable and worthy. Peak Oil. Climate change. BIG PIC!!!

Jim, I'm taking your class, too. I read everything and read your posts over at CTC when I was there, too. And I visit there periodically and read. Thanks!

Yaak, have a good day!!! SCHWEETIE!!!

Stu and Jay, I'll get back to chemtrail contrail stuff soon and will read recommended links... HAGD!!!

FS... keep marching!

I posted a GREAT information resource page for you physicsphiles over at Climate Change.

PEACE

BC :D

Insurrectionchemistry

02-04-2005, 10:29 AM

Interesting----now two taking the "course."

What should you two find interesting? Perhaps if one does an internet search for HF's GWP that you turn up nothing.

If you well know HF is an IR / Heat absorbing gas / nanoparticle, then where is the GWP number.

The problem is the GWP number is a bit like the national debt, an upward growing number. As long as the upper atmosphere's HF concentration grows, the GWP number increases.

The GWP number for HF is a moving target----an increasing large number.

The HF problem is a trillion times the SF-6 problem--due to huge source term quantities.

When chemtrail methods pull HF out of the atmosphere via rains, and it gets into the soils, it is still a poison that accumulates. With the chemtrails methods came the inclusion of Ti into the food / medicine chain. It is being added to deal with the formation of the F-metal compounds that damage health. Ti is used on multiple pathways.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 10:38 AM

Halva writes:

Jim, since I am the one who has most specifically enrolled in your class, let me answer and say that it must be very, very high.

Right?

So the conclusion is........?
===========

Seemingly you have worked on and thought about gases like SF-6 and other fluorine based global warming gases, which can give you a clue.

The question is---why have you neglected the most significant of the fluorine global warming gases.

Correct belated answer. and if you realize that HF is a big factor compared to CO-2---then you know the principle driver for chemtrails. Chemtrails methods go after raining out the HF in the skies. (since the chemtrail methods rain out this poison acid, they also have to treat and compensate for that effect using Ti)

HF is bad, because it is same molecular weight as air, so it will suspend a long time and goes higher than others.

It is also one of the principle drivers for the HAARP project, which seeks to change the chemical storage factors by using plasma heating.

HF has huge source terms, and it suspends just like freon/SF-6/etc.---except much much better due to small size and MW. HF captures IR very strongly. It is rising in concentrations in the upper atmosphere. It is the principle global warming problem.

IMHO,
is

As usual, I'm calling bullshit on you, Jimbo. I say that manmade hydroflouric acid levels in the atmosphere come from burning fossil fuels, which contain them naturally. Atmospheric HF levels have been decreasing steadily for thirty years:
http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/naei/annreport/annrep99/chap5_7.html

Emissions have been decreasing due to pollution controls such as flue gas scrubbers:
http://www.naei.org.uk/pollutantdetail.php

Hydroflouric acid has not ever been listed, to my knowledge, for it's global warming potential. You claim to know this potential, so tell us.

stuart_allsop

02-04-2005, 11:10 AM

And you're right, I don't know physics, but I know what shows up on a search and I can read the dang stuff and see the equations, see the products,But if you don't understand it, how do you know that it is correct? For example, Tom Bearden is a great one for publishing really neat looking "papers" full of very impressive eqautions and formulas.. that are actually just plain WRONG, and have been PROVEN to be wrong be real mathematicians, physicists and other scientists. You can read the text all you want, and it sounds so very plausible, then you can look at those equations and figure that anyone who can write such high-math stuff MUST know what he is talking about... but it turns out the equations are flat wrong, asnd therefore so are the text conclusions that he draws from them.

Tom loves to do things like say : "Now, as you can see from the Maxwells, equations, if we do the following transfroamtions then it is obvoious that scalar waves exist." (OK, not quite that simple, but you get my drift), then he sticks in a bunch of fancy equations, does what look like valid operations on them, and comes up with an answer that WOULD prove scalar to exist, if the answer were correct, except that if you follow the working closely you'll see that at one point he divided something by zero, or performed some other kind of invalid mathematical operation that totally blows the result.

That;s the prblem, Boomer: Unless you actually understand the math, his stuff looks OK. but when you take a close look, it is garbage. Just reading the text and being impressed by the equations does not give you the abliity to determine of the conclusions really are correct or not.

... scalar waves are being studied at the universities -- I gave you proof. Accept it, please. Thanks. I guess I must have missed that, and I couldn't find it when glancing back through the posts. Please could you repeat the link to the universities that are studying scalar waves.

[/quote]Thanks for seeing the plantetary dilemna as beyond our control.[/quote]I did not say antying AT ALL about any "planetary dilema" being beyond our control. the ONLY thing I said about planets is that they would not be affected in the slightest by variations in the sun. Zero. Zip. Nothing. No effect at all. You have not commented on this point. Please explain how varaition in the solar wind could possibly have any effect at all on a planet-sized body.

Adaptation will be the key to survival. That's about it. We'll do the best we can and hope some of us survive! Hate ta tell ya, but life is a fatal disease: Nobody has ever gotten out of it alive (OK two exceptions, but those were rather special cases, and they are the ONLY two in all of recorded history). Our chanes of getting out of this life alive are tens of billions to one against! :)

stuart_allsop

02-04-2005, 12:50 PM

Excellent article on scalar wave technology. Guy wrote one book explaining it and one book debunking it. The guy has a brain! Warren York! His claims are non-scientific, and are based on Tom Beardens heavily flawed work. They are, therefore, irrelevant.

Excellent page with graphics on Tesla technology! Irrelvant. Especially seeing that it is located on BEARDEN'S OWN WEB SITE!!!!!! NIce try....

Selling scalar antennas:All claimas are non-scientific, and are based on Tom Beardens heavily flawed work. They are, therefore, irrelevant.

Info. on HAARP and Eastlund with quotes from science magazines and major media:[/quote

[quote]Math and Physics minds must read on Maxwell's theories: (greek to me) press the buttons to go either wayGreat link, very correct, very scientic, no errors taht I could see... and it doesn't say a single wrod about "scalar", anywhere. Why did you post that link, Boomer? It is irrelevant.

I may not be a physicist, but if scalar waves didn't exist they wouldn't be referred to here:

MOD3D/RTM A 3D Scalar Wave Propagation Modeler Exactly... you are not a physicist, so you did not underrstand the title. I has nothing to do with "scalar waves" at all, and is in fact a 3D Scalar analysis of Wave Propogation. Not scalar waves, but 3D Scalar Analysis of normal waves, which is ENTIRELY different from what you thought it was. Do you now see how your lack of knowledge in Physics can bring you to totally the wrong conclusion?

... and its consequence for the space-time scalar wave emitted by a point source Same as above: Not scalar waves, but scalar space-time. The title of their other publication makes this rather more clear: "Scalar space-time waves in their spectral-domain first- and second-order Thiele approximations', Wave Motion 15 (1992) 229-265, with A.T. de Hoop."

... FDTD Formulation for the Simulation of Optical Structures using the Scalar Wave Equation ?, IEEE Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, September 5, 1999. Same again. This is a scalar EQUTION that deals with waves. It is not an equation that deals with scalar waves.

http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htmIrrelvant. Nothin on "scalar waves" in there.

Overall from this research experience online, I noticed people using the term "scalar" in a non-physics way, and other very deeply technical and scientific applications as well as software and computers used in equations addressing scalar science. Yes, I'm sure you did notice all that, but you did not understand it or interpret it correctly, due tyou your lack of an educaiton in physics.

Point made! Bearden isn't the only duck in the pond !!!! Scalar waves and electro-magnetic science exists!No, no point was made, becuase NOT ONE of your links deals with anything called "scalar waves".

That was a valiant attempt, Boomer, but it is not valid, and you have not proved your point at all. The only way you can prove that a Tom Bearden Scalar Wave exists is to demonstrate how a scalar wave can have a vector applied to it without that destroying it's scalar properties. Since the terms "scalar" and "vector" are mutually exclusive in the world of physics, it is a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBLITY to have a scalar quantity that also exhibts vector behavior. If it exhibits vector behavior, then BY DEFINITION IT IS NOT SCALAR. End of story. Unless you can come up with a way to makes a scalar vector without making it vector, then you are dead in the water.

Here is why Tom Bearden is wrong:

"when he began claiming a Ph.D., Tom Bearden apparently received (or more accurately, purchased) his bogus Ph.D. degree from "Trinity College and University" in the U.K. Now, until April 2000, you could find this diploma mill at http://www.trinityuni.org, after which it vanished from the web. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine web archive (http://www.archive.org) still contains the old web pages from Trinity College and University."

In other words, Boomer, you have about as much Physics knolwedge as he does. You certainly have the same QUALIFICATIONS as he does, except yours are worth more because you are honest about them...

But that's just about his qualifications: How about his math? Let's analize his equations, shall we, boomer?

From http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm :

(Bearden): "The first key to understanding free energy electrical and magnetic machines is to realize that electrical current actually consists of two currents coupled together. Our treatment of anelectric charge as a coupled system (Ø)(m) also means that electron current i = dq/dt is comprised of two coupled components [(dØ/dt)(dm/dt)]. This follows from simply invoking the operator d/dt; i.e., d/dt[(Ø)(m)] = (dØ/dt)(dm/dt), which is the same as[(dØ/dt)(dm/dt)]."

Bearden doesn't even invoke the product rule from the Calculus properly. For a product,fg, of two functions, f and g, the product rule says that the derivative of fg is: d/dt[fg] = f*(dg/dt) + g*(df/dt)

It's more elementary than this, even. We don't even need to know Calculus to recognize the nonsense in this. His Ø he calls the "massless charge". Well, that will have units of charge, say, Coulombs. His mass variable, m, will have units of something like, kilograms. So the product of the two will have units of kilogram-coulombs.

Now, his equation above is: d/dt[(Ø)(m)] = (dØ/dt)(dm/dt)
Let's do a dimensional analysis on this equation. He is taking the time derivative of something that has units of kilogram-coulombs. So,when the time derivative of this is taken, the final result on the left side of the equation will have units of kilogram-coulombs/second. (kilgram-coulombs per second)

But look at the thing he has on the right side! It has units of charge times mass divided by time-squared:kilogram-coulombs/second^2. This is like saying that a newton is equal to a kilogram! It is complete and total (almost laughable, were it not for so many people buying into it) NONSENSE!

Nuf said. bearden cannot do simple calculus.

(Bearden) "Basically the problem resides in the kappa dot r part of the U(1) electromagnetic phase factor in Maxwell Heaviside theory. Under normal reflection, the received view incorrectly asserts that kappa dot r goes to - kappa dot r and that under reflection kappa goes to kappa and r goes to minus r, giving for example an interferogram in Michelson interferometry. However, reflection is equivalent to parity inversion, and underparity inversion

kappa goes to minus kappa and r goes to minus r

so under parity inversion kappa dot r is unchanged and there is no interferogram in Michelson interferometry, for example.

The error in this analysis is so fundamental that it is shocking that any person could take Bearden seriously. Refer to my post 4412. I go through this very exercise, and the result you see in 4412 with your own two eyes is NOT what Bearden shows here. Bearden cannot even do basic arithmetic properly.

Bearden's statement that Maxwell "asserts" that " kappa dot r goes to - kappa dot r" is wholly false! I show in post 4412 what Maxwell's solutions are and I do the parity inversion on them and one of the first statements I show is that kappa "dot" r remains unchanged under
parity inversion!

Shawn

Not only can Bearden not handle calculus, he cannot even handle basic math, according to this mathematician! ( The above vame from http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm )

He's a nut, Boomer.

Sorry.

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 03:03 PM

"when he began claiming a Ph.D., Tom Bearden apparently received (or more accurately, purchased) his bogus Ph.D. degree from "Trinity College and University" in the U.K. Now, until April 2000, you could find this diploma mill at http://www.trinityuni.org, after which it vanished from the web. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine web archive (http://www.archive.org) still contains the old web pages from Trinity College and University."
He's a nut, Boomer.Sorry.
Yes, I'm sorry to tell you Stuart is correct. I went to the archived version of Trinity college and found that they sold Doctorate Degrees for $612.00. Boomerchick, when you see somebody so dishonest they buy their degree, you simply have to file them under liar.

You say you have two degrees, think about the years and thousands upon thousands of dollars it took to get those, then look at Bearden, paid $612.00 and got a PhD.

But don't believe me, check it out for yourself:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990417225251/http://www.trinityuni.org/degree.htm#cost
Bachelors (BA, BCom, BSc. etc) Degree - $ US 255
Bachelors Degree with honours - $ US 310 *
Masters Degree - $ US 410 *
Doctorate Award - $ US 612 *
* All the above in ONE subject - $ US 940

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 04:53 PM

Jimbo, you spread so much fertilizer that it's difficult to get it all in one scoop.

HF can be bad because it is a highly corrosive acid, but it is naturally occurring.

What is the molecular weight of air? (Don't expect an answer anybody)

HF goes higher than other whats?

Actually, Yaak is correct.
Jimbo must have been sitting on his brain at the cafe all day.
Wayne, you need to reassess who you rely upon for scientific information.
This was one of Jim Phelp's basic principles, and he can't even get it right.

Molecular weight of air is 29, hydrofluoric acid is 20.

Jimbo doesn't know his ass from a hole in the earth, and BTW, Yaak is also correct in that a hole in the earth itself produces most of the hydroflouric acid in our atmosphere, entirely free of the hand of man, probably always has and probably always will.

Jimbo, you're fired!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-04-2005, 04:56 PM

Hi,

Oh my, the detractors are looking like idiots once again. This is the prime cover up factor in global warming and the prime reason for chemtrails being needed and for HAARP's principle research vector.

Anyone that knows "Star Wars" directed energy technologies knows the HF emission / absorption spectra and how it interferes in the atmosphere.

HF LASERS emit around 3 microns (mid-IR) and CO-2 LASERS emit around 10.6 microns (far-IR).

CO-2 LASERS have very poor penetration into the atmosphere, but HF LASERS have much much better penetration down to low levels.

It is this difference that sets up making the HF much worse than CO-2 as a Heat Absorbing IR gas / nanoparticle.

In the atmosphere, which is composed to nitrogen and oxygen principally, the atomic mass of HF allows it to be supported much the same as the air molecules like N2 and O2, except HF floats much better.

All rather common sense observations for anyone that knows even a hint of science. Any student that studies the atmospheric absoption spectra will see why HF has such a high GWP.

Detractors-----lied. Understanding the HF factor is key to breaking the chemtrails and global warming logjam. It is the proof of the massive problem.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-04-2005, 05:32 PM

Nope, sorry, you can't get away with that, Jimbo. This is what you said:

HF is bad, because it is same molecular weight as air, so it will suspend a long time and goes higher than others.

The facts are clear, the molecular weights are NOT the same.
Hydrofluoric acid's molecular weight is 20
Dry air at sea level is 29.

You were incorrect on a basic calculation even high school chemistry students should be familiar with. You are no chemist, you only cleaned glassware in the lab, that is the sum total of your expertise!!!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-04-2005, 05:41 PM

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 06:07 PM

OK, Stu, the first problem exists in my not knowing physics. Period. There is no way that I can tell if you're correct or Bearden is correct. I asked you at one time to find me a scientist and or link, that refutes Bearden. So far, you feel you're the expert and I should "believe" you, when in essence I CANNOT know if you're right or wrong. This is my dilemna.... that is why I asked you to support your case with an accredited refutation of Bearden. Who are Shawn, Mark, and Dr. Evans?

(Possibly related... can't tell) Remember we talked about Einstein somewhere? Well, FYI, I included this link as it did come up on a search with the words "scalar waves" in it. There's no way in heck I can determine what the equations and various physicists are saying here, but you might be able to discern. Again, you are about as unreliable as "expert testimony" as I am. You've never shared your credentials regarding physics, so actually my son, a senior in mechanical engineering requiring advanced course in physics would be more qualified to give his opinion on the matter, than you. Just the facts as far as I know them.

Here's the Einstein link: (don't bother to come back and tell me what you think because it will fall on huge ignorant ears... just for your enjoyment)

http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2004-2/articlesu17.html

If you read the following list of publications the scalar wave word combination will be present. You can claim, all you want, that the usage of the term "scalar wave" really isn't the kind of "scalar wave" that Bearden talks about, but you see, I'm hindered there, too. I have no way to know the difference. You are right.

http://www.cwp.mines.edu/~mdehoop/publications.html

Publications

`Wave propagation with tunneling in a highly discontinuous layered medium', Wave Motion 13 (1991) 307-327, with R. Burridge and H.-W. Chang.
`The pseudo-primary field due to a point-source in a finely layered medium', Geoph. J. Int. 104 (1991) 489-506, with H.-W. Chang and R. Burridge.
`Scalar space-time waves in their spectral-domain first- and second-order Thiele approximations', Wave Motion 15 (1992) 229-265, with A.T. de Hoop.
`Interface reflections of spherical acoustic waves in the first- and second-order rational parabolic approximations and their artifacts', J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93 (1993) 22-35, with A.T. de Hoop.
`Waves in stratified viscoelastic media with microstructure', J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94 (1993) 2884-2894, with R. Burridge, K. Hsu, L. Le and A. Norris.
`Elastic wave up/down decomposition in inhomogeneous and anisotropic media: an operator approach and its approximations', Wave Motion 20 (1994) 57-82, with A.T. de Hoop.
`A method of `wave-equation' reflection tomography', Center for Wave Phenomena-453 (2003) with R.D. van der Hilst.
`Acoustic time-reversal mirrors in the framework of one-way wave theories', Center for Wave Phenomena-381 (2003) revised, with L. Fishman and B.L.G. Jonsson.
`Seismic inverse scattering in the downward continuation approach', Center for Wave Phenomena-469P (2004) with C.C. Stolk.
`Depth consistent reflection tomography using PP and PS seismic data', Center for Wave Phenomena-473P (2004, revised 2004) with S.-K. Foss and B. Ursin.
`A method for inverse scattering based on the generalized Bremmer coupling series', Center for Wave Phenomena-486P (2004) with A.E. Malcolm.
seismic data', Center for Wave Phenomena-491P (2004) with G. Uhlmann.

Conference proceedings and abstracts

`Spectral-domain parabolic approximation and its consequence for the space-time scalar wave emitted by a point source', SEG (San Francisco CA) 1990, with A.T. de Hoop.
`Even-versus-odd order Thiele approximations of the one-way operator in the space-time domain', SEG (Houston TX) 1991, with H.C. Serafini.
`Space-time elastic wave motion in the parabolic approximation', ASA (Houston TX) 1991, with A.T. de Hoop.
Last update: 20th December 2004

Don't say it, Stu, I know.... it's all different word usage from Bearden's and has no connection.

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 06:09 PM

So, you made the counter claim that Bearden is fraud, his science and math is inaccurate and wrong and the only way I will be able to discern whether you are right or not, is to get an expert opinion on Bearden's science. Period. You must come up with another scientist or we're at a stalemate. I can't trust your word as an expert, can't tell that what you say is true given my ignorance on the subject, so the onus is on you to prove your point with expert "testimony" as support. You are not an expert as far as I know.

The Bearden question is still out..... for me.

And may I add, that many brilliant men in the past and present did not need to go through the hoops of academia in order to understand math or physics. The notion that institutionalized education is the measure of a person's brilliance has been culturally bred into all of us. If a self-proclaimed scientist is wrong, of course, he can justifiably be called "a fraud." Lack of years of education in an institution does not necessarily disqualify a scientist's efficacy. Just my view on this.

Your link as proof: Dr. Evans, Shawn and Mark .... ah hem, who are they?

Rick Andersen in an article called "What is Scalar Electromagnetics?" describes the new science this way:

"Scalar EM is the brainchild of Lt. Col. (retired) Thomas E. Bearden, a systems analyst and wargames specialist who has been advocating a view of electromagnetics which is based on the notion of a vast, unseen background of scalar energies (as opposed to vector energies) which underlie all physical reality.

"If Bearden is correct in his Scalar EM theory, then we can build devices which would enable us to alter gravity, time, inertia, and the apparent mass of an object. This of course has ENORMOUS implications for military applications, space-vehicle drives, time-travel, teleportation, paranormal phenomena, and just about every other area one can think of." http://twm.co.nz/Beard_scalem.html

"Time-energy, time-currents, and time-structuring play the dominant role in electromagnetics. Time-as-energy eventually becomes engineerable, as easily as is spatial energy now. We are always dealing with spacetime and with spacetime curvature."

Bearden:http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Vision%202000%20paper.doc

The scalar energy discovered in the vacuum of space is sometimes called "zero-point" energy. Thomas Valone explains how this term came about.

What does "Zero Point" mean?

"Boyer traces the historical ?creation of the vacuum? as proceeding in stages in parallel with the historical development of ideas about the vacuum. To paraphrase, he says that in the 17th century, it was thought that a totally empty volume of space could be created by simply removing all matter and, in particular, all gases. That was our first concept of the vacuum. Just get rid of all the gas.

Late in the 19th century, it became apparent that the region still contained thermal radiation. But it seemed that the radiation might be eliminated by cooling. So the second concept of getting a real vacuum is to cool it down to zero temperature. Just go all the way to absolute zero. Then we?ve got a real vacuum. Right? Well, since then, both theory and experiment have shown that there is a non-thermal radiation in the vacuum and that it persists even if the temperature could be lowered to absolute zero. Therefore, it was simply called the ?zero point? radiation."

Thomas Valone http://www.seaspower.com/InsideZeroPoint.htm

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 06:16 PM

http://twm.co.nz/Beard_scalem.html

What is "Scalar Electromagnetics"?
By Rick Andersen, 7/3/97

Scalar EM is the brainchild of Lt. Col. (retired) Thomas E. Bearden, a systems analyst and wargames specialist who has been advocating a view of electromagnetics which is based on the notion of a vast, unseen background of scalar energies (as opposed to vector energies) which underly all physical reality.
What electrical engineers work with today, claims Bearden, is a subset of a higher-topology EM. Bearden claims that the four "Maxwell's Equations" taught today in electrical engineering are actually an over-simplified subset of Maxwell's original work. The pruning was done by Oliver Heaviside in the late 19th century; Heaviside took Maxwell's original equations, written in Hamilton's quaternions (related to what we nowadays call spinors), and "simplified" them by lopping off the scalar part of the complex numbers, leaving the easy-to-work-with vector part intact-- which radio engineers loved. After all, the entire electronics industry as we know it grew out of the telephone/radio technologies of the early 1900's. Who can argue that the "vector" approach is inadequate?
Well, Bearden says that when Heaviside threw out the scalar part of the quaternionic EM equation, he unknowingly threw out the possibility of unifying gravitation with electromagnetism-- which has been a holy grail for scientists since Einstein himself wrestled with the problem. That's because the scalar part of the quaternion, according to Bearden, was the part that captured or modeled the "stress on the aether"-- which leads to curving/warping spacetime a la Einstein. Tom Bearden says we CAN unify gravity with EM, and convert back and forth between them, if we understand how vectors and scalars relate to one another and what the ramifications are.
Vector fields can evidently be assembled by properly interfering scalar potentials (predicted in 1903-4 by mathematician E.T. Whittaker and probably engineered by the Soviets).
Conversely, scalar fields can be created by destructively interfering vector fields, in a nonlinear medium. Varying the vector components rhythmically produces what Bearden calls "scalar waves". These ripples in spacetime are believed to induce a wavelike stress in the "aether"; this in turn leads to engineering the structure of pure space and/or mass in a localized area-- in other words, implementing General Relativity (spacetime curvature) on the lab bench!
Tom Bearden has gone on record, in several of his books published in the 1980's, to proclaim that the former Soviet Union had created a fantastic arsenal of mind-bending weaponry based on this scalar technology, which they called "energetics" and which Bearden claims was developed from certain discarded ideas originated by Nikola Tesla. Now that the Cold War is apparently over, we're not sure how Bearden views his previous assertions, but we note that he has turned his attention away from Soviet scalar weapons and toward the production of "free energy" from the vacuum of space, using the principles of optical phase conjugation, but in a more generalized mode.

Here is the point:
If Bearden is correct in his Scalar EM theory, then we can build devices which would enable us to alter gravity, time, inertia, and the apparent mass of an object. This of course has ENORMOUS implications for military applications, space-vehicle drives, time-travel, teleportation,paranormal phenomena, and just about every other area one can think of.
The Big Question is, Will the 21st century see the acceptance, development, and implementation of Bearden's ideas (in plain public view, mind you), or will Scalar EM be found to have been just another dead end?.... Do certain world governments have these devices NOW?... Bearden says at least "three other nations, not hostile to the U.S.," now possess Scalar technology.

Refutation of MEG and some math and physics: (better than the ones you gave me! :p ... I think, but I don't know. )

Harold Reider's criticism of Bearden:http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden/#foot13

Gunderson's support of Bearden: (conceptual) VERY FASCINATING!!!

http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/graham.htm

Rick Anderson's thoughtful and quite extensive review on Bearden physics: (ends up disrespecting Bearden but still curious)

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Andersen_03.doc

Moi: Conceptual science, like the Wright Brothers conceiving that perhaps a contraption could fly, was imagination first and then experimental application. Not all science starts with an equation. This was my point on concepts and imagination birthing experiments that show outcomes which after-the-fact can then be proven through math. It goes both ways. To be open to other explanations, to energies that are not located in present math and to thus expand horizons of physics and math, come from the creative mind, the experimental conceptual mind. What if? What if I did this and then did that, what would happen? Then he/she repeats it.

Article by Harry Mason describing eyewitness accounts of plasma balls in the Australian area with descriptions of Tesla-like towers and other international experimenting entities:

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/NEXUS_5.doc

About the Author:

Harry Mason, BSc, MSc, MAIMM, MIMM, FGS., is a UK-born geologist/ geophysicist, resident in Perth, Western Australia. His 30-year career in mineral exploration has had him stationed all over the world, including Alaska, India, Norway, Mexico, Morocco, Sudan and UK. He has extensive field experience in geo-recce, geological mapping, geophysics/geochemistry, prospecting, remote-sensing/computer imaging technologies, and seismic and electromagnetic studies. He specialises in the geology and resource exploration of WA's Eastern Goldfields. Lately he has been devoting his time and expertise to researching mysterious Australian outback phenomena of natural and man-made origins.

OK, still open..... not like a sieve, but trying to find the definitive refutation of Bearden as a brilliant scientist .... who understands Tesla's genius.

Any thoughts? ;)

stuart_allsop

02-04-2005, 07:04 PM

OK, Stu, the first problem exists in my not knowing physics. Period. There is no way that I can tell if you're correct or Bearden is correct. I asked you at one time to find me a scientist and or link, that refutes Bearden. Thank you for that admission, Boomer. That was big of you, and honest. Might I ask if you took any kind of higher mathematics courese in your studies? If you did, then you should be able to follow the arguments laid out in those links I gave you. If not, then you should at least be able to understand the basic algebra that forced Bearden to come up with impossible and meaningless units to measure his ... err ... "somehting" in. That alone is evidence that he screwed up, big time. It's kind of like he told you that the correct way to measure the speed of your car is in kilograms per cubic foot-pound fortnight. The units that his equation turns out are just as meaningless as that. You don't need advanced physics or higher math to see this: Just look at his own equations, think it through, and you'll see that it is do.

Thanks for the link! Interesting stuff there. I know of the principles mentioned (electron spin, relativity), but it's interesting to see them presented in their historic concepts like that.

[quote]If you read the following list of publications the scalar wave word combination will be present.Yes, and that list is virtually the sam as the previous one you gave me. In fact, the ONLY two abstracts or papers that mention the word "scalar" are the exact two that I mentioned above, where I clarified their meanings.

Maybe you are getting bogged down on just what "scalar" and "vector" mean, so I'llt tell you: They simply refer to the way things are measured. Vectors quantities have both a magnitude and a direction, such as saying that the ship was sailing east at 15 knots, or the rocket was accelerating upwards at 5g. Those are vectors : magnitude plus direction. Scalars, on the other hand, have no direction. They are just plain magnitude. Like temperature, for example: it is meaningless to say that the temperature today was 27 degrees northeast! Or that you bought a bag of rice that eright 1 kilogram upwards.. Temperature, weight, and similar measurements like that where there is no direction involved are "scalars" the ONLY have "scale" no "orientation". So, just as you cannot take a temperature and point it north, or weight a bag of rice upwards, so you also cannot have a scalar wave that moves in a specific direction. The very term "scalar" means the the object or measurement under disucssion CANNOT logically have any kind of direction, ONLY a magnitude.

That's why I said that Bearden's "scalar waves" are impossible, simpley because a "scalar wave" cannot, by definition, be directed or oriented to GO anywhere. You can focus and direct normal EM waves, and all other kinds of waves, but you CANNOT focus or direct a scalar wave, since by definition a scalar wave has no direction or orientation.

Did that make it a bit clearer?

You can claim, all you want, that the usage of the term "scalar wave" really isn't the kind of "scalar wave" that Bearden talks about, but you see, I'm hindered there, too. I have no way to know the difference. You are right. Once again, thank you Boomer for admitting that. It makes it much easier for both of us to debate when you are honest like this.

I tried to explain above why there can be no such thing as a Bearden Scalar Wave, for very logical reasons. I hope I managed to do it sufficiently non-technical for you to follow. There are othre resons too why it cannot exist (polarization, coherence, etc.) but the one I gave you is the biggie. When a science jouralist questionined Bearden about this a couple of years back, Bearden suddenly becmae all evasive,aggressice, and angry, and refused to answer anything. ,,

stuart_allsop

02-04-2005, 07:25 PM

And may I add, that many brilliant men in the past and present did not need to go through the hoops of academia in order to understand math or physics. The notion that institutionalized education is the measure of a person's brilliance has been culturally bred into all of us. If a self-proclaimed scientist is wrong, of course, he can justifiably be called "a fraud." Lack of years of education in an institution does not necessarily disqualify a scientist's efficacy. Just my view on this. And I agree with you. Many scientists in days gone by had no choice but to teach themselves, and did so quite well. But that does not change the fact that the math has to work properly. If a scientist taught himself that 1 + 1 = 3, and based all of his experiments on that, nothing would make any sense at all! Nothing would work out, since he is basing his entire research on something that is inherently WRONG. Until he corrects his math so that 1 + 1 = 2, then ALL of his conclusiosn are going to be wrong, not because he didn't go to university to learn, but simply becuase he go the basics wrong.

That is the case with Bearden: His math makes no sense, because he makes invalid jumps from one place to another. It doesn't matter how may degrees he has or does not have: that is meaningless. The problem is simply that he screwed up in basic math, and didn't recognize it. Goind to university for ten years and learning all about every possibl branch of math is not going to make his equations any more valid: they will still be just as wrong as they are today.

Your link as proof: Dr. Evans, Shawn and Mark .... ah hem, who are they? Just people who highligthed the errors in Bearden's math. I could probably research them if you want, but it is irrelevant to the issue. What IS important is that they found and exposed huge gaping errors in Beardens work, which totally invalidate it. It does not really matter who they are or what qualificaitons they have. All that matters is that the have enough background to recognize the errors, and to expose them.

Rick Andersen in an article called "What is Scalar Electromagnetics?" describes the new science this way:

"Scalar EM is the brainchild of Lt. Col. (retired) Thomas E. Bearden, a systems analyst and wargames specialist who has been advocating a view of electromagnetics which is based on the notion of a vast, unseen background of scalar energies (as opposed to vector energies) which underlie all physical reality.So far so good. No problems... Energy realy is scalar, but waves are not. AS long as we keep it to scalar ENERGY, then we are OK.

"If Bearden is correct in his Scalar EM theory, BOOM! Their ti goes.... S"Scalar EM": is a contradiction in terms.

then we can build devices which would enable us to alter gravity, time, inertia, and the apparent mass of an object.Lets see now: Tom has been at this for years, yet he has not managed to come up with even ONE of those items. Even his MEG is a joke.

The scalar energy discovered in the vacuum of space is sometimes called "zero-point" energy. Yup. Very true. So what his point, I wonder?

What does "Zero Point" mean?

"Boyer traces the historical ?creation of the vacuum? as proceeding in stages in parallel with the historical development of ideas about the vacuum. To paraphrase, he says that in the 17th century, it was thought that a totally empty volume of space could be created by simply removing all matter and, in particular, all gases. That was our first concept of the vacuum. Just get rid of all the gas.

Late in the 19th century, it became apparent that the region still contained thermal radiation. But it seemed that the radiation might be eliminated by cooling. So the second concept of getting a real vacuum is to cool it down to zero temperature. Just go all the way to absolute zero. Then we?ve got a real vacuum. Right? Well, since then, both theory and experiment have shown that there is a non-thermal radiation in the vacuum and that it persists even if the temperature could be lowered to absolute zero. Therefore, it was simply called the ?zero point? radiation."

Thomas Valone http://www.seaspower.com/InsideZeroPoint.htmYup. very true. There is no dount that zero poitn energy exists: You just cannot harvest it effectively. You need to put more energy into your 'ZPE Harvester" than you can ever get out of it, and that's the problem. Thre are certain physical barrieres in Science that make certain things impossible to do. Once of those "impossible" things is to decrease the amount of entropy present in the entire universe. Cannot be done. Harvesting ZPE at over unity REQUIRES that entropy must decrease. It cannot. So ZPE cannot be harvested.

Boomer Chick

02-04-2005, 08:46 PM

Thought you might like this, Stu!

From Off the street.... engineer

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread112518/pg2#pid1130465

Sorry, guys. Tom Beardon and Jim McCanney are two of the biggest pseudo-scientific hoaxters on the scene. It is precisely because science and technology are now de-emphasized in the public school systems that so many well-meaning but science-deprived folks fall for some of the hogwash you see around here.

The thing that separates Beardon and McCanney from guys like Rense and, say, Zecheriah Sitchin, is that the former two actually have some scientific / technical credentials.

McCanney styles himself as "Professor" McCanney, although what he doesn’t say is that his closest approach toward a professorship was that he was a graduate lecturer in math (with a master's degree) at some college twenty years back. He left academia quite some time ago (I don't know what the circumstances were) and is now a massage therapist.

Tom Beardon is a retired light colonel in the Army, and a graduate of Command & General Staff College; they do not send complete bozos to an outfit like that. He also has an undergraduate degree in math from a small school and an MS in nuclear engineering from Georgia institute of technology. He doesn't have a PhD because he hasn't had a thesis accepted, although he's submitted one. But still he's not the run-of-the-mill conspiracy weenie who gets his theories from the public library and conspiracy sites.

Ironically, most people into the conspiracy business disregard mainstream science as being all part of the Huge Secret Plot when they don't agree with it; yet, when they find someone who does advance crackpot theories, they tend to jump up and down and anoint these people as their exemplars ("Well, I know it's true, because Bearden says it is and he's a scientist!")

Yet just about every mainstream journal or investigative group blows both
McCanney and Bearden off as nut-bars, whose theories simply don't make sense, whose experiments can't be replicated, and whose backup math is just plain wrong.

Now I admit that the scientific and educational establishment is a bit close-minded, and tend to look askance at anyone who doesn't have a union card (PhD) and who hasn't done a good apprenticeship (taught at a university and/or gotten a bunch of grants). Sometimes they annoy me.

But the establishment has to do that, just like they have to review any article submitted to their journals, to make sure that frauds and charlatans don't get a bunch of scientists buying into a hypothesis that is sooner or later proven wrong. Of course, the Beardenites and the McCanneyites see this as just one more "conspiracy to keep the truth hidden" -- as if real scientists could ever agree to such a thing!

Anyway, sorry for rambling on, but I wanted you to understand the background for my post. Pseudo-scientific hoaxers and frauds are a tremendous annoyance to me, which is why I spend a lot more time than I’d like debunking some of the more insidious frauds, like the Hollow Earth or "chem-trails".

_____________________

Hey! Check this out!

A debunking of Shawn Bishop's debunking of Bearden! Does it make sense?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/criticofsb.htm

Will it ever stop?

You know what the problem is? There are two types of people according to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance , the romantic thinker and the classical thinker. The classical thinker is concerned with function and utilitarianism. They value the order of things, the classic structure of things, and the smooth operation of machines. It matters not, how anything looks, just that it functions properly and more than that optimumly. To the classicist, the aethestic and beauty of the object rests in its smooth and functional operation, not in its looks. If the classicist can construct an object that functions optimumly and smoothly there's no other greater satisfaction.

The romantic revels in the origin of and creation of objects as well as the external beauty of an object. The artistic qualities impress the romantic more than the functional aspects. Although functionality is appreciated, the opportunities for self expression and end results of adding beauty or ease, or opportunities for interacting in the social or natural world regarding said object holds more value to the romantic. If the object increases his/her joy or zest for life in the creation of the object or just considering its presence, knowing its process of creation and who created it, appreciating the sensual aspects of the object, it becomes a romantic's object of affection or appreciation.

Although many of us are combinations of the two rather polar opposites, perhaps we do lean in one direction of the other. I do believe I'm a romantic leaner.... music, poetry, an appreciation and awe for science, but a romantic bent in imagination and creativity over pure mathematics. Although music itself is pure mathematics of vibrational frequencies and such, the romantic aspects are definately more important to my appreciation than the functional aspects. Perhaps this is why I cling to the notion that the rogue scientists, the Teslas, and others who are rejected by mainstream science, might have a chance at finding something new, something undiscovered even though their math doesn't compute. My romantic notion of the "mad scientist" is what clouds my classicist view of complete and utter accuracy in one area, yet great possibilities in the other.

And as far as Tesla, it does indeed seem that his rejected science has been developed at this late date by Eastlund and others and so his romantic image touches my heart. He developed the DC current and other electronic applications that others received credit for. He was a peace person, a little off his nut for his day, and the movies with the Tesla lightening balls, the mad scientists in Dr. Frankenstein interpreations with the lightening bolts crackling, all reinforced my romantic leanings. So there you have it.

I'm holding out for the Bearden's, the Wilcox's, the Teslas that maybe they are pioneers in the quest for new energies and new breakthroughs. Call me a hopeless romantic.... I am.

So I take it that many of you here are classicists? Ya?

BC

Insurrectionchemistry

02-04-2005, 10:04 PM

English majors should really stick to English.

halva

02-05-2005, 04:43 AM

HF has huge source terms, and it suspends just like freon/SF-6/etc.---except much much better due to small size and MW. HF captures IR very strongly. It is rising in concentrations in the upper atmosphere. It is the principle global warming problem.

IMHO,
is

Can the symptoms of excessive HF emissions be 'mitigated' by increasing cloud cover?

halva

02-05-2005, 04:48 AM

Halva, you're directing energy into changing social constructs instead of enlightening the readers to information for global awareness. I do indeed believe the sun is primary, our efforts to clean the atmosphere, secondary. All efforts are viable and worthy. Peak Oil. Climate change. BIG PIC!!!

Yesterday here in Athens, Greece, I ran into a former collaborator of Clifford Carnicom who shares your views on the role of the sun in climate change, but nevertheless supports Kyoto and the objective of reducting greenhouse gas emissions.

halva

02-05-2005, 05:00 AM

Detractors-----lied. Understanding the HF factor is key to breaking the chemtrails and global warming logjam. It is the proof of the massive problem.

Unfortunately it doesn't look as if "proof of the massive problem" is enough to modify the policy of secrecy. The new BBC-initiated "Global dimming" debate appears to be motivated by a desire to increase the sense of urgency without allowing it to reach a level, or take a form, that could cause political problems for TPTB.

By the way, David Stewart has just posted further thoughts on this subject at the (closed) Ama Lahi forum.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ama_lahi

jayreynolds

02-05-2005, 05:59 AM

Well, FYI, I included this link as it did come up on a search with the words "scalar waves" in it. .
This what you boobs do all the time. Google a word like barium or aerosols and get 200,000 links, and claim it means something. I see your god Mike Castle is claiming the TAP program is something to be afraid of, when it is a program to study pollution. how many chemmies has he sent on that wild-goose chase, ultimately discrediting them?

jayreynolds

02-05-2005, 06:08 AM

Paragraph made more clear for (idiots)^^3 called detractors:

"HF is bad, because it is on the order of the same molecular weight as air, but more lite, so it will suspend a long time and goes higher than others. It makes for a boyancy effect that the heavier SF-6 compound does not have, as it is much heavier than air and is dragged along like a pebble in a streams

No, little Jimmy Phelps isn't "making anything clear", he got caught trying to pull a fast one on ignorant people by falsely saying hydrofluoric acid had the same molecular weight as air, which it does not. I forced his hand, and now he has no choice but to change his story.

CHANGING STORIES IS THE MARK OF A LIAR!
See, Jimbo would have you all believe he knows something you don't, and uses words that most vaguely remember from when they were dreaming about going to the prom Friday night. He doesn't really care about accuracy, he is just 'winging it', creating his hoax as he goes along, and makes fundamental mistakes like this all the time which shows how shallow his whole hoax really is.

Hell, he didn't even have any mention of "chemtrails" at all on his website tll 2003 when he began his hoax, and he claims to have invented "chemtrails" as far back as fifty years ago!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 06:41 AM

Greetings All,

Now that it has been well established and agreed upon by all that HF is on the order of air in weight, but just a little more lite than air, this proves that it tends to float to the higher levels of the atmosphere. This effect then becomes why HF has such a high GWP.

Compared to SF-6 it is a balloon compared to the brick. The HF lifetime in the upper atmosphere is very high. Even the problems of SF-6 are tied to the formation of HF / F from its ionization. HF just gets to the problems connected with SF-6 directly.

There is no real difference between a single molecule of frozen HF and HF gas, this is the most interesting definition when one gets into the nano-particle effects. HF starts as a gas released from fossil fuels burning, and freezes into single molecule particles in the atmosphere. And its boyancy carries it high into the atmosphere where it rises in concentration.

Here high in the atmosphere HF captures the Sun's heat via IR absorption and raises these outer bound temperatures. It is also subject to ionization. The ionized hydrogen atoms are so lite that these actually escape the Earth's gravity and go off into space often. The Earth's magnetic field effects on the fluorine ions pushes them to the Southern Pole. The very same effect happens with chlorine ions, which goes on to make the ozone depletion effect there.

Fluorine ions are very reactive and will combine with oxygen and nitrogen to make OF and NF intermediate compounds that behave much like air molecule suspension. All along the way of fluorine transition effects in the upper atmosphere, the long term suspension of the IR absobing fluorine is preserved.

It is this effect that makes HF the most dominate of the global warming releases. It is released in high quantities from multiple sources and its GWP is very high. It is an SF-6 related problem times a trillion.

The only way to upset the fluorine / HF equation in the upper atmosphere is via addition of heavier compounds for fluorine to attach, which will weight them down and end the boyancy problems. Everyone should have taken note of the "green glow" induced by HAARP. Aurora is typically white colors from N and O excitation.

IMHO,
is

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 06:51 AM

Greetings All,

Once again take note of how despirate these debunker types are to suppress folks learning the reality of the HF GWP. It is a dominate effect for global warming and the main reason for the chemtrail methods.

Debunker Yaak has been fully distroyed with his bogus claims that HF has a zero GWP.

Likewise, Jay Reynolds has been shown to be taking words out of context, setting up intentional misrepresentation, and doing his same level of nonsense to attempt not exposing the HF problems.

Here one meets the real intent of the so called De-Bunkers=cover up artists. Which is why everyone detests them, as these are vile and dishonest people. But they are being exposed and they are falling deeply into the abyss. Criminals they are becoming in coordiated attempts to suppress the citizens being informed.

IMHO,
is

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 07:54 AM

English majors should really stick to English.

What, no smilie? As you may be able to realize, one who adheres to the appreciation of the arts, creativity and imagination as an integral part of the whole spectrum of life, can at the same time be quite capable of analytical thought. A romantic leaning is not a total disregard for dedication to the scientific method, which afterall, is the basis of legal processes, investigative processes, and rhetorical logical argument in essay writing as well as the primary method to prove various postulates and hypotheses in scientific fields.

I took chemistry in high school, anatomy and physiology in both high school and college(1990 with cadaver and lab), was a biology major for a year in college, and know the basics, but beyond that I'm fascinated with the concepts of cosmology and the geologic and life sciences. I took one college course in oceanography and one course in meteorology as well.

So I hope your cryptic one liner is not excluding me from the opportunity to learn.

Thank you.

BC

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 08:00 AM

Yesterday here in Athens, Greece, I ran into a former collaborator of Clifford Carnicom who shares your views on the role of the sun in climate change, but nevertheless supports Kyoto and the objective of reducting greenhouse gas emissions.

Halva, that's my position as well.

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 08:09 AM

Maybe you are getting bogged down on just what "scalar" and "vector" mean, so I'llt tell you: They simply refer to the way things are measured. Vectors quantities have both a magnitude and a direction, such as saying that the ship was sailing east at 15 knots, or the rocket was accelerating upwards at 5g. Those are vectors : magnitude plus direction. Scalars, on the other hand, have no direction. They are just plain magnitude. Like temperature, for example: it is meaningless to say that the temperature today was 27 degrees northeast! Or that you bought a bag of rice that eright 1 kilogram upwards.. Temperature, weight, and similar measurements like that where there is no direction involved are "scalars" the ONLY have "scale" no "orientation". So, just as you cannot take a temperature and point it north, or weight a bag of rice upwards, so you also cannot have a scalar wave that moves in a specific direction. The very term "scalar" means the the object or measurement under disucssion CANNOT logically have any kind of direction, ONLY a magnitude.

That's why I said that Bearden's "scalar waves" are impossible, simpley because a "scalar wave" cannot, by definition, be directed or oriented to GO anywhere. You can focus and direct normal EM waves, and all other kinds of waves, but you CANNOT focus or direct a scalar wave, since by definition a scalar wave has no direction or orientation.

Did that make it a bit clearer?

Yes, thank you for that. I'm wondering if perhaps your view on such an omni directional force is narrow in assuming that all energies require direction? If the energy is tapped and THEN directed, wouldn't that make sense? The energy as I think you said, may indeed be there, but because it is not in its inherent form -- wave like -- the scientists ability to then harness it and DIRECT it is the goal. Do I have that right? Perhaps it's even more complicated than that with various intersecting energies at various angles as well as frequency considerations. You might throw in some gravity and magnetics and then I'm totally lost. It's almost too much for me to visualize. But I appreciate your explanation of "scalar" as you see it. It's quite helpful.

bc :)

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 08:18 AM

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 08:23 AM

Unfortunately it doesn't look as if "proof of the massive problem" is enough to modify the policy of secrecy. The new BBC-initiated "Global dimming" debate appears to be motivated by a desire to increase the sense of urgency without allowing it to reach a level, or take a form, that could cause political problems for TPTB.

By the way, David Stewart has just posted further thoughts on this subject at the (closed) Ama Lahi forum.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ama_lahi

David Stewart's post:

Teller's Dusting theory has been proved here. Particles in the atmosphere do reduce heating of global warming. Simple truth, it is cooler in the shade than in the direct sunlight.

We have a clear effect and a clear cause. Jet planes are causing global dimming – reducing the net impact of global warming and are, in fact, putting a lot of particulate matter in the atmosphere. Proof of an effect which is real and measurable.

This is the smoking gun that people have been looking for – think that they will wave it around and call attention to it? I doubt it. Out of all the reasons proposed for a spray program, we now have a clear indicator of the main purpose of such a thing. It is obvious in that article that it relates to Global Warming and that it even has a positive effect at reducing the heating of global warming.

The article clearly outlines the future without the particulate matter being laid down in the sky. It clearly indicates that a daily application of matter is needed. After all 3 days of no flights produced a huge effect. Clearly substantiating claims that a spray program would have to be a daily, constant affair. And having worked the numbers we find that the consequences of global warming would have a huge impact without the dimming. The article and study is a dire warning which all but comes right out and says we need to maintain dumping stuff in the air to maintain this dimming effect to stay in step with global warming. Without it the effects of global warming will be worse.

We now have a clear indication that Teller was Right and that putting dust in the atmosphere is warranted and does have a positive impact to the problem of global warming. Granted it has its negatives too, but we have to wonder which is worse: uncontrolled heating of the world or possible lung issues, possible shortening of the days, possible loss of crops, etc. So what if minor droughts are caused in some parts of the world - we are looking at the long term effects of heating which would have far reaching impacts that nobody wants to really think about.

Of course for me the point is moot. I already know we have past the point of no return and that our little civilization and billions of people are going to die. Dusting the atmpohere is a short term stop gap measure which will only prolong the downfall intentionally or not.

It is far too late to start relying upon a program of reduced gasses alone. We have already saturated the atmosphere and it will take at least decades to reduce the amounts of green house gasses already in the atmosphere to levels where the effects of global warming would be reduced. Even if we were to stop dumping Green house gasses into the atmosphere today, we still have to wait out the carbon cycle, the methane cycle, and all of those other absorption and conversion processes which would remove the gasses from the atmosphere. This study will most likely be the framework which will support any and all applications which require dumping stuff in the upper atmosphere as a “good” thing to make it through the Green House Summer.

It’s a catch 22, damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

Will this find lead to anything? Doubtful. The way it was written clearly leads us down the path that we need to continue the flights as is to reduce the effects of global warming – thus the dire warning of what will come in Europe with their emissions control and the direct impact of reducing global dimming.

The Article clearly does not state if this is purposeful lying down of particulate matter or just a coincidental side effect of jet engines. Can we in the Chemtrail community turn to this article and use it to demonstrate a purposeful Teller Program in place? No – we can only use it to show that aircraft do happen to produce a great deal of emissions which leads to a huge dimming impact (Those percentages are huge impacts). We are validated in our claim that Jets are doing something to the air – we are not handed obvious proof that this is intentional. (Not yet, that is coming)

As a study of the effects of jet aircraft flying overhead it underlines just how effective and how widespread the issue is. It clearly indicates that a continual flight pattern is needed to maintain the dust layer. Something that has been stated many times in the past about the matter but what many have argued is just how long the effects last. Now we have a clear statement that it only takes a day for the skies to clear.

This find, this study is, for those of us in the Chemtrail Community the smoking gun. It clearly indicated to us what is going on and should not be taken lightly. It is a revelation which is not just a “theory” based on ruminations of what could be taking place, but is the accumulated measuring of direct effects through a unique and most likely never to be repeated event – the no-fly days of post 9-11.

From that period of time some bright scientist was able to not only measure the effect over the USA but now has enough factual evidence to predict the effects of jet craft over other parts of the world.

It is hard evidence of the effects of jet engines on the climate through particulate matter. Not as evidence of a purposeful introduction of that particulate matter. Here in lies the problem. We can not hold this up and demonstrate without a reasonable doubt that there is an intentional spray program in place. We can only prove once and for all that jets are putting stuff in the sky which is leading to a cooling effect. As has been stated before and has been questioned and debated and contested over, and over again.

This study knocks the props out from under those who would have us believe that jet airliners can not be used to effect the impact of global warming by countering with way to cool the earth. It demonstrates that Jets do a great deal to change the local temperatures drastically.

I am hoping that somebody will connect the reluctance of certain scientists to talk about particulate matter instead of water vapor and the sustained cloud formations of contrails. And I am hoping that they will go back to my questions and ask over and over again at what point does the scientific community think that a purposeful dusting of the atmosphere is a viable option. After all these scientists continue to argue that it is unwise to tamper with the ecology with a Teller Program, yet none of them wish to tell us at what point such a program becomes valid.

Personally I think that this article clearly indicates that we have a specific point of no return and that the consequences of The Teller Program are far outweighed by the issues of global warming. Meaning that not putting dust in the atmosphere is worse than not doing so.

What is really fucked about all of this is that we may not have a choice in the end. For me it all started being a big pain in the ass when somebody started the conversation with “The fact is the earth is dieing…”

David

Unfortunately, he didn't include the link to the article to which he refers. If you Halva, have that link I would appreciate you posting it either at Ama Lahi or here.

I don't agree that the earth is dieing. It's going through a transitional time, a solar system and possibly galactic cyclic impinging of various energies and forces that it has experienced before, and it will survive. Whether all of humanity will survive along with it, is another matter. But we are spiritual beings with immortal souls.... all.... so we can only do our best while we're here and then we all go back home anyway. BIG PIC.

BC ;)

stuart_allsop

02-05-2005, 08:23 AM

Thanks for the links, Boomer. Glad to see that youa re doing some active research now, and coming up with the real science side of the issue, not just the pseudo-science.

A debunking of Shawn Bishop's debunking of Bearden! Does it make sense? Not really. Here are a couple of links that explains, in simple terms, how to measure RMS power: The first one is a very easy-to-follow explanation that does not go into complex math, and uses the example of the speakers on your stereo. The second is a little more technical, and goes into the basic math, building on the first.

http://www.aqdi.com/rms.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/varvom.htm

Bot of these are essentially in lince with Shawn Bishop's paper. The "debunk" paper actually admits that Shawn arrived at the correct equation, even though he took a mathematical shortcut to get there. The shortcut does run through some unusual math, but even though it is unusual, it is still valid mathematically, and the outcome is still correct.

The only valid argument in the "debunk" paper is the one about the 100k resistor, and that is the entire point of the whole Bearden scam. What Bearden does is basically yo take a standard calibrated resistor, then to DELIBERATELY overloed it severelt, both electrically and thermally, so that it basically burns upm then he uses that as his "calibrated" load to measure the output of his perpetual motion machine. That's kind of like takeing your favorite plastics kitchen measuring jug, attacking it with a blowtorch until it softens and melts in places, twisting it, stretching it, bending, deforming it, beating it with a hammer, and distorting it as much as you possibly can till it looks like a pretzel, cooling it down, then trying to use it to measure out the ingredients for your favorite delicate French cuisine! Of course it won't work! But Bearden insists that it does. His "modified" resistor gives readings that are all over the place, wild and totally unpredictable, basically becuase he has destryoed the resistor. Then he carefully picks and chooses some of those readings, (the ones that support his claims), discards the rest (the ones that contradict his claims), and VOILA! Crepe Suzette! That's the kind of hoax that Bearden is running. Does it surprise you that of all the people who have bought his plans and kits, and built his device themselves, NOT ONE has been able to reproduce the results tha Bearden gets? Does that not make you wonder if there might be a somehwat fishy smell arising from that Crepe Suzette?

There are two types of people ... romantic thinker and the classical thinker....

Perhaps this is why I cling to the notion that the rogue scientists, the Teslas, and others who are rejected by mainstream science, might have a chance at finding something new, something undiscovered even though their math doesn't compute. Boomer, that's all very well and fine: You are rooting for the little guy bucking the establiushed powers, and there is nothing wrong with that. But you cannot compare people like Bearden with people like Galileo, for example: Even though they both share the position of being outcasts, derided by the established powers of their day, the difference is that Galileo's math DID add up straight, and his work was rejected purely on ideological grounds, whereas Bearden's Ideology is fine, but his math just totally fails. The same is true of all the downtrodden outcast scientists over the centruries: Their science was solid, and sound, their math did add up, and they were rejected purely out of spite, differences of philosphy, religeon, ideology, politics, or whatever. But in the case of the hoaxsters and kooks, the problem is simply that their basic science is just plain WRONG, no matter what their politics, religion, philosophy, etc. say. In other words, "science" rejected Galileo because they didn't like what he stood for, even though his science was solid. Science rejects bearden his science is flawed, even though they like what he stands for.

Big difference.

My romantic notion of the "mad scientist" is what clouds my classicist view of complete and utter accuracy in one area, yet great possibilities in the other. Agreed. ANd that is the basis of the scientific method: You MUST put aside your subjectinve prejudices, beliefs, and feelings, in favor of accepting ONLY that which stnads on a solid logical unimpeachable objective base. I'm sure you can see that this is the ONLY way that science can possibly work:

So I take it that many of you here are classicists? Ya? Yup! It's the only way to go! (But my wife thinks I can be romanitc too, if that's any consolation... :) )

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 08:28 AM

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 08:38 AM

Unfortunately, the Sun's average emission is around the same as always. It is still running its 11 year cyclic variance. Which can show up in global warming data as a sin cosine phase delay, similar to the seasonal heating of the crust on Earth.

The Sun is not the problem. Even when you factor in the Mars CO-2 melt, unless you know the atmosphere on Mars changes over time---you have serious missing data sets.

The problem here on Earth is dominately the industrial age and the rise in population on the planet to non-sustainable levels using the current energy methods.

The rise in Earth's heat retention began just after WWII. Today the added energy retention causes rise in Earthquake and Volcanic activity rates. It is worse in the Southern hemishere because the HF problems are larger at the South Pole---just as the ozone hole issues are largest there.

The change in the Earth's energy retention is not because the Sun is any more radiant, but only because the Earth's energy trapping in the atmosphere has changed significantly with population and the coal based industrial age. It is going to get very much worse in the years to come, and the Sun will still be just the same.

IMHO,
is

Then how do you explain this:

The Sun
Since at least the late 1970s, the Sun’s overall radiation emissions (as measured by increasingly sophisticated satellites) have increased by 0.5% per decade, which one NASA scientist said “could cause significant climate change” if such effects were to continue over several decades. [14] Another NASA scientist found that between 1901 and 2000, the Sun’s magnetic field has increased in strength by 230 percent. [15] In 1999, a third NASA experimenter observed high increases in the amount of helium and heavier charged particles released during solar events, showing that a real change is occurring in the solar wind component of the Sun’s energetic output, neatly paralleling the other observed changes.. [16]

Prior to 2003, the two strongest solar flares on record were rated at a previously unheard-of X20, and occurred in 1989 and 2001. Then, in November 2003 a flare occurred that some estimate to be at least 200% more powerful than any ever seen before, at a whopping X40 … or higher.[17] As is expected in such events, a coronal mass ejection soon followed – releasing a huge expanding bubble of billions of tons of electrified gas into the solar system. These and other events in late 2003 caused one NASA scientist to say that the Sun is now more active than in living memory, and “there has been nothing like this before.” [18]

Figure 5 - Largest, Brightest-Ever X40 Solar Flare, 11.5.03, (L) and Subsequent CME (R). (NASA-ESA)

Despite all of the above evidence, the case for a fundamental solar change was never truly complete until late last year, with a study that coincidentally emerged just three days before this massive solar explosion occurred. Ilya Usoskin, a mainstream geophysicist, used polar ice core samples to prove that the Sun has been more active since the 1940s than in the previous 1,150 years combined. [19] The Sun’s subsequent fury, just days later, only served to underline and emphasize the point. Considering that the Sun contains fully 99.86 percent of the mass of the solar system, making the planets look like grains of sand by comparison, these continuing changes will undoubtedly affect everything within the Sun’s formidable magnetic, radiative and gravitational grasp…

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_a...After-Part2.htm

Sources:

“Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Wilson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York.”

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend that can Change Climate. March 20, 2003. URL: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2...irradiance.html

[15] “…according to Michael Lockwood and colleagues at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England… Analyzing instrument measurements taken since 1868, they conclude that the sun's exterior magnetic field has increased by 230 percent since 1901 and by 40 percent since 1964.”

Suplee, Curt. Sun Studies May Shed Light on Global Warming. Washington Post, Monday, Oct. 9, 2000, pg. A13. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5-2000Oct8.html

[16] “A team of researchers led by George Gloeckler, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, published a paper in the Jan. 15, 1999 issue of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) about the unusual composition of the May 2-3 (199 coronal mass ejection (CME) – a bubble of gas and magnetic field lines that the sun ejects over the course of several hours… Coronal mass ejections carry plasma, or ionized gas, away from the sun at speeds approaching 2,000 kilometers per second…

“We were completely surprised by the highly unusual and unexpected composition in this CME,” Gloeckler says. His team observed, for example, that the density of 4He+ [a form of charged helium] was almost as high as the density of 4He++ for several hours. “Such large 4He+/4He++ratios, persisting for hours, have never been observed in the solar wind before,” they write. They also observed high increases of helium and heavier ions in the CME plasma. The unusual composition of the CME lasted an exceptionally long time, they write… “This is certainly not an average solar wind but an anomalous situation,” Gloeckler says. “Yet such anomalous findings often lead to deeper understandings of physical processes.”

Bartlett, Kristina. ACEing the sun. American Geophysical Union / Geotimes News Notes, April 1999. URL: http://www.geotimes.org/apr99/newsnotes.html

[17] “Craig DeForest, a solar physicist at the Southwest Research Institute, said… “I’d take a stand and say it appears to be about X40 based on extrapolation of the X-ray flux into the saturated period… “That estimate may even be conservative,” he said.”

Britt, Robert Roy. Solar super-flare amazes scientists. Space.com / MSNBC.com, Nov. 6, 2003. URL: http://www.msnbc.com/news/984388.asp?cp1=1

[18] Dr Paal Brekke, deputy project scientist for the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Sun-monitoring satellite, told BBC News Online… "I think the last week will go into the history books as one of the most dramatic solar activity periods we have seen in modern times… As far as I know there has been nothing like this before."”

Whitehouse, David Ph.D. What is Happening to the Sun? BBC News Online, Tuesday, November 4, 2003. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3238961.stm

[19] “Ilya Usoskin, a geophysicist who worked with colleagues from the University of Oulu in Finland and the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, has found that there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than for the past 1150 years.

Sunspot observations stretch back to the early 17th century, when the telescope was invented. To extend the data farther back in time, Usoskin's team used a physical model to calculate past sunspot numbers from levels of a radioactive isotope preserved in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica…

Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford…told New Scientist that when he saw the data converted to sunspot numbers he thought, "why the hell didn't I do this?" It makes the conclusion very stark, he says. "We are living with a very unusual sun at the moment."

Hogan, Jenny. Sun More Active than for a Millennium. New Scientist, November 2, 2003. URL: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321

_____________________________________________

I do think your views of the sun and its role need alteration.

BC

whitemajikman

02-05-2005, 08:47 AM

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 08:48 AM

The BC Dialectic,

There is an old observation on how guys work vs girls. Girls have to relate, where as guys tend to just report. There is a mathematical ratio expression Relate/Report=Girls/Guys that is a constant.

I do think we see this effect predominate BC activisties. Lots of talking and relating. Where the guys cut to the chase and just report.

I don't think it is called learning when the classroom jumps up and takes the chalk away from the professor. Or when the students attempt to shout down the lecture or ask all manner of excessive questions.

That is the real difference between reporting / teaching and relating / listening.

IMHO,
is

Your quaint and narrow sexist perspective on my relating on this board is offensive. You're simply trying to control, even those who would support you. But, unfortunately, I disagree with your supposition that the primary role of the climate change situation rests in man's activity only. You'll have to deal with that. I have offered supportive evidence and you seem to be unable to deal and thus you judge others who disagree with you on a narrow understanding of gender issues. I've studied human behavior at the masters level, raised sons, taught in the schools, and Jim, your little assumption about "boys do this and girls do that" shows a sexism and ignorance that divides rather than unifies and betrays your own level of human behavior understanding. You may not want to add personal touches to your "reporting" but I choose to do so and I don't need your little small-minded lecture in efforts for you to reduce my credibility. This is a personal flame, a sexist claim, and you have just put a black mark on my respect for you.

Do you live in a cave? :x

BC

whitemajikman

02-05-2005, 08:59 AM

Your quaint and narrow sexist perspective on my relating on this board is offensive. You're simply trying to control, even those who would support you. But, unfortunately, I disagree with your supposition that the primary role of the climate change situation rests in man's activity only. You'll have to deal with that. I have offered supportive evidence and you seem to be unable to deal and thus you judge others who disagree with you on a narrow understanding of gender issues. I've studied human behavior at the masters level, raised sons, taught in the schools, and Jim, your little assumption about "boys do this and girls do that" shows a sexism and ignorance that divides rather than unifies and betrays your own level of human behavior understanding. You may not want to add personal touches to your "reporting" but I choose to do so and I don't need your little small-minded lecture in efforts for you to reduce my credibility. This is a personal flame, a sexist claim, and you have just put a black mark on my respect for you.

Do you live in a cave? :x

BC

Don't let Jimmy bother You Boomer........

He doesn't understand that the Earth is Storing carbon at an alarming rate and that it is a natural Earth process which has occured numerous times over the life span of this planet whenever it goes into flux......

And that we happen to be witnessing this flux.......

he rather blame MAN that let his perfect vision of a utopian Earth be shattered.....

not to mention he still wishes to keep up his hoaxing ......................

WMM

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 08:59 AM

Glad to see the understanding that is finally being cultivated here.......

See what happens when people communicate honestly and with no pre-conceived notions.....

By The way .....

Bearden may be a hoaxter,but he does know how to get the investors to fork out money for free-energy research..........

He also tried to offer Shawn Bishop a job after the debunking..........you know loose ends and all,but Shawn is still in Calgary and doing quite fine..........

last I heard......

WMM

Thanks, WMM! Nice to see you popping in. Well it's all been quite enlightening for me. Although Bearden tends to translate the Tesla science effectively, at least from my limited viewpoint, his forays into energy may in time teach him some severe lessons and perhaps he'll learn along the way. You have to admit that his openness to new ideas and new paradigms certainly propels him into undiscovered territory and for that, perhaps he can be lauded. He seems to be hitting some dead ends, but if he lives long enough and remedies his mistakes, maybe he'll come up with something valid. Do you think he purposefully attempts to fool others or is he fooling himself and believing his own mistakes?

You're not the Shawn referred to in the debunking, are you? Sorry, just had to make a few connections in my fantasy because I can't remember where you live.

Peace, brother,

BC :)

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 09:11 AM

Don't let Jimmy bother You Boomer........

He doesn't understand that the Earth is Storing carbon at an alarming rate and that it is a natural Earth process which has occured numerous times over the life span of this planet whenever it goes into flux......

And that we happen to be witnessing this flux.......

he rather blame MAN that let his perfect vision of a utopian Earth be shattered.....

not to mention he still wishes to keep up his hoaxing ......................

WMM

Thanks, WMM! Doesn't "hoaxing" assume a purposeful act of misleading? At this early point in my understanding of Jim, he seems to be earnest in his climate assumptions. So perhaps he's just expressing his views on climate change from his own emotionally charged perspective. Would "hoaxing" then be the definitive word to use regarding him?

I agree with your carbon theory, as it seems to have been echoed by other scientists, and I would add to that the impinging effects of the sun/solarsystem cycles as well as gravitational influences regarding the orbitting and locii of the planets and other space bodies. I would also add the galactic energy influences as well, that may indeed be such huge time based cycles that our limited recently aware science can only find evidence of in core samples and other biological and geological markers.

Just adding my 2 cents from recent readings,

BC ;)

whitemajikman

02-05-2005, 09:17 AM

Thanks, WMM! Nice to see you popping in. Well it's all been quite enlightening for me. Although Bearden tends to translate the Tesla science effectively, at least from my limited viewpoint, his forays into energy may in time teach him some severe lessons and perhaps he'll learn along the way. You have to admit that his openness to new ideas and new paradigms certainly propels him into undiscovered territory and for that, perhaps he can be lauded. He seems to be hitting some dead ends, but if he lives long enough and remedies his mistakes, maybe he'll come up with something valid. Do you think he purposefully attempts to fool others or is he fooling himself and believing his own mistakes?

You're not the Shawn referred to in the debunking, are you? Sorry, just had to make a few connections in my fantasy because I can't remember where you live.

Peace, brother,

BC :)

No I am not Shawn Bishop but I have spoken with him Numerous times because of our close proximity........

And Bearden Does serve a purpose in trying to promote independant free-energy research which might one day prove successful........

the only flaw besides his mathematics at this point was how he obtained his degrees.......

which is really secondary considering the talent he has assembled to help him with his research.........

good to see you here....

Peace Boomer

Shawn

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 09:49 AM

Thanks for the links, Boomer. Glad to see that youa re doing some active research now, and coming up with the real science side of the issue, not just the pseudo-science.

Thanks!

Not really. Here are a couple of links that explains, in simple terms, how to measure RMS power: The first one is a very easy-to-follow explanation that does not go into complex math, and uses the example of the speakers on your stereo. The second is a little more technical, and goes into the basic math, building on the first.

http://www.aqdi.com/rms.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/varvom.htm

Thanks, I'll take a looky but I don't know if I'll be able to understand it. I'll give it a shot, thanks!

Bot of these are essentially in lince with Shawn Bishop's paper. The "debunk" paper actually admits that Shawn arrived at the correct equation, even though he took a mathematical shortcut to get there. The shortcut does run through some unusual math, but even though it is unusual, it is still valid mathematically, and the outcome is still correct.

The only valid argument in the "debunk" paper is the one about the 100k resistor, and that is the entire point of the whole Bearden scam. What Bearden does is basically yo take a standard calibrated resistor, then to DELIBERATELY overloed it severelt, both electrically and thermally, so that it basically burns upm then he uses that as his "calibrated" load to measure the output of his perpetual motion machine. That's kind of like takeing your favorite plastics kitchen measuring jug, attacking it with a blowtorch until it softens and melts in places, twisting it, stretching it, bending, deforming it, beating it with a hammer, and distorting it as much as you possibly can till it looks like a pretzel, cooling it down, then trying to use it to measure out the ingredients for your favorite delicate French cuisine! Of course it won't work! But Bearden insists that it does. His "modified" resistor gives readings that are all over the place, wild and totally unpredictable, basically becuase he has destryoed the resistor. Then he carefully picks and chooses some of those readings, (the ones that support his claims), discards the rest (the ones that contradict his claims), and VOILA! Crepe Suzette! That's the kind of hoax that Bearden is running. Does it surprise you that of all the people who have bought his plans and kits, and built his device themselves, NOT ONE has been able to reproduce the results tha Bearden gets? Does that not make you wonder if there might be a somehwat fishy smell arising from that Crepe Suzette?

OK, but again, it's frustrating because I can't argue with you, but I appreciate your effort to interpret the debunking of Shawn Bishop. It does help if I can have complete faith in you. That's still a big IF, but it's improving. I hope you understand.

Boomer, that's all very well and fine: You are rooting for the little guy bucking the establiushed powers, and there is nothing wrong with that. But you cannot compare people like Bearden with people like Galileo, for example: Even though they both share the position of being outcasts, derided by the established powers of their day, the difference is that Galileo's math DID add up straight, and his work was rejected purely on ideological grounds, whereas Bearden's Ideology is fine, but his math just totally fails. The same is true of all the downtrodden outcast scientists over the centruries: Their science was solid, and sound, their math did add up, and they were rejected purely out of spite, differences of philosphy, religeon, ideology, politics, or whatever. But in the case of the hoaxsters and kooks, the problem is simply that their basic science is just plain WRONG, no matter what their politics, religion, philosophy, etc. say. In other words, "science" rejected Galileo because they didn't like what he stood for, even though his science was solid. Science rejects bearden his science is flawed, even though they like what he stands for.

Big difference.

Yes, I hear you. And then again, if the guy is truly trying and attempting to learn from his mistakes, perhaps if he lives long enough, he might have a legitimate breakthrough that the rest of the scientific world can accept as valid. As I said to Shawn, "hoaxing" implies the intent to mislead others. If one is only self deluded and stubborn in one's own insistence, then he's not really a "hoaxter" in the true meaning of the word : : to trick into believing or accepting or doing something
: play upon the credulity of ...so as to bring about belief in or acceptance
of what is actually false and often preposterous
: take in
: DELUDE, DUPE, MISLEAD, VICTIMIZE. So to prove his intent would be in order. Can you prove his intent in this? He seems to be self deluded, rather than attempting to delude others. Of course I can be wrong. I have no way of knowing this man's intent.

Agreed. ANd that is the basis of the scientific method: You MUST put aside your subjectinve prejudices, beliefs, and feelings, in favor of accepting ONLY that which stnads on a solid logical unimpeachable objective base. I'm sure you can see that this is the ONLY way that science can possibly work:

[So I take it that many of you here are classicists? Ya? Yup! It's the only way to go! (But my wife thinks I can be romanitc too, if that's any consolation... :) )[/QUOTE]

;) Yes, I realize this and have tried to express my willingness to attend to the scientific method. And I've also explained that concept and imagination can also precede the method as well. And I agree that as long as math seems to be the universal language and accepted foundation in proving theories, that the accompanying math of the experiment should match the outcome. No problem there. My question is this, when pioneering experimenters such as Tesla and even Galileo, experimented in real time with ingenious self-built equipment, did they find evidence of new energies, new relative perspectives of material creation, FIRST, and then explain them through mathmatics? And do some scientists work the other way, with mathematics as the theory and then the experiments to prove it? Yes? So it works both ways. The concept and then the math, the experiment and then the math, the theory and then the experiment. So sometimes, even in inventive science, it takes the "romantic" to start the process. The creative energy to conceptualize first often sets the scientic method in motion. Did Leonardo Davinci know the math behind his heliocopter designs before he drew them? Did the Wright Brothers sit down and do math before they conceived of their notion that man could fly or glide and then use a propeller to force the air? And did scientists then prove the physics of their invention after the fact? And what if the Wright Brothers saw Davinci's drawings and were inspired by them? Note: I realize some Europeans were working at the same general time as the Wright Brothers on their airplane concepts. So, my point is, romanticism could indeed be a motivational conceptual aspect of science itself. We must not ignore that fact of history, human creativity, and scientific method.

BC

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 10:38 AM

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 11:04 AM

BC writes:

I've studied human behavior at the masters level, raised sons, taught in the schools, and Jim, your little assumption about "boys do this and girls do that" shows a sexism and ignorance that divides rather than unifies and betrays your own level of human behavior understanding. You may not want to add personal touches to your "reporting" but I choose to do so and I don't need your little small-minded lecture in efforts for you to reduce my credibility. This is a personal flame, a sexist claim, and you have just put a black mark on my respect for you.

Do you live in a cave?

=========

BC,

You might find it interesting to note that the "relate" and "report" dialectic came right off a morning womens talk show. The women supported this situtation to be the case. They were making realistic observations of human nature and the differences between how one sex vs the other process information.

So, it would appear that all of national TV has just insulted you and the original insult came from women rationalizing about the differences between men and women.

When I saw the program and this explanation, the glove fit.

Perhaps you are insulted when people speak simple truths, but only when a male repeats what a group of females on national TV just supported.

Which makes you a what? And you reject basic human nature issues too. While also tossing out a lot of extraneous stuff.

IMHO,
is

The question is: what was your intent in using it??? And BTW, just because a woman said something on a talk show for God's sake, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Please!

It may be true that women tend to relate and men tend to report, but preceded by your cryptic statement that literature majors should stick to their own areas..... the combination was offensive.

Truth is truth BTW, it is not gender specific.

I deem that your intent is to degrade my credibility and this is why I responded the way I did.

I'm not a flaming women's libist, I'm just a woman trying to get at the truth. As soon as I disagreed with you, you begin to spout negativities. Women are quite capable of reporting and being scientific..... and some relate just like men.

Women's talk shows and even women who write books on basic behavior or no more right than the men that write them. The truth of their words is the only thing that can be judged. To broadbrushstoke women and men even regarding their thinking processes is itself a whole subject worthy of discussion.

So why did you choose to use that little bit of info, huh? Intent is the key.

BC :?

stuart_allsop

02-05-2005, 11:07 AM

Yes, thank you for that. I'm wondering if perhaps your view on such an omni directional force is narrow in assuming that all energies require direction?Not really: Most EM radiations from a point source acutally are omni-directionally, spreading equally in all directions, but they are still vector in nature, simply because you can select and analize a small section of one of the those "spherical" waves, and you can see that that small section, by itslef, is a vector. In fact, you can think of the total spherical wavefront as being made up of many tiny vector wavefronts, eahc one heading in s slightly different direction. That is what the branch of mathematics called "calculs" deals with. It is a useful method of breaking down large complex things into numerous tiny pieces, and considering them all at once in one equation. You can do that with an omni-directional EM wave, because the individual "parts" of that wave all are vectors. But you cannot do it with a scalar wave, becuase there is nothing to break down, and there are no vectors.

That's what makes Bearden's "scalar" waves so silly! They cannot go anywhere, or do anything, or be analzed by simple mathematical techniques, yet he insists that they can, and when he tries to do it, he comes up with ridiculous results, such as the equivalent of measureing the speed of your car not in "miles per hour" but rather "kilo-volts per square pound". The mathematical contortions that he applies to try to force the equations to fit his concepts, produce absolutely nonsensical units like the above.

[qoute]If the energy is tapped and THEN directed, wouldn't that make sense?[/quote]Yes, and that is exactly waht a radio or TV antenna does: It takes the omnidirectional EM energy flowing out of the cable or waveguide from the transmitter, and forces it to radiate in certain pre-determined patterns. For example, TV antennas direct their energy mostly horizontal and slightly down: thre is no point in transmitting TV signals UPwards, since not too many TV's float around in the sky, so instead the TV antenna directs it to where the people are. But SCALAR wave cannot be directed: by defintion it can have no direction. As sonn as you give it direction, it is no longer scalar. It's kind of like trying to fill up a cup with coffee, but keep it empty at the same time. You cannot have it both ways. If you give direction to a scalar wave, it stops been scalar. This minor detail bothers BEarden no end: every time someone brings it up, he looses his cool ans starts ranting about how he is misunderstood, and how TPTB are trying to suppress his genius, etc. But he never will deal with the issue of how you direct a scalar wave without directing it...

The energy as I think you said, may indeed be there, but because it is not in its inherent form -- wave like -- the scientists ability to then harness it and DIRECT it is the goal.WEll, not really. Energy in a stored form is called "potential" energy, such as the mechanical potential energy stored in a spring or rubber band if you stretch it out and hold it, or a ballon if you inflate it: It has the POTENTIAL to do work, but at present it is just stored energy, waiting to be released. That's the issue. When it is stored, it is NOT a wave: It is pure SCALAR energy, with a dimension, but no direction. As soon as you release it, it stops being scalar, becomes vector, and usually the energy is transferred in the form of a wave. But a wave cannot be scalar in the Bearden sense, becuase waves have directions, and are therefore vector, not scalar.

Perhaps it's even more complicated than that with various intersecting energies at various angles as well as frequency considerations. You might throw in some gravity and magnetics and then I'm totally lost. It's almost too much for me to visualize. Well, yes, you sure can complicate things, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot make a Bearden "scalar" wave, since by definition they are impossible.

But I appreciate your explanation of "scalar" as you see it. It's quite helpful.
No problem. All you have to do is ask!

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 11:50 AM

Then how do you explain this:

The Sun
Since at least the late 1970s, the Sun’s overall radiation emissions (as measured by increasingly sophisticated satellites) have increased by 0.5% per decade, which one NASA scientist said “could cause significant climate change” if such effects were to continue over several decades. [14] Another NASA scientist found that between 1901 and 2000, the Sun’s magnetic field has increased in strength by 230 percent. [15] In 1999, a third NASA experimenter observed high increases in the amount of helium and heavier charged particles released during solar events, showing that a real change is occurring in the solar wind component of the Sun’s energetic output, neatly paralleling the other observed changes.. [16]

Prior to 2003, the two strongest solar flares on record were rated at a previously unheard-of X20, and occurred in 1989 and 2001. Then, in November 2003 a flare occurred that some estimate to be at least 200% more powerful than any ever seen before, at a whopping X40 … or higher.[17] As is expected in such events, a coronal mass ejection soon followed – releasing a huge expanding bubble of billions of tons of electrified gas into the solar system. These and other events in late 2003 caused one NASA scientist to say that the Sun is now more active than in living memory, and “there has been nothing like this before.” [18]

Figure 5 - Largest, Brightest-Ever X40 Solar Flare, 11.5.03, (L) and Subsequent CME (R). (NASA-ESA)

Despite all of the above evidence, the case for a fundamental solar change was never truly complete until late last year, with a study that coincidentally emerged just three days before this massive solar explosion occurred. Ilya Usoskin, a mainstream geophysicist, used polar ice core samples to prove that the Sun has been more active since the 1940s than in the previous 1,150 years combined. [19] The Sun’s subsequent fury, just days later, only served to underline and emphasize the point. Considering that the Sun contains fully 99.86 percent of the mass of the solar system, making the planets look like grains of sand by comparison, these continuing changes will undoubtedly affect everything within the Sun’s formidable magnetic, radiative and gravitational grasp…

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_a...After-Part2.htm

Sources:

“Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Wilson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York.”

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend that can Change Climate. March 20, 2003. URL: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2...irradiance.html

[15] “…according to Michael Lockwood and colleagues at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England… Analyzing instrument measurements taken since 1868, they conclude that the sun's exterior magnetic field has increased by 230 percent since 1901 and by 40 percent since 1964.”

Suplee, Curt. Sun Studies May Shed Light on Global Warming. Washington Post, Monday, Oct. 9, 2000, pg. A13. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5-2000Oct8.html

[16] “A team of researchers led by George Gloeckler, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, published a paper in the Jan. 15, 1999 issue of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) about the unusual composition of the May 2-3 (199 coronal mass ejection (CME) – a bubble of gas and magnetic field lines that the sun ejects over the course of several hours… Coronal mass ejections carry plasma, or ionized gas, away from the sun at speeds approaching 2,000 kilometers per second…

“We were completely surprised by the highly unusual and unexpected composition in this CME,” Gloeckler says. His team observed, for example, that the density of 4He+ [a form of charged helium] was almost as high as the density of 4He++ for several hours. “Such large 4He+/4He++ratios, persisting for hours, have never been observed in the solar wind before,” they write. They also observed high increases of helium and heavier ions in the CME plasma. The unusual composition of the CME lasted an exceptionally long time, they write… “This is certainly not an average solar wind but an anomalous situation,” Gloeckler says. “Yet such anomalous findings often lead to deeper understandings of physical processes.”

Bartlett, Kristina. ACEing the sun. American Geophysical Union / Geotimes News Notes, April 1999. URL: http://www.geotimes.org/apr99/newsnotes.html

[17] “Craig DeForest, a solar physicist at the Southwest Research Institute, said… “I’d take a stand and say it appears to be about X40 based on extrapolation of the X-ray flux into the saturated period… “That estimate may even be conservative,” he said.”

Britt, Robert Roy. Solar super-flare amazes scientists. Space.com / MSNBC.com, Nov. 6, 2003. URL: http://www.msnbc.com/news/984388.asp?cp1=1

[18] Dr Paal Brekke, deputy project scientist for the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Sun-monitoring satellite, told BBC News Online… "I think the last week will go into the history books as one of the most dramatic solar activity periods we have seen in modern times… As far as I know there has been nothing like this before."”

Whitehouse, David Ph.D. What is Happening to the Sun? BBC News Online, Tuesday, November 4, 2003. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3238961.stm

[19] “Ilya Usoskin, a geophysicist who worked with colleagues from the University of Oulu in Finland and the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, has found that there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than for the past 1150 years.

Sunspot observations stretch back to the early 17th century, when the telescope was invented. To extend the data farther back in time, Usoskin's team used a physical model to calculate past sunspot numbers from levels of a radioactive isotope preserved in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica…

Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford…told New Scientist that when he saw the data converted to sunspot numbers he thought, "why the hell didn't I do this?" It makes the conclusion very stark, he says. "We are living with a very unusual sun at the moment."

Hogan, Jenny. Sun More Active than for a Millennium. New Scientist, November 2, 2003. URL: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321

_____________________________________________

I do think your views of the sun and its role need alteration.

BC

Hey, Jim, why don't you answer my question? What do you think of this evidence that tends to refute your stubborn stance on human industry as the only factor in the global climate change scenario? You distracting me with your male-female stuff?

BC

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 12:26 PM

Another thing, Boomer. Jim doesn't answer questions.

Hey, Yaak! ;) You know, I just don't feel comfortable about talking about people this way. It's like standing in a group of people and having one person say such and such about another who's standing there. I don't know, it just doesn't feel right. I appreciate your support, but I know distraction and emotional ploys quite well no matter who uses them. Remember, I dealt with two rather lively teenage sons and experienced enough manipulation in my family of origin, to know it when I see it.

Yes, I'm relating on a personal level. I think all of us are capable of changing gears and modulating appropriately. But when anyone uses personal defamation or personal observations based on assumptions outside of the realm of posting.... it usually signifies an inability to directly and openly respond to legitimate questions and opposing views. I've experienced being the victim in this regard and I don't wish to impose this kind of assuming on anyone else. I just call it like I see it and go from there, one on one..... you know?

I can, will, and do respond when I sense or read something of the controlling and manipulative nature no matter who posts.

I know you know the guy from years of interacting, but I don't, and I just don't want to talk about others on the board. If you want to e-mail me things, feel free.

BTW, liked your post on various components of the atmosphere, not that I liked the components. :p

Toodles and cheerio, schweetie! :D Mum's the word!

whitemajikman

02-05-2005, 04:10 PM

The following report constitutes the 13th annual report from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI), and is produced by the National Environmental Technology Centre.

http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/naei/annreport/annrep99/intro.html

whitemajikman

02-05-2005, 04:18 PM

Conversion Factors for Calculating CO2-Equivalents

http://www.gert.org/guidance_documents/adx-e.htm

WMM

stuart_allsop

02-05-2005, 04:22 PM

Thanks, I'll take a looky but I don't know if I'll be able to understand it. I'll give it a shot, thanks!The first one should give you no trouble: the guy deliberatley left out the complex math, and explains it all in pictures and text.

It does help if I can have complete faith in you. That's still a big IF, but it's improving. I hope you understand. I'm hoping you'll get there! :) Seriously, did you knw that Shawn (WMM) used to be exactly in your soes, but like you started doing some REAL research, and coming up with facts that didn't fit the conspiracies that he had bought into? So far, you seem to be following in his footsteps... He and I had some pretty good debates (often heated... right Shawn? :) ) but he was smart now and honest enough to figure it out and admit he had been wrong...

Yes, I hear you. And then again, if the guy is truly trying and attempting to learn from his mistakes, perhaps if he lives long enough, he might have a legitimate breakthrough that the rest of the scientific world can accept as valid.Quite possible! He certaily is tenacious enough! And his MEG transformer turns out to be quite efficient as transformers go: he could probably market it as-is if he would just bill it as a high-efficiencu transformer, instead of a "free energy device".

He seems to be self deluded, rather than attempting to delude others. Of course I can be wrong. I have no way of knowing this man's intent. Can you prove his intent in this?No I can't prove it. I have no idea WHAT his intentions are, but it certainly looks like a hoax to me.Maybe you are right: perhaps he really DOES believe it himself, and it is all just a delusion. I really can't say.

have tried to express my willingness to attend to the scientific method. Youa re doing great so far! Most conspiracy theorists falt refuse to even look at the kind of stuff that you have already examined and recognized to be true.

My question is this, when pioneering experimenters such as Tesla and even Galileo, experimented in real time with ingenious self-built equipment, did they find evidence of new energies, new relative perspectives of material creation, FIRST, and then explain them through mathmatics? Yes, that's usually the way it works. A scientist general starts with an observation, then invents a couple of hypotheses to explain the observation, then tries to think of ways to prove that those hypotheses are WRONG. Note: Contrary to popular belief, he does not rey to prove them RIGHT, since that is practially impossible. Rather, he tries to think of every possible way to prove them WRONG, then tests each of those ways. This is called "falisfying" the hypothesis. If he succeeds at falsifying it, then he might either abandon that hypothesis as unworkable, or he might notice that he can change it a bit to account for the recent flasification, and try again. When he has gone through every possible experiment to falisfy hie hypothesis, and it is still standing, then, and only then, does he think he might be on to something.

A classic example is Einsteins theories of relativity. The theories them seleves predict certain behavior, whcih can be tested. For example, SR (Special Relativity) predicts that a beam of light can be bent, just a tiny fraction, by a very massive gravitaional field. So scientists tried to prove this WRONG by looking for light rays to remain straight as the travel from very different stars, past very massive galaxies, and on to us. What they found is that the light really DOES bend. Score one for SR. Another prediction is that clocks must run slower as the accelearte to high speeds, or if the sit in strong gravitational fields. So scientits tested this by syncronizing a bunch of really accurate atomic clocks, put some down mine shafts, some on the earths surface, and some on mountain tops (gravity does change slightly in those places), left the clocks for a while, then brought them back together. Sure enough, the clocks had all run at different speeds, with the differences being exactly what SR had predicted. Same with clocks in spacecraft: the faster the spacecraft goes, the slower the clock runs. Sure, at the kind of slow speeds we are talking bout, the differences are really minute, but they can be measured. Scientists have been doing this kind of thing for close on a hundred years now, with Einstein's theories, and they always fail to falisfy. For this reason, Relativity is very well accepted in science these days, simply becuase nobody has been able to falsify it, even after trying for nearly a century.

do some scientists work the other way, with mathematics as the theory and then the experiments to prove it? Yes? So it works both ways.Yes. Usually together, as part of refining a hypothesis or theory.

Did Leonardo Davinci know the math behind his heliocopter designs before he drew them?Probably he had an incling of it. He was great for numbers and geomtry, and had spent a lot of time observing birds. He understood the basic pribciples. Of course, his helicopter designs could never have flown, even if he had built them, because he did not have the dimensions correct, and there were no light-weight construction materials or power plants available in his day, but he clearly understood the basic math behind it.

Did the Wright Brothers sit down and do math before they conceived of their notion that man could fly or glide and then use a propeller to force the air?Absolutely! That's why they succeed where so many others had failed. They were VERY scientific about it, testing and calculating. They built the world's first wind-tunnel to test their airfoil designs, and as a result found errors in long-accepted tables about fluid dynamics. They were meticulous. Their predecessors and competitors were all working on feeling, emotions, and rough guesses, and not bothering to analyze and test like Wilbur and Orville did. When you read their story, it's actually pretty amazing what they did accomplish.

And did scientists then prove the physics of their invention after the fact?Quite the opposite: The Wrights wrote the book on aerodynamics, except that they kept it to themsleves for years, to keep their edge. If you'd like to read about them, there's a grat book called "The Bishop's Boys" about them, which goes quite deeply in to all of this, especially their motivations. Excellent read.

And what if the Wright Brothers saw Davinci's drawings and were inspired by them? They probably did see them, but Davinci's drawings were nothing at all like what Wilbur and Orville built, so clearly there was very little inspiration for them in DaVinci's work. They took most of their clues from marine engineering, figuring that water and air behaved somewaht similarly, except for compressability.

Note: I realize some Europeans were working at the same general time as the Wright Brothers on their airplane concepts. So, my point is, romanticism could indeed be a motivational conceptual aspect of science itself. We must not ignore that fact of history, human creativity, and scientific method. Sure, romanticism has it's place. After all, if Wilbur and Orville had never dreamed about flying, they nevere would have bothered. But romanticism without science is also not going to get you anywhere. Most of the Writght's competitors were doing just that: dreaming about flying, knocking together foolhardy contraptions that no engineer would even dare look at, and risking their lives on them. And getting themsleves killed. Instead, Wolbur and Orville attacked the whole problem of flight from a totally sceintific point of view, starting with small model gliders and kites, working up to large scale gliders, then gliders where one man could actually lie on to test how controls work, and only then the full scale motorized "Flyer".

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 05:14 PM

Awesomely excellent, Stu! But don't assume at this point, that beyond Bearden that I'm totally rejecting the Tesla/Eastlund science and the government ops related to HAARP. Just so we have that clear. But I so enjoyed reading your explanations and responses. ;)

I ran across something the other night while cruising/researching about theories that try to blow Einstein's out of the water. I hear you on the relativity thang, and oh so interesting.... read a recent article about Einstein's theories in Discovery magazine and that was so well written for the lay person. Now does he postulate that the speed of light is a constant? Did he "say" that nothing travels faster than the speed of light? Just trying to review here. Let's not get too deeply into Einstein right now considering my paucity of comprehension.

I still need to read that link you offered.

You do know how I view the sun and other energies regarding the global warming issue, right?

And, yes of course, romanticism alone could never accomplish what the classicist scientific method has. You know I know that. It was the motivational and conceptual aspect that I was addressing. And that Wright Brothers book sounds great. I enjoyed reading the original book from which October Skies was based: Rocket Boys by Homer H. Hickam, Jr. Of course it's not on the same order of invention, but the story of one man's development, written in first person, into the realm of rocket science certainly brought the human and romantic element to the fore. Thanks for recommending the Wright Brothers biographical tome.

Delightful!

BC :smile:

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 06:17 PM

BC writes:

"So why did you choose to use that little bit of info, huh? Intent is the key. "

===========
Simple---too much BS

Because of the extraneous nonsense on scalar waves and other stuff that had little valid bearing to the global warming discussion. I was seeing more of a chatty cathy, with feelings gushing about and such, appearing to be doing a broad spectrum info toss out to see what would happen. I could have sworn I was in the English Lit class and not science.

BTW-----some of us don't live our full lives on Arianna's little forum. It can sometimes take me days or sometimes even much longer to get back. When the sun is out and the weather is nice-----we go have fun in the mountains and go out to eat -- social stuff---ya know. Relational good times.

There is a time and place for relational. And one more for reporting.

And the professor saw the classroom being trashed by nonsense.

There is also simple science to show HF LASERS emit 3 microns (mid-IR), and they pump by absorption near this wavelength----making HF----no less------a global warming problem.

The HF problem is covered up just like the health problems connected with fluoride and the AlFx factor that screws up the dendritic cells of the lymph nodes. Science in the US is often a matter of politics-----some things are deliberately downplayed or not reported.

If the US reports the HF problem----they are forced to shut down all the fossil fuel plants due to public outrage. Simple equation.

IMHO,
is

Boomer Chick

02-05-2005, 06:31 PM

FYI, my husband works on Saturday. I do what I want.

BTW, did you notice WWM's postings on the British rundown of gases and particulates?

It seems to support your theory as does the list that Yaak posted. Thought you should know since you're so absorbed with my chatter. You'll have to go back a page or two.

Control issues, heh, Jim? It's OK, I understand. But boards are public places and sometimes you have to put up with the side conversations. Hope you can handle it.

Bearden is out of the way. I still support the HAARP theories, the HAARP secret ops, etc. And I do disagree that the particulates are primary to the sun and other energies impinging. That's my stance, take it or leave it. At least I posted something to support my position from scientists of reknown and you still as yet haven't responded to the posting.

If you're so concerned about your issues, then why do you ignore direct input to them from Yaak, WMM, and myself?

Get on your own program, guy, walk the walk and talk the talk, in other words!

Toodles! Oh, BTW, I multitask, meaning if we're not out and about here in cold Colorado, or entertaining, I do household tasks and my own projects AND post on boards. And if I could ski, I'd be up there every weekend, but I have a cranky knee, so that's out of the question. Quit assuming!

BC

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 06:32 PM

The problem with SF-6 is much like the one with freon and Cl.

What makes freon a problem for the ozone hole is that it has nano-particle transport factors in air that allow the heavy molecules to be dragged along in the atmosphere until they get to the levels which UV radiation from the Sun will break down the molecule and release the Cl component. Then freon becomes a problem. The ozone hole is at the South Pole because the Cl ion is driven there by mag field effects, and the Cl concentrations are higher there.

The freon molecules are much heavier than air, so they are dragged along like sand flakes in a stream.

The very same nano particle transport mechanism is involved with SF-6. SF-6 will also break down due to the UV, releasing F atoms---which will eventually pick up with a hydrogen atom from water. The formation of HF is an integral part of the SF-6 equation and why it is a potent global warming gas.

Global warming gases are determined by all the lifetime and other destructive breakdown products in the atmosphere. The GWP of SF-6 is not just the SF-6----but determined by all its breakdown effects for a 100 years.

Just like the Ozone destruction potentials are determined by Cl content.

IMHO,
is

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 06:57 PM

Insurrectionchemistry

02-05-2005, 09:23 PM

Greetings,

An interesting graph was recently listed by one Yaak, it follows:
========

From:

The Sun Is Freaking Out

http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html#Volcanos (http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html#Volcanos)

===========

One would correctly suspect that volcanic and seismic activities are linked to the stress on the tectonic plates caused by expansion heating effects connected to global warming.

The most interesting portion of the curves above are the huge drop in the volcanic activity coinciding with the WWII devastation of much of the industrial age's industry in Europe. Less releases mean less heating.

The effect was so dramatic that it appears the 1945 WWII devastations produced a cut in industrial emission levels and took the curve back to late 1800 rates.

When noting this, does one conclude the Sun is the net effect on volcanic rates or the industrial emissions?

Then one must take into account that the upward trend in the activity exactly matches the emission of industrial global warming gases.

Which then would mean this one graph supports the observation the industrial emissions track volcanic activity, by two different time correlated events.

Can one dismiss such correlations to industrial emissions?

IMHO,
is

stuart_allsop

02-05-2005, 10:16 PM

Awesomely excellent, Stu!Thanks you! You are welcome. Glad you appreciate the effort, and VERY glad you ditched Bearden.

But don't assume at this point, that beyond Bearden that I'm totally rejecting the Tesla/Eastlund science and the government ops related to HAARP. Just so we have that clear. Thats cool! One at a time... Tesla is a bit of an enigma: he did some great science in his early days, good science in his mid days, and then he flipped towards the end and started doing wierd stuff, which I guess is why his backers pulled the plug on him. He started producing some awesomely powerful dispalys of really high-energy electrical discharges, dangerously so, and I think folks were getting concerned about the "mad scientists" angle. Can't blame them. What particular part of Tesl'as work are you referring to? (PS, I do not discard all of his stuff: I even built a Tesla coil myself when I was a kid, so I know it works, but I also understand the physics behind WHY it works and HOW it works, and a Tesla coil breaks no laws.)

I ran across something the other night while cruising/researching about theories that try to blow Einstein's out of the water.Many have tried: He's a pretty big and attractive target! But none have succeeded or even come close to dethroning him... At best, his theories may be incomplete, but they are not wrong, since nearly a hundred years of experimentation has proved them to be highly accurate.

[/quote] I hear you on the relativity thang, and oh so interesting.... read a recent article about Einstein's theories in Discovery magazine and that was so well written for the lay person. Now does he postulate that the speed of light is a constant?[/quote]Yes, the speed of light IN A VACCUM is a constant, roughly 300,000,000 meters per second, or about 186,000 miles per second. Light can travel SLOWER than that, and recently scientists have actually been abel to make it STOP completely, but 300,000,000 m/s is the limit.

Did he "say" that nothing travels faster than the speed of light?Not exactly: He said that noting can be ACCELERATED to the speed of light, which is sublty different. Some theories postulate a strange particle called a Tachyon that always travels faster than light, and aslo travels backwards though time, and also has negative mass (whatever that means!), but nobody has ever found one, and most theories do not allow for it. (Detecting it would be tough, too: it would actually exit your detecor BEFORE it entered...)

Even more complex is the very real possibility that it may be feasible to get from "A" to "B" in a period of time that would suggest you travelled faster than light, yet not ACTUALLY travel faster than light, by warping space-time around you, or by burrowing throuigh a "wormhole" in space time.... but lets not go there yet....!

But back to the point: The problem is not the speed itself, the probelm is the acceleration to get you there. The basic problem is that as you accelerate, your mass increases. At the kind of speeds that we deal with every day, the effect is actually so minuscule as to be undectable. Even the fastest jet fighter does not experince an increase of mass beyond a miniscule fraction of a billionth of a gram. You have to get up to pretty large speeds before the effect becomes apparent, but it can be done, and is done regularly in particle accelerators. A particle accelerator can take an atom apart, then spin one of its pieces around at very high speed, accelerating it a bit more on ever lap, until it gets up to speeds in the high 90% range. That's FAST!

OK, so mass increases as you go faster. So what? you might ask. Well, consider this: it is easy to push your bike along with nobody on it, a bit tougher with a child sitting on it, tougher still with Jay Reynolds or Yaak sitting on it, and if you get the circus fat man to sit on it, you can hardly push it at all, simply becuase of the much larger mass. Same thing here: As your accelerating object gets more massive, you need more energy to accelerate it to the next step. So, if you needed one tank of rocket fuel to get it going from zero to 10% of the speed of light (normally abbreviated as "c"), you'll find that you need 3 tanks to get it from 10% to 20%, two dozen tanks to get it from 20% to 30%, several hundred tanks from 30% to 40%, many thousands from 40% to 50%, millions to 60%, billions to 70%, etc. As you can see, the trouble is that this is an exponential effect. The faster you go, the more energy you need to get to the next step. And when it comes down to that last tiny jump from 99.9999...9% up to 100%, you need more energy than is available in the entire universe. In fact, you need an infinite amount of energy for that last jump. That explains why it is impossible to get there from here. Obviously, there is no place to get an infinite amount of energy from, so you cannot ever accelerate to the speed of light.

(PS, I did not actually take the time to calculate how many gas tanks you need for each step, so please do not hold me to that as being accurate: I just wanted to illustrate the point for you).

The other problem is (and this is where relativity really starts getting weird) that the faster you go, the SLOWER your clocks go, and the SHORTER your rulers get. So that no matter HOW FAST you are going, the speed of light always seems to be the same disatnce away from you. It's like one of those nightmares where no matter how fast you run, you never seem to get closer to your destination. And what makes it even weirder still, is that everyone has a different view of reality, based only on their relative speeds! So that if you watch our daredevil astronaut rushing off at, say, 50% of c, YOU see that his clock is running slower and his rulers are shorter, yet HE does not see that. To him, his clocks are running at normal speed and his rulers are just perfect. And if he spent a few years of HIS time travelling to a nearby star and back, when he returned he would think he had aged a few years, but here on Earth everyone he knew would be long gone, dead and buried... This effect is called "time dilation", and is an absolute fact, no doubt about it.

In fact, the genius of Einstein was in noticing that there is no such thing as an absolute state of rest: everything moves relative to everything else, hence "relativity". One observer is just as valid as the next. From the point of view of relativity, a man sitting on a speeding train is prefectly correct in saying that his train is stationary and the earth is rushing past. The Earth is just a convenient frame of reference for us, since we live here, but so is another planet in a another solar system that is rushing along at what we consider to be 80% of c. To people who live on that planet, THEIR view of the universe is correct, and ours is wrong, even though we have totally different views of it. The equations that you use to figure out what someone else's view of the universe is like, are called the Lorentz Transformations, and are actually surprisingly simple for such a complex and overwhelming concept.

But the point I wanted to get to here is that Relativity establishes, for a fact, that there is no such thing as the "aether", which is one theory that Scentists were entertaining until Einstein came along and upset the apple cart. There can be no aether, because there can be no fixed frame of reference. If there were any such things as the "aether", then the aether itself would provide a fixed frame of reference, and relativity would not work. But relativity DOES work, extremely well, thus there is no aether. Tesla was big on aether at the end: he was wrong.

Just trying to review here. Let's not get too deeply into Einstein right now considering my paucity of comprehension. No problem: Its pretty wierd stuff, since we don't usually travel fast enough to notice the effects. Takes a while to get your mind around it, doesn't it?

You do know how I view the sun and other energies regarding the global warming issue, right? I think so: You agree with science that the sun is NOT the constant that it was once thought to be, that the sun's output has changed in the past, and is changing now, and that this extra output may be a large factor in global warming. Is that about it? If so, I agree.

halva

02-05-2005, 10:32 PM

BC writes:

"If you're so concerned about your issues, then why do you ignore direct input to them from Yaak, WMM, and myself? "

========

Mainly because I don't think you (especially not the bunk masters) know the intricacies of the science that you attempt to delb into.

IMHO,
is

Jim, if Boomer Chick's chatting with the other debunkers makes Raynolds (who seeks only to demean and humiliate, not to persuade) feel left out of the discussion, then it serves a useful purpose.

Personally i don't feel the need to talk about anything with them, since they and I do not share the same goals and one only has a certain amount of time. I did not seek out their company and if I could kick them off the thread I would.

But as a liberal and a patriotic American Boomer Chick has another approach.

halva

02-05-2005, 10:37 PM

Some recent comment from a collaborator, who points out that Rense's recent publiciising of "pilot" images persuaded many that such incredible "contrails" could not be natural.

Scott Stevens comments, "In this day and age of the EPA and their powers for noise and pollution control, this simply looks grossly out of place." "If this is supposed to be
normal, these engines need a redesign."

http://www.weatherwars.info/pilotsview.htm

halva

02-06-2005, 12:44 AM

halva

02-06-2005, 12:47 AM

The question is: what was your intent in using it??? And BTW, just because a woman said something on a talk show for God's sake, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Please!

It may be true that women tend to relate and men tend to report, but preceded by your cryptic statement that literature majors should stick to their own areas..... the combination was offensive.

Truth is truth BTW, it is not gender specific.

I deem that your intent is to degrade my credibility and this is why I responded the way I did.

I'm not a flaming women's libist, I'm just a woman trying to get at the truth. As soon as I disagreed with you, you begin to spout negativities. Women are quite capable of reporting and being scientific..... and some relate just like men.

Women's talk shows and even women who write books on basic behavior or no more right than the men that write them. The truth of their words is the only thing that can be judged. To broadbrushstoke women and men even regarding their thinking processes is itself a whole subject worthy of discussion.

So why did you choose to use that little bit of info, huh? Intent is the key.

BC :?

The difference that BC and Jim are talking about is not the difference between men and women. It is the difference between science and war.

The debunkers on this site, and particularly Raynolds, are waging war.

I support BC's approach only to the extent that it generates divisions between Raynolds and the others.

Let us try to exploit these divisions.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-06-2005, 06:06 AM

Halva writes:

But as a liberal and a patriotic American Boomer Chick has another approach.

=======

I hardly consider naivete a good approach. My sensory data tends to differ from yours.

Now surely even a liberal arts oriented person has taken note that science in the US is politicized. One can buy a report that says what the funder wanted it to say. The US no longer does good science. The US does the best science than money can buy to support a given political goal.

Even liberal arts students should take note that NASA cannot even design a simple telescope and test the thing. Likewise, all the rest of their stuff needs to be given a critical eye.

For instance, one always looks at data integrity and checks to see if it matches other observed common sense trends. When one looks at satellite data derived from sensors that have to respond to the wide bandwidth coming from the Sun, plus the improvements in sensor designs that make the data more accurate over time-----one sees that the historical data could well show a trend based on errors.

I am not surprised that satellite data shows an upward trend in the Sun's energy, because of improvements in sensor design and broadband sensitivity improving so as to include more energy sensitivity.

I don't think we have that kind of experienced ablities showing in the cut and paste research skills exhibited by the liberal arts chatty science method. Else these issues would have been presented.

Likewise, even a patriotic american housewife should also be paying close attention as to why Europe/Japan/Etc. all recognize global warming and emission curbs and the US science seems to be the isolated counter culture from the rest of the world. Can one be a patriot and ignore that the rest of the worlds science says something totally different than your countries?

Is all the rest of the world working on some fluke about emissions causing global warming problems and spending all this money for nought. I really don't think the rest of the world is that stupid, nor do they do science for money.

After all, isn't this the same mindset that brings us the Bush anti-Christ criteria and his word games on freedom, when his real intent is tyranny. And this game plan is the same one that the Reynolds war games syndicate employs.

I hardly consider gross naivete as a good approach.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-06-2005, 06:34 AM

It is this effect that makes HF the most dominate of the global warming releases. It is released in high quantities from multiple sources and its GWP is very high. It is an SF-6 related problem times a trillion.

Jimbo, you've never shown any documentation for your claim that hydrofuoric acid has any global warming potential at all. You can't jump to the conclusion that, It is an SF-6 related problem times a trillion.
You are bogus, Jimbo.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-06-2005, 06:56 AM

Halva writes:

The difference that BC and Jim are talking about is not the difference between men and women. It is the difference between science and war.

The debunkers on this site, and particularly Raynolds, are waging war.

I support BC's approach only to the extent that it generates divisions between Raynolds and the others.

=====================

I can agree that it a matter of wars, several fronts in fact.

The data mining techniques that worked up the idea that Iraq was loaded with WMD was certainly fabricated case for war. The US is using that method on all fronts----to include not only the corruption of intelligence, but the corruption of science itself.

There are several wars being waged.

1. The war for oil by conquest of oil rich middle east by an oil thirsty economy to have them work under the democracy banking system of the Bush NWO. Bush Freedom is actually economic tyranny.

2. The war against the citizens by industry to avoid the huge health and weather problems becoming obvious to or reported accurately to the citizens. Data mining used here also.

3. The war of sustainable Earth being waged by population reduction. Which fits will with the Armageddon ideas of religion. Cover up of fluorine's synergism with metals is the key to many illness, such as HIV.

The problem is we are in a time of mostly lies from crooked Govt practices and many of the citizens are not well schooled enough to see these gross lies being propagated. That is another religion forcast also.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-06-2005, 07:03 AM

Thanks, WMM! Doesn't "hoaxing" assume a purposeful act of misleading? At this early point in my understanding of Jim, he seems to be earnest in his climate assumptions. So perhaps he's just expressing his views on climate change from his own emotionally charged perspective. Would "hoaxing" then be the definitive word to use regarding him? BC ;)
Jimbo claims to have invented "chemtrails" twenty years ago while working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He says he is a "whistleblower". I have repeatedly asked Jimbo who was his supervisor that ordered him to do this work, and he simply won't respond. except to say he had no supervisor!
What does that tell you, BC?
When you get down to the fundamentals of Jimbo's hoax, where is the beef?
What is the strongest evidence Jimbo brings to the table which proves his claims?

I'll tell you what you will find if you get right down to asking Jimbo for proof.
You'll find a guy saying "trust me", not a genuine whistleblower at all, just another smoke-blower trying to send it up your ass.

But don't believe me.

Ask Jimbo for yourself to show independant documentary proof(not just his own claims) that any of his stories are true.
Do it.
Then contemplate whether his stuff is a hoax- or not.

halva

02-06-2005, 07:20 AM

Here is some more information. Let Raynolds can see if he can chop off a few heads here:

http://www.globefox.com/cacc/Athens.doc

And another function on 16th February:

On the occasion of the coming-into-force of the Kyoto Protocol, the Greek Trade Union Federation, Greenpeace and ATTAC-Hellas have jointly organized a public meeting on the subject of:

The Kyoto Protocol

A challenge for development and employment

Climate change is a harsh reality and the Kyoto Protocol is the only international legal instrument which, although weak, is summoned to address this huge problem.

On 16th February 2005 the Kyoto Protocol comes into force intenationally, despite opposition from the USA. The international community finds itself faced by new challenges in relation to environmental protection, development as we havev known it to date, and the effects of the new realities on employment.

The function is to take place on Wednesday 16th February at the amphitheatre of the Greek Trade Union Federation.

PROGRAMME

17.00 Message of greeting from the president of the Greek Trade Union Federation.

17-10 - 17.25 From Rio to Johannesburg via Kyoto. What future for the planet?
Dr. M. Modinos, President of the National Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development

17.25-17.40 Greece's obligations emerging from the Kyoto Protocol
Dr. D. Lalas, President of the National Observatory

17.40-17.55 Wind Energy: an important contribution to sustainable development and employment in our country
Dr. N. Vasilakos, Vice-President of the European Confederation of Producers of Renewable Energy Sources.

17.55-18.10 Solar Energy, development and business
S. Psomas, Consultant to the Assocation of Photovoltaic Companies

18.10-18.25 Energy saving in buildings
Dr. M. Santamouris, University of Athens

18.25-19.30 Discussion

Insurrectionchemistry

02-06-2005, 07:25 AM

halva

02-06-2005, 07:29 AM

halva

02-06-2005, 07:39 AM

It is the study of Star Wars directed energy methods that unlocked the early warnings on global warming and keyed the ideas for chemtrail methods to reflect the Sun's energies back into space to avoid the atmospheric absoption factors. All the chemtrail science is simply Star Wars weapons science.

One should have instantly made those associations. Have you and if not, then why not?

IMHO,
is

Jim, yes I have, but I have preferred to concentrate on aspects of 'chemtrails' where there is greater overlap with what people in the ecological milieu are already campaigning about.
This provides a climate that is better protected from incursions by people like Raynolds who want to chop off our heads.

Insurrectionchemistry

02-06-2005, 07:56 AM

Halva writes:

Jim, yes I have, but I have preferred to concentrate on aspects of 'chemtrails' where there is greater overlap with what people in the ecological milieu are already campaigning about.
This provides a climate that is better protected from incursions by people like Raynolds who want to chop off our heads.

===============

This is another one of your upside down associations, that apparently are excuses for you to avoid science.

This is a bloody ignorant statement. Just do the science. Star Wars are concrete examples of the science in practice.

What sets people free is knowledge, and what keeps them imprisoned is ignorance.

The only reason Reynolds can de-capitate you---is that you avoid the science of what is happening like the plague. Plus the examples----clear on down to Teller's strong Jewish associations and the reasons for the bomb.

Get off your frigging head, sitting down at the Cafe. Stop taking ignorance.

IMHO,
is

Insurrectionchemistry

02-06-2005, 08:38 AM

Halva writes:

Some recent comment from a collaborator, who points out that Rense's recent publiciising of "pilot" images persuaded many that such incredible "contrails" could not be natural.

Scott Stevens comments, "In this day and age of the EPA and their powers for noise and pollution control, this simply looks grossly out of place." "If this is supposed to be
normal, these engines need a redesign."

http://www.weatherwars.info/pilotsview.htm

==============

I can certainlly agree with that criteria. Contrails from jet engines, for 40 plus years, were made to not mark up the skies into a terrible mess that blocks the sunlight. People would have objected, just as they do now.

The older jet engines were designed not to make trails.

With the advent of global warming----the jet engines and the fuels have been designed very purposfully to cause global reflection. Jet engines are now a prominent catalysist in the global warming battle.

It is only this way because the US Govt wants to run with cheep fossil fuels to depopulate the planet some and make a killing for the GOP medical industry in the process. It is a pure Bush oriented profit system.

It will ignore the better fuels and systems such as the Tesla energy collecter from the Potential Gradient capacitor effects, and things like cold fusion methods that do work. Lots of these alternatives are being deliberately stalled as the money types jocking for power and control.

IMHO,
is

jayreynolds

02-06-2005, 08:43 AM

Ask Jimbo for yourself to show independant documentary proof(not just his own claims) that any of his stories are true.
Do it.
Then contemplate whether his stuff is a hoax- or not.

Boomer Chick, as you see. Raynolds is just trying again and again and again to turn us all against each other.

Wayne, why would you try to prevent Boomerchick from simply asking Jim for proof of his claims? What is so bad about asking for proof that you have to try and persuade her that doing so would be "turning us all against each other"?

Boomerchick should be able to ask questions and make up her wn mind, or are you saying that you control the flow of information here?

If you people ever want to get past posting here at Arianna's message board, and into the real world, you have to be ready to go there with some proof, fellas.

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jimbo Phelps says molecular weights are the same, then when proven wrong, try and pretend he didn't say that!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says he invented HAARP and "Chemtrails", and changed Jet fuel composition while working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the mid-1980's, and never show any proof of any of those thijngs whatsoever!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says he is "Considered a GOD" at the US Department of Energy, and then show no proof that he ever did anything there other than wash glassware!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says that hydrofluoric acid has thousands of times the greenhouse warming potential of SF6, but won't show any documentation or reasoning behind his claim!

Wayne, one reason your people are stuck here debating nothing while your thumbs are collectively up each other's assholes is because none of you wants to ask the tough questions about each others claims, questions like, "Where's your proof"?

The fact of the matter is, if what Jim Phelps says were true, and if he actually had proof of any of it, your problems of having proof would be over. YOU COULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH JAY REYNOLDS.

You could move on.

BUT YOU WO'NT, CAUSE YOU CAN'T.

So, now, when I suggest that Boomerchick asks the questions which would prove your case, you try and gloss over the fact that he has no proof, only balloonsions!, you have to resort to implying that if she asks questions, she would be turning against you.

No, Wayne, to use the Caribbean vernacular I love,

"nuttin 'tall go so!" (nothing at all can follow from that)

You, and your ultimate weakness is exposed when the tough questions are asked, and you come up lacking. As Yaak put it, your people aren't much for answering questions.

Boomerchick can and should ask the questions. If the answers turn against you, it's ot her fault, or anyone else's. To see whose fault it is that tough questions can't be answered, just look in the mirro, bub!

gaiacomm

02-06-2005, 08:49 AM

Tesla technology is coming of age!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-06-2005, 08:58 AM

gaiacomm

02-06-2005, 09:09 AM

Gaia writes:

Tesla technology is coming of age!
========

Yes, all the technology pieces are there to do the free energy stuff----but the one piece to make the money controllers let go.

Even the troubling Aum Cult can make these experiments work.

It will be an extremely clean method of energy production.

So, did ya notice the "green" in the HAARP tests?

IMHO,
is

Well its not Free Energy as of yet. It will cost and we all will have to pay something but not as much as we do now for the current technology snafus that we rely on. There are other technologies besides tesla that will assit!

halva

02-06-2005, 11:49 AM

This is another one of your upside down associations, that apparently are excuses for you to avoid science.

This is a bloody ignorant statement. Just do the science. Star Wars are concrete examples of the science in practice.

What sets people free is knowledge, and what keeps them imprisoned is ignorance.

I am not avoiding science, but I have to place the priority of assimilating the science among other priorities.

Don't start on another cycle of turning your guns against me rather than the adversary.

And give me ONE example of where you are making an impression ANYWHERE outside of the Internet.

I could not be bothered commenting on Raynolds' posting.

whitemajikman

02-06-2005, 02:01 PM

Halva,

You appear to know that Star Wars and things like HAARP and chemtrails have long been related. Now one might think that a person that knows that should go gather more details. Have you and what are they? It is required to talk and speak about global warming sciences and factors.

You should have long long ago found that Star Wars began as a space based missle defense using directed energy methods. 1980's and Teller. The first generation idea was to use X-ray generated by a nuclear bomb. The X-rays are tiny wavelengths and offer the best focusing ability at the most distant range. The diffraction limited arguments based on simple physics of optics.

The nuclear bomb idea would direct a slug of X-rays as dense as lead at a missile target some thousands of miles distant from a geostationary space site. The idea comes right from the ways that A-bombs are used to trigger H-bombs. This is the system that made Teller's H-bombs work, the trigger. A-bombs make a near instant slug of X-rays that are as dense as lead and they reflect this using beryllium copper mirrors down a weapons casing channel to compress and ignite the fusion system.

The only problem with this idea is you can't hit the Earth with a slug of X-rays, as the dense bremstraulung ion trail will set off an atmospheric discharge. The Earth's atmosphere is a huge capacitor charged by the Sun's ion emissions. The effect sets up the Earth's Potential Gradient effect. It is an insurmountable charge and an equally high voltage. It is what makes for lighting in the atmosphere. This huge gradient is the main thing Tesla discovered, and the source of lots of his free energy ideas. It even works and some of the Japan Aum cult have even tried some designs to test it.

The idea is based on things like the UV LASERs, that will ionize the air and make an ion path or conductive plasma. Japan has even done studies on guiding lighting using the UV LASERS in air. That works also. But the real issue is Star Wars generation 1 methods could not shoot into the atsmophere without setting off a problem like the Tunguska Blast of Russia.

So, generation II directed enegy methods come into vogue. Generation two moved to the other end of the visible energy spectrum to avoid the ionization problem. Here they settled into HF high energy LASERs in the beginning. Lots of the Star Wars research was about how varied wavelengths interacted with the atmosphere. X-rays and UV Laser made ion trials----not good---catastropic effect.

3 micron HF LASERS have absoption problems when shooting into the atmosphere, but nothing like 10 micron CO-2 LASERS, as the atmophere absorption is extreme there. It was this thinking that lead to the issues of HF being a real problem for global warming and the ionization and concentration effects at the pole making the problems much worse. This was the physics and the weapons systems examples that showed up why there is an ozone hole concentrated over the South Pole.

The reason CO-2 does not contribute highly to global warming is there is lots of atmospheric absorption at this deep IR wavelenght already. So, it has a small contribution. The mid wavelength IR absorbers cause the greatest of problems, the HF problem. As the atmosphere is very transparent to these mid-IR wavelenghts. So, when HF absorbs these wavelenght there is the huge problem and the reason why fluorine compounds have the very high GWP's.

All the initial ideas on global warming in the 80's fell right from the research of how directed energy weapons interacted with the atmosphere and their range into the atmosphere. HF LASERS can get most of their energy deep into the atmosphere and close to the surface. It can shoot into the atmophere without making a catastrophy from the ion path discharge effect.

Now, the directed energy work is being directed more toward an Iodine based LASER that gets down toward 2 microns and more deeply pentrating the atmosphere. The Iodine systems are more aimed at terrestrial based LASERS against missles, as the HF system work against missles in space well. Except for the moratorium on space based weapons systems. So, the push is for ground systems. Or missle chase systems with kill generated from a close in pebble or LASER blast.

It is the study of Star Wars directed energy methods that unlocked the early warnings on global warming and keyed the ideas for chemtrail methods to reflect the Sun's energies back into space to avoid the atmospheric absoption factors. All the chemtrail science is simply Star Wars weapons science.

One should have instantly made those associations. Have you and if not, then why not?

IMHO,
is

whats up with 30 year-old information Jimbo..........? It's ancient history..........

Both America and Russia have struggled for years to perfect their charged- particle beam weaponry and it is no secret that while the prototypes already built were awesome in space,they were incapacitated by the Earth's Atmosphere. The swiftly travelling particles from the weapon collided with the molecules in the air,and dissipated their energy in gigantic thunderbolts with a limited power and range.

jayreynolds

02-06-2005, 03:19 PM

I could not be bothered commenting on Raynolds' posting.

Well, Wayne, I'll just give it to you again, because it shows that I am more interested in getting to the bottom line of Jimbo's hoax than you are.
Everybody can judge for themselves the sort of question JIM PHELPS WON'T ANSWER, and the questions Wayne HALL DOESN'T WANT TO ANSWER.

Ask Jimbo for yourself to show independant documentary proof(not just his own claims) that any of his stories are true.
Do it.
Then contemplate whether his stuff is a hoax- or not.

Boomer Chick, as you see. Raynolds is just trying again and again and again to turn us all against each other.

Wayne, why would you try to prevent Boomerchick from simply asking Jim for proof of his claims? What is so bad about asking for proof that you have to try and persuade her that doing so would be "turning us all against each other"?

Boomerchick should be able to ask questions and make up her wn mind, or are you saying that you control the flow of information here?

If you people ever want to get past posting here at Arianna's message board, and into the real world, you have to be ready to go there with some proof, fellas.

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jimbo Phelps says molecular weights are the same, then when proven wrong, try and pretend he didn't say that!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says he invented HAARP and "Chemtrails", and changed Jet fuel composition while working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the mid-1980's, and never show any proof of any of those thijngs whatsoever!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says he is "Considered a GOD" at the US Department of Energy, and then show no proof that he ever did anything there other than wash glassware!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says that hydrofluoric acid has thousands of times the greenhouse warming potential of SF6, but won't show any documentation or reasoning behind his claim!

Wayne, one reason your people are stuck here debating nothing while your thumbs are collectively up each other's assholes is because none of you wants to ask the tough questions about each others claims, questions like, "Where's your proof"?

The fact of the matter is, if what Jim Phelps says were true, and if he actually had proof of any of it, your problems of having proof would be over. YOU COULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH JAY REYNOLDS.

You could move on.

BUT YOU WO'NT, CAUSE YOU CAN'T.

So, now, when I suggest that Boomerchick asks the questions which would prove your case, you try and gloss over the fact that he has no proof, only balloonsions!, you have to resort to implying that if she asks questions, she would be turning against you.

No, Wayne, to use the Caribbean vernacular I love,

"nuttin 'tall go so!" (nothing at all can follow from that)

You, and your ultimate weakness is exposed when the tough questions are asked, and you come up lacking. As Yaak put it, your people aren't much for answering questions.

Boomerchick can and should ask the questions. If the answers turn against you, it's not her fault, or anyone else's. To see whose fault it is that tough questions can't be answered, just look in the mirro, bub!

Insurrectionchemistry

02-06-2005, 05:09 PM

http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/results.htm

Boomer Chick

02-06-2005, 05:40 PM

Stuart,

In reference to the website regarding an explanation of electrons and electronic behavior: I read the first part outloud to my husband who has a degree in electronics engineering and he knew all the equations and facts. Wish osmosis worked with married couples. What I fear, however, is that if I'm inculcated into the view of electronic science that I will then see other related science through that prism of introduction. I'll work on continuing to read with some feedback and questions to my dh relieving you of that responsibility and will report back later when I've completed the task.

Posting at the beginning of the Super Bowl pre-game show and shortly after the half-time show, which was fantastic, BTW... Paul McCartney!

Stuart:

But the point I wanted to get to here is that Relativity establishes, for a fact, that there is no such thing as the "aether", which is one theory that Scentists were entertaining until Einstein came along and upset the apple cart. There can be no aether, because there can be no fixed frame of reference. If there were any such things as the "aether", then the aether itself would provide a fixed frame of reference, and relativity would not work. But relativity DOES work, extremely well, thus there is no aether. Tesla was big on aether at the end: he was wrong.

Conceptually, you may be right, but then again, WHAT IF, the Relativity theory stands true for a certain part of the known physical universe, and does not stand true in other parts or dimensions? Rather than discount his theory, I perceive that others include his theory but expand upon it and around it. OK? Some try to out and out refute it, which I find fascinating as much as I'm able to understand, and as you once said, to try to debunk a theory or prove it wrong is one great way to establish its efficacy. All efforts lead to the truth.

I have to admit to you and everyone on this board that I have been reading for many years a particular spiritual tome that attempts to describe the various energy aspects of the universe. It is called "The Urantia Book." Since I'm not schooled in physics itself or astronomy, I read with skepticism yet find it fascinating and hope that someday I could ask you, especially Stu, because of your knowledge, to maybe read parts that refer to the cosmos and energies to see if it squares with you. I presented parts of the book to a physicist at our local U, and he was quite kind and open to considering aspects of the book. The book also reveals Jesus in a most profound light, one that has inspired me to keep my Bible as an ongoing guide as well as see Jesus himself as the Son of God the Father that he is. Anyway, it's the science aspect of the book I want to concentrate on at this point. I figure if the science is accurate that will point to the message and cosmology revelations as accurate, too. I began reading the book in '71 and read it through in 3 years. I continually go back and read sections, just as I do with the Bible.

Here's a VERY general statement from the book:

http://www.ubfellowship.org/newbook/ppr042_0.html

P467:1, 42:0.1 The foundation of the universe is material in the sense that energy is the basis of all existence, and pure energy is controlled by the Universal Father. Force, energy, is the one thing which stands as an everlasting monument demonstrating and proving the existence and presence of the Universal Absolute. This vast stream of energy proceeding from the Paradise Presences has never lapsed, never failed; there has never been a break in the infinite upholding.

P467:2, 42:0.2 The manipulation of universe energy is ever in accordance with the personal will and the all-wise mandates of the Universal Father. This personal control of manifested power and circulating energy is modified by the co-ordinate acts and decisions of the Eternal Son, as well as by the united purposes of the Son and the Father executed by the Conjoint Actor. These divine beings act personally and as individuals; they also function in the persons and powers of an almost unlimited number of subordinates, each variously expressive of the eternal and divine purpose in the universe of universes. But these functional and provisional modifications or transmutations of divine power in no way lessen the truth of the statement that all force-energy is under the ultimate control of a personal God resident at the center of all things.

From another paper in the U Book:

http://www.ubfellowship.org/newbook/ppr042_5.html

The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter.

P476:1, 42:5.1 5 The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.

P476:2, 42:5.1 6 Primordial-force behavior does give rise to phenomena which are in many ways analogous to your postulated ether. Space is not empty; the spheres of all space whirl and plunge on through a vast ocean of outspread force-energy; neither is the space content of an atom empty. Nevertheless there is no ether, and the very absence of this hypothetical ether enables the inhabited planet to escape falling into the sun and the encircling electron to resist falling into the nucleus.

___________________________________

OK so far? Well, I don't want to take up space on the board to quote this and that, so I thought this would be a good start for you. If you find any glaring errors, be sure to let me know. I'm curious as to the validity of the cosmology presented in this tome. Please read at your leisure if you find yourself so inclined.

Interesting reading about Ultimatons, Electrons, and Atoms
http://www.ubfellowship.org/newbook/ppr042_6.html
There are many more readings on the aspects of energy and matter.

What I would like to find is reference to mathematics in this tome. It's so interesting that mathematics seems to be a universal kind of language. I just can't speak it. I went through Algebra 2 back with slide rules and stopped short of Trig. and Calculus. Even if I had taken it and understood it, I would have forgotten just about everything by now. ;)

Your explanations were again, awesome and quite clear. Thank you for adding to my understanding, Stu. And thank you for hearing me. Yes, I do agree with your position on the sun and our climate change and would add to that some possible impinging gravity forces and energies which may be affecting the whole solar system. :D

Peace,

BC

Boomer Chick

02-06-2005, 05:48 PM

Boomer, I think that the "article" in the David Stewart text you so kindly reposted here from the closed Ama Lahi forum so that the debunkers could read it, is the transcript of the BBC 'Global dimming' documentary.

Thanks, Halva. The truth is a public domain property. I respected David's opinions and posted them because of that view.

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-06-2005, 05:56 PM

Jimbo claims to have invented "chemtrails" twenty years ago while working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He says he is a "whistleblower". I have repeatedly asked Jimbo who was his supervisor that ordered him to do this work, and he simply won't respond. except to say he had no supervisor!
What does that tell you, BC?
When you get down to the fundamentals of Jimbo's hoax, where is the beef?
What is the strongest evidence Jimbo brings to the table which proves his claims?

I'll tell you what you will find if you get right down to asking Jimbo for proof.
You'll find a guy saying "trust me", not a genuine whistleblower at all, just another smoke-blower trying to send it up your ass.

But don't believe me.

Ask Jimbo for yourself to show independant documentary proof(not just his own claims) that any of his stories are true.
Do it.
Then contemplate whether his stuff is a hoax- or not.

Hmmmm. Can't talk about him... will stay aware. Thanks.

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-06-2005, 06:22 PM

Halva,

You appear to know that Star Wars and things like HAARP and chemtrails have long been related. Now one might think that a person that knows that should go gather more details. Have you and what are they? It is required to talk and speak about global warming sciences and factors.

You should have long long ago found that Star Wars began as a space based missle defense using directed energy methods. 1980's and Teller. The first generation idea was to use X-ray generated by a nuclear bomb. The X-rays are tiny wavelengths and offer the best focusing ability at the most distant range. The diffraction limited arguments based on simple physics of optics.

The nuclear bomb idea would direct a slug of X-rays as dense as lead at a missile target some thousands of miles distant from a geostationary space site. The idea comes right from the ways that A-bombs are used to trigger H-bombs. This is the system that made Teller's H-bombs work, the trigger. A-bombs make a near instant slug of X-rays that are as dense as lead and they reflect this using beryllium copper mirrors down a weapons casing channel to compress and ignite the fusion system.

The only problem with this idea is you can't hit the Earth with a slug of X-rays, as the dense bremstraulung ion trail will set off an atmospheric discharge. The Earth's atmosphere is a huge capacitor charged by the Sun's ion emissions. The effect sets up the Earth's Potential Gradient effect. It is an insurmountable charge and an equally high voltage. It is what makes for lighting in the atmosphere. This huge gradient is the main thing Tesla discovered, and the source of lots of his free energy ideas. It even works and some of the Japan Aum cult have even tried some designs to test it.

The idea is based on things like the UV LASERs, that will ionize the air and make an ion path or conductive plasma. Japan has even done studies on guiding lighting using the UV LASERS in air. That works also. But the real issue is Star Wars generation 1 methods could not shoot into the atsmophere without setting off a problem like the Tunguska Blast of Russia.

So, generation II directed enegy methods come into vogue. Generation two moved to the other end of the visible energy spectrum to avoid the ionization problem. Here they settled into HF high energy LASERs in the beginning. Lots of the Star Wars research was about how varied wavelengths interacted with the atmosphere. X-rays and UV Laser made ion trials----not good---catastropic effect.

3 micron HF LASERS have absoption problems when shooting into the atmosphere, but nothing like 10 micron CO-2 LASERS, as the atmophere absorption is extreme there. It was this thinking that lead to the issues of HF being a real problem for global warming and the ionization and concentration effects at the pole making the problems much worse. This was the physics and the weapons systems examples that showed up why there is an ozone hole concentrated over the South Pole.

The reason CO-2 does not contribute highly to global warming is there is lots of atmospheric absorption at this deep IR wavelenght already. So, it has a small contribution. The mid wavelength IR absorbers cause the greatest of problems, the HF problem. As the atmosphere is very transparent to these mid-IR wavelenghts. So, when HF absorbs these wavelenght there is the huge problem and the reason why fluorine compounds have the very high GWP's.

All the initial ideas on global warming in the 80's fell right from the research of how directed energy weapons interacted with the atmosphere and their range into the atmosphere. HF LASERS can get most of their energy deep into the atmosphere and close to the surface. It can shoot into the atmophere without making a catastrophy from the ion path discharge effect.

Now, the directed energy work is being directed more toward an Iodine based LASER that gets down toward 2 microns and more deeply pentrating the atmosphere. The Iodine systems are more aimed at terrestrial based LASERS against missles, as the HF system work against missles in space well. Except for the moratorium on space based weapons systems. So, the push is for ground systems. Or missle chase systems with kill generated from a close in pebble or LASER blast.

It is the study of Star Wars directed energy methods that unlocked the early warnings on global warming and keyed the ideas for chemtrail methods to reflect the Sun's energies back into space to avoid the atmospheric absoption factors. All the chemtrail science is simply Star Wars weapons science.

One should have instantly made those associations. Have you and if not, then why not?

IMHO,
is

Very informative and feasible explanations of various technologies. FYI, Jim, although I don't agree with ALL of your stances, I do see much truth in what you write... from my limited perspective. All is not black or white. FYI, I helped compile and read information on HAARP and related technologies at http://radarmatrix.proboards29.com/index.cgi and if you want to know some of my resonating political stances visit http://boomerchick.proboards23.com/index.cgi.
I may be unschooled in advanced chemistry, but I'm nobody's fool, especially the corporate elitist oil, fear, and power mongers' ultimate agenda. As Stewart recently wrote, the efforts at particulate spraying may have a delayed effect on the inevitable climate change that we will all experience, but the overwhelming causes regardless of what power elite is in charge or what weapons and energies they play with..... are beyond our present human capabilities of reversing or changing. Unless you have a plan and a solution? What upsets me the most in this world power scenario, both principalities and human power conglomerates, is the ability to destroy our planet from experimentation with new energies, which you do allude to.

So, I put it out there for all to see. And Halva's right that I am staying true to truth regardless of who presents it, which is really not patriotic, it is beyond the realm of nationalism, and regardless of who is battling with whom. These battles (on this board) are contrived ego experiences that only further alienate one another and play into the hands of the negative energy forces who wish us to continually stay at odds with one another, using the divide and conquer rationale at the spiritual level, creating polarities of energies and reveling in the negative energies created. I don't play that game. I play the love game... the understanding and the I-will-speak-my-truth game with whomever wants to play. This is freedom of expression and I value it. I value all the rights to express, except when the expression is aimed to personally hurt another and even that can be viewed from a completely egoless perspective, but this is too difficult for most.

BC

Boomer Chick

02-06-2005, 06:34 PM

Boomer Chick, as you see. Raynolds is just trying again and again and again to turn us all against each other.

Until a few weeks ago we were all getting condemned for "associating" with Jim because he is an anti-Semite, as Raynolds tells us.

Raynolds never suceeded in getting Jim to tone down his statements on Jews, or even tried to. But now Jim is playing his hand more shrewdly. So Raynolds finds another area for attacking him.

We will never stop Raynolds from boring the pants off us with this repeated tactic until we draw up a roster so that there is just one of us at all times monitoring his posts. We can take turns to do it.

Oh Halva, single minded quests are hard to break. The black and white kind of thinking will get us nowhere until and unless the dedicated mind is only dedicated to the truth. I can't control another person and I won't try to, either. I respect free speech too much. There are ways of dealing with single mindedness and it is not to further the divide, it is to appeal to the truth. If you find it frustrating to appeal to the truth and find your efforts totally disrespected by someone else, well, that's life. It happens and people play their roles and sometimes they change and sometimes they don't. Your mature choice is to speak your peace and your message and not care what an opposing view might offer. If it seems reasonable to you, respond, but if you cannot take the pressure of opposition even if unreasonable, best to put your efforts somewhere else and not be involved in the ego aspect of "winning" or "losing" because that too, is an illusion coming from the ego. Sorry to get philosophical, but it is how I am.

Free speech reigns!

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

02-06-2005, 06:52 PM

Wayne, why would you try to prevent Boomerchick from simply asking Jim for proof of his claims? What is so bad about asking for proof that you have to try and persuade her that doing so would be "turning us all against each other"?

Boomerchick should be able to ask questions and make up her wn mind, or are you saying that you control the flow of information here?

If you people ever want to get past posting here at Arianna's message board, and into the real world, you have to be ready to go there with some proof, fellas.

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jimbo Phelps says molecular weights are the same, then when proven wrong, try and pretend he didn't say that!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says he invented HAARP and "Chemtrails", and changed Jet fuel composition while working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the mid-1980's, and never show any proof of any of those thijngs whatsoever!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says he is "Considered a GOD" at the US Department of Energy, and then show no proof that he ever did anything there other than wash glassware!

I don't mean the sort of proof where Jim Phelps says that hydrofluoric acid has thousands of times the greenhouse warming potential of SF6, but won't show any documentation or reasoning behind his claim!

Wayne, one reason your people are stuck here debating nothing while your thumbs are collectively up each other's assholes is because none of you wants to ask the tough questions about each others claims, questions like, "Where's your proof"?

The fact of the matter is, if what Jim Phelps says were true, and if he actually had proof of any of it, your problems of having proof would be over. YOU COULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH JAY REYNOLDS.

You could move on.

BUT YOU WO'NT, CAUSE YOU CAN'T.

So, now, when I suggest that Boomerchick asks the questions which would prove your case, you try and gloss over the fact that he has no proof, only balloonsions!, you have to resort to implying that if she asks questions, she would be turning against you.

No, Wayne, to use the Caribbean vernacular I love,

"nuttin 'tall go so!" (nothing at all can follow from that)

You, and your ultimate weakness is exposed when the tough questions are asked, and you come up lacking. As Yaak put it, your people aren't much for answering questions.

Boomerchick can and should ask the questions. If the answers turn against you, it's ot her fault, or anyone else's. To see whose fault it is that tough questions can't be answered, just look in the mirro, bub!

Well written, Jay! And yes, you are right! Asking for proof has always been my way, even on other boards as well. It's a way to find the truth and I'll always cater to it.

I don't know about "your people" as a broadbrushstroking of a vast array of individuals, however. But basically I totally agree with your post and when I ask questions I expect an answer or a proof of validity of a particular stance. If it's chemistry, or basic science, or government ops. information, or any other kind of evidence... I would like to have it and I hold myself to the same burden of proof. If I can't explain something appropriately, I admit it, and try to bring an expert testimony to the table. Sometimes that's refuted and sometimes it's not. So this is the game of getting to the truth.

I have to disagree with the hypothesis that man's pollution creates volcanic activity. With my limited knowledge of geological science I simply can't get on board this theory. I totally disagree and yet, I can see some elements of truth in some of what Jim says. It's not black or white. Nothing really is.

No flaming necessary.

Thanks, Jay, and this doesn't mean that I find anyone else on this board any less credible than someone else, based on my response to Jay ..... only in reference to my own opinion on who can answer and offer proof and who can't. And, there's nothing personal because I don't know any of you in reality. But I like Stu because we've gone through some interesting and very meaningful interchanges. And I also have an insight to the real side of Jay, and a spiritual side to WMM. Nothing here is truly personal, and yet, we're all connected in a spiritual sense. Sorry, but that's just my philosophical nature.

That's balloosions, Jay! :D Tickled! Free speech and freedom to explore.... rules!

BC

gaiacomm

02-06-2005, 07:31 PM

Stuart,

In reference to the website regarding an explanation of electrons and electronic behavior: I read the first part outloud to my husband who has a degree in electronics engineering and he knew all the equations and facts. Wish osmosis worked with married couples. What I fear, however, is that if I'm inculcated into the view of electronic science that I will then see other related science through that prism of introduction. I'll work on continuing to read with some feedback and questions to my dh relieving you of that responsibility and will report back later when I've completed the task.

Posting at the beginning of the Super Bowl pre-game show and shortly after the half-time show, which was fantastic, BTW... Paul McCartney!

Stuart:

Conceptually, you may be right, but then again, WHAT IF, the Relativity theory stands true for a certain part of the known physical universe, and does not stand true in other parts or dimensions? Rather than discount his theory, I perceive that others include his theory but expand upon it and around it. OK? Some try to out and out refute it, which I find fascinating as much as I'm able to understand, and as you once said, to try to debunk a theory or prove it wrong is one great way to establish its efficacy. All efforts lead to the truth.

I have to admit to you and everyone on this board that I have been reading for many years a particular spiritual tome that attempts to describe the various energy aspects of the universe. It is called "The Urantia Book." Since I'm not schooled in physics itself or astronomy, I read with skepticism yet find it fascinating and hope that someday I could ask you, especially Stu, because of your knowledge, to maybe read parts that refer to the cosmos and energies to see if it squares with you. I presented parts of the book to a physicist at our local U, and he was quite kind and open to considering aspects of the book. The book also reveals Jesus in a most profound light, one that has inspired me to keep my Bible as an ongoing guide as well as see Jesus himself as the Son of God the Father that he is. Anyway, it's the science aspect of the book I want to concentrate on at this point. I figure if the science is accurate that will point to the message and cosmology revelations as accurate, too. I began reading the book in '71 and read it through in 3 years. I continually go back and read sections, just as I do with the Bible.

Here's a VERY general statement from the book:

http://www.ubfellowship.org/newbook/ppr042_0.html

P467:1, 42:0.1 The foundation of the universe is material in the sense that energy is the basis of all existence, and pure energy is controlled by the Universal Father. Force, energy, is the one thing which stands as an everlasting monument demonstrating and proving the existence and presence of the Universal Absolute. This vast stream of energy proceeding from the Paradise Presences has never lapsed, never failed; there has never been a break in the infinite upholding.

P467:2, 42:0.2 The manipulation of universe energy is ever in accordance with the personal will and the all-wise mandates of the Universal Father. This personal control of manifested power and circulating energy is modified by the co-ordinate acts and decisions of the Eternal Son, as well as by the united purposes of the Son and the Father executed by the Conjoint Actor. These divine beings act personally and as individuals; they also function in the persons and powers of an almost unlimited number of subordinates, each variously expressive of the eternal and divine purpose in the universe of universes. But these functional and provisional modifications or transmutations of divine power in no way lessen the truth of the statement that all force-energy is under the ultimate control of a personal God resident at the center of all things.

From another paper in the U Book:

http://www.ubfellowship.org/newbook/ppr042_5.html

The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter.

P476:1, 42:5.1 5 The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.

P476:2, 42:5.1 6 Primordial-force behavior does give rise to phenomena which are in many ways analogous to your postulated ether. Space is not empty; the spheres of all space whirl and plunge on through a vast ocean of outspread force-energy; neither is the space content of an atom empty. Nevertheless there is no ether, and the very absence of this hypothetical ether enables the inhabited planet to escape falling into the sun and the encircling electron to resist falling into the nucleus.

___________________________________

OK so far? Well, I don't want to take up space on the board to quote this and that, so I thought this would be a good start for you. If you find any glaring errors, be sure to let me know. I'm curious as to the validity of the cosmology presented in this tome. Please read at your leisure if you find yourself so inclined.

Interesting reading about Ultimatons, Electrons, and Atoms
http://www.ubfellowship.org/newbook/ppr042_6.html
There are many more readings on the aspects of energy and matter.

What I would like to find is reference to mathematics in this tome. It's so interesting that mathematics seems to be a universal kind of language. I just can't speak it. I went through Algebra 2 back with slide rules and stopped short of Trig. and Calculus. Even if I had taken it and understood it, I would have forgotten just about everything by now. ;)

Your explanations were again, awesome and quite clear. Thank you for adding to my understanding, Stu. And thank you for hearing me. Yes, I do agree with your position on the sun and our climate change and would add to that some possible impinging gravity forces and energies which may be affecting the whole solar system. :D

Peace,

BC

Interesting read... keep it coming!

gaiacomm

02-06-2005, 07:37 PM

Boomer Chick

02-06-2005, 08:25 PM

JR and company have no idea what the arcane science is. What they do is take the position of prove it... while others do the work on finding it. Its easy to say prove it but it takes work to make it so. JR only has access to what is publically allowed and is his limit. For him to go further is pointless. Anyway if you have far reaching technology to offer you can post it here...don't bother with attempting to satisfy the ego of JR. He makes no difference of the validy of claims. He posts here...and we don't see him in a peer review journal. He is a internet junkie that found a new hobby....JR likes to oppose...it gives him a sense of control...so don't feed it and it will starve and die!

I resonate with your statement of "publically allowed" information. This is the crux of the matter with DOD ops and other patent-related science..... difficult if not impossible to prove, which puts everyone at the disadvantage. One can only state ones case with logic, and if the area in question IS located in the public domain, one can prove it to that extent. Otherwise, the burden of proof exists in the scientist whose work is out in the open and exposed to peer criticism. The scientist who works for the shielded auspices of the DOD or private patent concerns probably doesn't publish much, and that includes biological researchers.

As I realize, some with intractable views cannot and will not change them no matter the evidence and that remains a reality on many a board such as this. Nothing new.

But freedom of speech still reigns within that mindset I continue to function.

Thanks, G, for the comment on the U Book reading! You might consider a walk into the book yourself for a few moments of your valuable time. I would enjoy hearing your interpretation of what it has to say in the realm of energies. Hope all is going well in your business!

BC ;)

stuart_allsop

02-06-2005, 08:25 PM

Stuart,

In reference to the website regarding an explanation of electrons and electronic behavior: I read the first part outloud to my husband who has a degree in electronics engineering and he knew all the equations and facts.Great! Then he'll certainly tell you that the debunk of the debunk is wrong, because the equation in question is common in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, and can, in fact, be found in any decent textbook on the subject.

Conceptually, you may be right, but then again, WHAT IF, the Relativity theory stands true for a certain part of the known physical universe, and does not stand true in other parts or dimensions?Nope, sorry, but to the best of our ability to measure them, all the laws of physics and chemistry hold true throughout the entire observable universe, which covers a sphere about 32 billion light years in diamater. In other words, everyhting that we can observe in the entire universe that is visible today, behaves exactly as predicted by Relativity. (Besides, science abhors all anthropocentricities these days, since every single one of them in the past has been proven false over the centuries.)

Rather than discount his theory, I perceive that others include his theory but expand upon it and around it. OK? Some try to out and out refute it, which I find fascinating as much as I'm able to understand, and as you once said, to try to debunk a theory or prove it wrong is one great way to establish its efficacy. All efforts lead to the truth. To a certain extent you are correct that others do try to expand on SR and GR. Einstein himself spent many years trying to come up with a GUT (Grand Unified Theory), which combines and explains all of the major theories in one single "grand" equation or set of equations. The trouble is, the GUT has proven to be a very elusive monster!: Any GUT today must unify Relativity, Quantumn Thermodynamics, and Gravity, and THAT is a tall order. The problem is that Relativity is a very accurate, very precise, very proven theory for things in a huge scale (such as solar systems, galaxies, and the universe, and extreme masses, speeds, and sizes), while QTD deals with the miniscule sub-atoimic scale. For the huge cosmis scale of reality, Realtivity (both GR and SR) is extrememly accurate and precise, to the best of our ability to measure its predictions today. In that sense, it is basically just a "superset" of Newtonian Mechanics, which is plenty accurate enough for every day life, but is not accurate at the scales of Relativity. Newtonian mechanics explains things like the motion of cars, ships, trucks, horses and people, at the kinds of sizes and speeds we are used to. It is really accurate at doing that, but falls apart once you get up to large gravities and speeds, or down to tiny particles. When you get down to that end of the spectrum, splitting apart sub-atomic particles into their individiual quarks, then you are in the realm of qunatum thermodyanmicd where all other theories go out the windo, as does common sense and traditional logic. At this tiny scale, things are GROSSLY wierd: You can park a particle at an exact spot, come looking for it a few seconds later, and find that it is no longer there, and is now a little way off from where you left it, yet you can also be absolutely certain that it has not moved at all.... That's kind of like locking your car in the garage at night, then surounding the garage with legions of elite armed guards all night, them reporting that not even an ant moved, yet in the morning your car is no longer in the garage, and is now comfortably parked in your living room... And that is just fine and dandy, totally correct according to QTD!!! In fact, some of the laws and theories and comments that go along with QTD are pretty indicative of the confusion: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, for example, tells you that you can never know both the speed and the location of your car, if it is shrunk down to subatmic scale: If you measure the speed, then that makes it imposible to measure the location. Or if you measure the location, then it becomes impossible to measure the speed.... I kid you not...

Then Shroedinger figured out a hypothetical experiment where a cat could actually be alive and also dead at the SAME TIME (nobody ever did this experiment using a real live cat, but there have been hundreds of variations substituting other things for the cat, such as bells that both ring and don't ring, and a single bullet that take two different paths throug a maze at the same time... Yup. QTD is enough to drive anyone bonkers, but it is all absolutely proveable, factually true, and totally correct. In fact, QTD is arguably the BEST proven theory that science has ever had (dead/alive cats notwithstanding!)

Now, as you can imagine, coming up with a single theory that encompasses everything from dead/alive cats and magical cars that jump from place to place, to clocks that run slower when they run too fast, and rulers that get shorter as they go faster, is a REALLLY complex thing. There are stil some huge obstacle in trying to tie it all together, and a few scientistis think that it may actually be impossible to do so, but many others don't agree, and advances have certainly been made.

But in any event, even if a GUT came out tomorrow, it would not CONTRADICT Einstein: Rather, it would just tweak a tiny little constant iun his equations here and there, or alter a minor subsection of an equation. It is not going to overthrow SR and GR any less that it is going to overthrow QTD. Some folks point to the way Relativity repalced Newtonian Mechancis, and say that the same thing will happen again, but that isn't the case. Its a VERY different situation.

When Einstein first proposed SR, he did it BECAUSE scientists ALREADY knew that there wre serious flaws in Newtonian mechanics under some circumstances, and the same with QTD. Gaping cracks were apparent, since attempts to falsify Newtonian Mechanics were actually succeeding, so everyone knew that there HAD to be a better theory. Enter Einstien with SR and GR: The difference is that today SR and GR have proven to be flawless and crackless, even when taken to extreme extremes. There is no point in looking for a theory to replace SR and GR, since they keep on coming up roses, every time a new way of testing them comes up.

I have to admit to you and everyone on this board that I have been reading for many years a particular spiritual tome that attempts to describe the various energy aspects of the universe. It is called "The Urantia Book." Since I'm not schooled in physics itself or astronomy, I read with skepticism yet find it fascinating and hope that someday I could ask you, especially Stu, because of your knowledge, to maybe read parts that refer to the cosmos and energies to see if it squares with you. Sounds interesting. Are there any reviews on-line? Who wrote it? Which publisher? I might even order one if it looks good.

... continues ...

stuart_allsop

02-06-2005, 08:26 PM

... continued ...

P467:1, 42:0.1 The foundation of the universe is material in the sense that energy is the basis of all existence, and pure energy is controlled by the Universal Father. Force, energy, is the one thing which stands as an everlasting monument demonstrating and proving the existence and presence of the Universal Absolute. This vast stream of energy proceeding from the Paradise Presences has never lapsed, never failed; there has never been a break in the infinite upholding.

P467:2, 42:0.2 The manipulation of universe energy is ever in accordance with the personal will and the all-wise mandates of the Universal Father. This personal control of manifested power and circulating energy is modified by the co-ordinate acts and decisions of the Eternal Son, as well as by the united purposes of the Son and the Father executed by the Conjoint Actor. These divine beings act personally and as individuals; they also function in the persons and powers of an almost unlimited number of subordinates, each variously expressive of the eternal and divine purpose in the universe of universes. But these functional and provisional modifications or transmutations of divine power in no way lessen the truth of the statement that all force-energy is under the ultimate control of a personal God resident at the center of all things.
I can agree with that! A little esoteric, and unusual terms, but it makes sense.

In fact, one thing that I love about Quantum Thermodyamics is the curious fact that nothing much happens at the subatomic scale, unless there is someone to observe it happening. The problem is that pretty much all subatmic states are simpe "either / or" situations: Is the particle spinning left or spinning right? Is it positive or negative? Did it go this way or that way? And the wierd thin is that, until someone actually observes the particle, it realy is doing BOTH at the SAME TIME. It is spliing both left AND right, it is both positive AND negative, it went bot this way AND that way. Until you actaully observe it, that is, then all of a sudden you know for a fact which one of the two it is, and always has been, even though it was both until you peeped. it does not take on a certain state, and is, in fact, in BOTH states at once, until you look.

This is the whole point behind Schroedinger's dead/alive cat. According to Schroedinger, you could build an aparatus with a cat inside it, and a vial of poison gas that only gets released if a certain particle happens to have a certain state. As long as you don't look at the particle, the cat must remain both dead AND alive at the same time. As soon as you look, then at that instant everything falls into place, and the cat becomes either dead or alive, and in fact will ALWYAS have been that way!!!

Yeah, I know, its WIERD STUFF.

But the interesting part is that "observer" bit. It is the ACT of observing a subatomic particle that makes it decide what it always was. Can you think of someone who might literally be observing the universe into existance, by chosing exatly which particles to observe, and what way to observe them in? I can. I call him "God"!!!!!

The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter. I think I see what he's getting at, and it's not too bad. HE understands the dual nature of light (both particle and wave at the same time), which is another tough one to get your mind around.

P476:2, 42:5.1 6 Primordial-force behavior does give rise to phenomena which are in many ways analogous to your postulated ether. Space is not empty; the spheres of all space whirl and plunge on through a vast ocean of outspread force-energy; neither is the space content of an atom empty. Nevertheless there is no ether, and the very absence of this hypothetical ether enables the inhabited planet to escape falling into the sun and the encircling electron to resist falling into the nucleus. Yeah, I can agreee with that, especially the part where he says "... there is no ether...". he is maiking it clear that the Aether (or "ether") does not actually exist in reality, but it is a useful mental prop to help you imagine what space-time is like.

OK so far? Well, I don't want to take up space on the board to quote this and that, so I thought this would be a good start for you. If you find any glaring errors, be sure to let me know. I'm curious as to the validity of the cosmology presented in this tome. Please read at your leisure if you find yourself so inclined.so far so good. I saw nothing in there that is glaringly worng, and it kind of jibes with my own personal views.

Interesting reading about Ultimatons, Electrons, and AtomsWhat is an "Ultimaton" accoriding tto his guy? That is not a term that I've ever seen used in physics.

Your explanations were again, awesome and quite clear. Thank you for adding to my understanding, Stu. And thank you for hearing me. Yes, I do agree with your position on the sun and our climate change and would add to that some possible impinging gravity forces and energies which may be affecting the whole solar system. Well, gravity waves and variations are a distinct possibility, adn there are a number of experiments underwya right now to try to detect them, but if they do exist, they are extremely small: Even a pair of super-massive blackkholes colliding at near light speed would hardly cause much more than a tiny ripple.

stuart_allsop

02-06-2005, 08:32 PM

Tesla technology is coming of age!Naaah, rather, the age of Tesla technology came and went already, decaes ago: It came in with a BANG!, and left with a faint "whimper"... :)

halva

02-06-2005, 08:34 PM

Thanks, Halva. The truth is a public domain property. I respected David's opinions and posted them because of that view.

BC ;)

Some people who have posted at Ama Lahi have done so on the understanding that they were posting in a closed forum, meaning that what they post there is not intended to provide material for harassment.

In the case of the David Stewart posting, which you put up here without prior notification or consultation, no real harm is done, but the material at Ama Lahi is not in the public domain and I would have to unsubscribe you from that forum if you chose to do the same thing in relation to some of the other content there.

Boomer Chick

02-06-2005, 08:36 PM

What are the implications of this? Anyone?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-mars5feb05,1,5044010.story?coll=la-news-science&ctrack=1&cset=true
THE SCIENCE FILE

Greenhouse Gases May Stimulate Life on Mars

NASA scientists say injecting fluorine-based substances could melt polar ice caps to release carbon dioxide and thicken the atmosphere.
By John Johnson
Times Staff Writer

February 5, 2005

Global warming may be a scourge on Earth, but injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere of Mars might be just the thing to turn the barren planet into a living and breathing world that could support future human colonies, NASA researchers said.

Scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif., propose using fluorine-based gases, elements of which already exist on the Martian surface, to start the warming process.

The compound octafluoropropane produced the greatest warming effects, the scientists wrote in a study published in this month's Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets.

Increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the Martian atmosphere by 300 parts per million would initiate a runaway greenhouse effect, melting the polar ice sheets on the planet and releasing carbon dioxide, the study said. This in turn would thicken the atmosphere.

The process could take centuries or millenniums, researchers said. But since the raw materials are available on Mars, astronauts could create the gases on a manned mission to the planet.

"Bringing life to Mars and studying its growth would contribute to our understanding of evolution, and the ability of life to adapt and proliferate on other worlds," said Margarita Marinova, formerly at Ames, who was part of the team that led the study.

"Since warming Mars effectively reverts it to its past, more habitable state, this would give any possibly dormant life on Mars the chance to revive and develop further," she said.

______________

Frankly I find it a waste of money. But then again, what is the real story behind the project?

BC :shock:

halva

02-06-2005, 08:55 PM

Oh Halva, single minded quests are hard to break. The black and white kind of thinking will get us nowhere until and unless the dedicated mind is only dedicated to the truth. I can't control another person and I won't try to, either. I respect free speech too much. There are ways of dealing with single mindedness and it is not to further the divide, it is to appeal to the truth. If you find it frustrating to appeal to the truth and find your efforts totally disrespected by someone else, well, that's life. It happens and people play their roles and sometimes they change and sometimes they don't. Your mature choice is to speak your peace and your message and not care what an opposing view might offer. If it seems reasonable to you, respond, but if you cannot take the pressure of opposition even if unreasonable, best to put your efforts somewhere else and not be involved in the ego aspect of "winning" or "losing" because that too, is an illusion coming from the ego. Sorry to get philosophical, but it is how I am.

Free speech reigns!

BC ;)

Boomer Chick, as I said at the time of my departure from the CTC Council, the ideological hold of attitudes like this in the United States is why the country, like Nazi Germany, is going to have to be 'liberated from without'.

Here is what I said about 'freedom of speech' in 'Jekyll and Hyde":

"What really has to change is the behaviour towards ‘chemtrails’ activists and anthropogenic climate change skeptics respectively. Though critical of the dwindling number of corporate-funded scientists still seeking to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the media – ostensibly in the name of pluralism – still reserve a role of controversial opponent for climate change skeptics. But there is no correspondingly pluralistic attitude when it comes to ‘chemtrails’ activists, who are ignored, disdained, stigmatized, in short given no role at all in the debate, not even the role of pointing out the absurdity of the geoengineering pseudo-solutions to climate change. This is a role the climate scientists reserve for themselves, presumably owing to fear that things will get out of their control if they allow the task of criticism to be delegated to anyone else. We are thus presented with the weird spectacle of seeing scientists advocating measures which they simultaneously ridicule and deny are being implemented.

And the situation is out of their control anyway because the fossil fuel and nuclear power lobbies are still calling the shots."

You defend Raynolds' freedom of speech at this forum. AS IF IT NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED BY YOU!!! It is defended by Arianna's moderators!

You are a footballer who can't understand that if you are a footballer you cannot at the same time be the referee. Particularly when the footballers on the other side have already usurped the referee role for themselves as well, and have everyone in the stadiums agreeing with them.

What you can do is insist that you want a real referee, at the same time playing football for all you are worth.

At least two American presidential elections have now been stolen by the political entity that Raynolds represents here, and the stealing mechanism (outsourcing and computerisation of the election process) has been successfully institutionalised almost without a shot being fired. And you defend the freedom of speech of people who have done this to you!!!

They will use their freedom of speech to deny that they have done it. And they will be believed.

Well, as I say, your input is justified to the extent that it introduces differentiations among the debunkers. But when you openly side with Raynolds against me, that is not the effect that you are having.

This is why Jim calls you naive.

JimPhelps

02-06-2005, 08:58 PM

Some people who have posted at Ama Lahi have done so on the understanding that they were posting in a closed forum, meaning that what they post there is not intended to provide material for harassment.

In the case of the David Stewart posting, which you put up here without prior notification or consultation, no real harm is done, but the material at Ama Lahi is not in the public domain and I would have to unsubscribe you from that forum if you chose to do the same thing in relation to some of the other content there.
Halva, you worthless and disgusting little man, quit threatening and ordering people. Shut, the fuck, up! Your presence here subtracts from our cause. Go away you dumb ass, you ball and chain around the ankle of global warming activism!

halva

02-06-2005, 09:01 PM

Why don't you let Boomer Chick defend herself, Jim?

Sorry, my mistake. This is the phony Jim Phelps.

How could I have forgotten to ignore-list you?

gaiacomm

02-06-2005, 09:06 PM

A connection is established between all the concepts in the title!

Maxwell's equations still hold as valid. In my view, Maxwell's aether has never been empirically refuted. I hold that there is a sub-quantum aether in addition to the quantum aether which is described by Wheeler in his geometrodynamics, which according to Wheeler's calculations, is a sea of energetic fluctuations (called "quantum foam") with an energy density of 10 e94 g /cc per individual fluctuation. (Correcting the erroneous figure I gave last week, from cross-connected memory, of 10 e72 g/cc.) These fluctuations are also known as the Zero Point Energy fluctuations. Wheeler derived this value by inserting the empirical observations used to generate the ZPE's spectral energy-density expression of quantum mechanics, into the stress-energy tensor of general relativity.

According to Wheeler's "Geometrodynamics" [Academic Press, NY], The high frequency modes of the ZPE result in a huge local energy densities, resulting in space-time warps, similar to the black hole solutions of relativity, which Wheeler called "wormholes". Wheeler's "wormholes" channel electric flux between two separate locations in a 3D space or between our 3-space and other 3D universes, which universes are in what Wheeler called a "super space". In our local 3-space, these wormholes look like primitive charged particles or "mini holes", as Wheeler called them, whose polarity is determined by the direction of the electric flux. This electric flux normally passes orthogonally through our universe from a 4th physical dimension. According to Wheeler, small residual components of this flux can become aligned in our particular 3-space to manifest the zitterbewegung and the ZPE. This electric flux, as described by Wheeler, is shown to enter through what he calls "mini white holes" and exits our universe by way of what he calls "mini black holes". According to Wheeler, this is the basis mechanism of pair production. [Pairs of electrons and positrons] These pairs are constantly being created and annihilated in a fluctuating state of chaotic turbulence, resembling that of a turbulent plasma.

This is an ideal foundation upon which to model QED's "virtual charge" activities. Thus, Wheeler's model of the vacuum is an already unified field theory which combines QM and relativity theory, resulting in a specific model for the vacuum, which, when viewed from 3-space, looks like a turbulent plasma at the scale of the Planck length and below. The actual curvatures of 3-space created by the hyperflux of charge are calculated to be on the order of 10 e-66 cm^-2. Wheeler's charge pairs can easily be seen to be consistent with Kiehn's Falaco Soliton Pair descriptions. It seems to me, as I have expressed before on this forum, that these charge pairs may well remain superluminally connected, in a manner similar to Falaco solitons, by a hyperdimensional thread, regardless of the degree of separation of the particles in 3-space. Since the goal of Wheeler's geometrodynamics was to model the behaviors of elementary particles, and since the ZPE flux is orthogonal to 3-space, some kind of vortex flow is required by Wheeler's expressions so that the elementary particles can persist in 3-space. Now, here we are, back to Maxwell's original hyperdimensional aether vortex description of elementary particles.

Do you see the connection? Heaviside could not understand quaternions. So he dispensed with them. Unfortunately, Heaviside had a large influence on subsequent studies of E/M, which excluded the original quaternionic expressions of Maxwell, and thus excluded a wealth of information regarding the true nature of E/M. The most unfortunate exclusion which resulted was the understanding that charge has a hyperdimesional component of flux. This is expressed in the quaternionic version of the Maxwell equations, but has vanished from Heaviside's truncations of the original equations, as found in common use today.

gaiacomm

02-06-2005, 09:07 PM

http://www.anpheon.org/

gaiacomm

02-06-2005, 09:15 PM

http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/pars/pars.htm

Insurrectionchemistry

02-06-2005, 09:50 PM

I see the "White Majic Idiot" [wmm] is off pretending to be Jim Phelps again. The identity theft ring of the Jay Reynolds mob and their typical acts of deceit.

IMHO,
is

stuart_allsop

02-07-2005, 05:57 AM

Maxwell's equations still hold as valid. In my view, Maxwell's aether has never been ...

How VERY dishonest of you Dr. Judah! SHAME on you! Trying to pass of the COPYRIGHT work of Robert Neil Boyd as your own work? That's illegal, didn't you know?

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/maxwell-aether.htm

I've half a mind to contact Mr. Boyd and tell him what you are up to!

jayreynolds

02-07-2005, 05:58 AM

jayreynolds

02-07-2005, 06:02 AM

How VERY dishonest of you Dr. Judah! SHAME on you! Trying to pass of the COPYRIGHT work of Robert Neil Boyd as your own work? That's illegal, didn't you know?
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/maxwell-aether.htm

I'll be damned, you are right, Stuart. He lifted the whole thing from somebody else's website. Looks like Lance hasn't ever had an independent thought in his life. Well, maybe his work as a septic tank inspector doesn't require much thinking.............

halva

02-07-2005, 06:09 AM

If Boomer Chick's defence of Raynolds' right of free speech is her final gesture before abandoning the thread, that would not be the first time we have seen this.

whitemajikman

02-07-2005, 06:29 AM

I see the "White Majic Idiot" [wmm] is off pretending to be Jim Phelps again. The identity theft ring of the Jay Reynolds mob and their typical acts of deceit.

IMHO,
is

The only pretenders on this thread are YOU and HALVA..........

Quit making up stories to try and deflect Scrutiny from yourself Asshole........

WMM

whitemajikman

02-07-2005, 06:33 AM

If Boomer Chick's defence of Raynolds' right of free speech is her final gesture before abandoning the thread, that would not be the first time we have seen this.

Wayne get over yourself.......

You Hate FREE SPEECH ..................It is your Enemy .......

And the one thing that always comes back to bite you in the ass besides your fabrications and your outright deceptions............

WMM

jayreynolds

02-07-2005, 06:34 AM

If Boomer Chick's defence of Raynolds' right of free speech is her final gesture before abandoning the thread, that would not be the first time we have seen this.
So, what are you going to do, ban her from ama_lahi?
Ignore-list her here at arianna's and assign Jimbo to tag-team her on a schedule?
Whoever Wayne disagrees with he ignores or bans.
Hell of a way to get to the truth, Wayne...................

BTW, where are those hard questions for Jimbo, tough things like some proof of the places he says he's been, the things he says he's done? None of those things are secret to him, if they are true, he has full and direct knowledge of them. If he were a genuine "whistleblower", all those questions wold have been answered a long time ago.

Why aren't you even interested in getting those sorts of questions asked, Wayne?

What does your reluctance to address these matters tell us?

Why the silence, Wayne? Who and what are you covering for?
What did you know, and when did you know it?

Intelligent people are asking questions.................................

Why no answers???????????????????

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 07:12 AM

How VERY dishonest of you Dr. Judah! SHAME on you! Trying to pass of the COPYRIGHT work of Robert Neil Boyd as your own work? That's illegal, didn't you know?

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/maxwell-aether.htm

I've half a mind to contact Mr. Boyd and tell him what you are up to!

Oh stop it...I forgot to ad his credits....Its not my work,,it is his. I have my own and I don't need to copy others. But at least I know you read my posts...Thank You!

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 07:14 AM

I'll be damned, you are right, Stuart. He lifted the whole thing from somebody else's website. Looks like Lance hasn't ever had an independent thought in his life. Well, maybe his work as a septic tank inspector doesn't require much thinking.............

JR, you are a piece of work! Its amazing how we can have so much fun on the internet. I will say that you are presistent...Lance is your conspiracy hoax!

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 07:17 AM

If Boomer Chick's defence of Raynolds' right of free speech is her final gesture before abandoning the thread, that would not be the first time we have seen this.

Wayne its ok for people to have their respective opinions as you do yours. Why not email me your phone number in greece and I will call you. I have a question to ask of you!

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 07:18 AM

Halva, you worthless and disgusting little man, quit threatening and ordering people. Shut, the fuck, up! Your presence here subtracts from our cause. Go away you dumb ass, you ball and chain around the ankle of global warming activism!

Hey pretender... you should be more careful of the words you use!

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 07:32 AM

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 07:35 AM

http://www.teslatech.info/

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 07:39 AM

http://www.internetpirate.com/Hugh.htm

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 07:40 AM

The Coastal Post - May, 1996 HAARP: Electromagnetic War On Horizon?

BY STEPHEN SIMAC

Weapons designers and procurers are endlessly creative devils, with clever nicknames like Star Wars or Brilliant Pebbles to cover their latest project. Taxpayers go along with generals' daydreams and admirals' fantasies about power and control. Politicians long ago learned that a strong military should never be questioned.

Still, sometimes common sense has to be used. The people have to say, okay, that's enough, we like the loud jets, the missiles look sexy, but HAARP is too much!

Is that a band? It's like punk trash in the upper atmosphere, right? Not exactly. It's an acronym for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, a federal weapons system, ground-based in the wilds of Alaska.

Deep in the tundra, a caribou migration territory, near the polar realms, a really freaky project that the military mind cooked up has been built. It's top secret, but there is abundant evidence that our government is exploding high intensity electromagnetic pulses into the electromagnetic shield which protects earth and all its inhabitants from much of the sun's radiation.

Alaskans who live nearby began to question what was going on after their satellite reception was affected. Even though the military likes to conduct secretive operations deep in the outback, there are always neighbors. Most of them are patriotic and appreciate the "costs of freedom." Television reception is where they drew the line. They began researching the mysterious HAARP, and communicating with each other and their federal representatives by fax and e-mail.

A book Angels Don't Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology by Dr. Nick Begich documents that our government has been developing a new, ground-based Star Wars weapon system for years.

These discoveries have alerted a growing number of alternative media sources to this new weapons system. Even Jane's Defense Weekly and Popular Science covered it, but the vast majority of Americans know nothing about HAARP.

The electromagnetic shield flowing around our spinning orb is one reason we're not fried up like an egg. Most of the sun's radiation searing out in our direction is diverted around our little blue-green jewel by it. In the polar regions, the rivers of electromagnetic energy around the earth pour into the planet. The Northern Lights are an effect of this energy web. The seas of electromagnetic energy bulge out around the equator, just as the ozone shield and the atmospheric sheath do. It takes a lot of protection to have safe sex with the sun. The polar regions act as grounding for our electromagnetic protection.

Very little is known about the shield, or even the pathways of electromagnetic lines which roam all over the earth, but what is known indicates it should be taboo to military meddling. We've lived in fear of enemies a long time as humans. In order to protect ourselves, we've become our own worst enemies. Of course, after open air nuclear explosions, what could be taboo? Dismantling the military-industrial complex? Pruning hooks?

Certainly not exploding increasing amounts of intense pulses of electromagnetic energy into the electrojet up in Alaska. It's like little boys with matches, somebody has to keep an eye on them and tell them NO! HAARP, if successful, will jam global communication systems, and disrupt worldwide weather patterns, along with animal migration orienting, in order to rain electromagnetic energy down on the earth and oceans to detect submarines and jam all electronics systems, except presumably their secured ones. There are a few other military benefits to it, and probably even more that we don't know of, and claims are that it can alter human brain fucntion over large geographic areas, but so can TV.

Naming their new Star Wars weapon HAARP sounds so angelic, it almost makes us question the assumption that angels sit on clouds, play harps and use milk and honey in their lattes.

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 08:58 AM

... continued ...

I can agree with that! A little esoteric, and unusual terms, but it makes sense.

In fact, one thing that I love about Quantum Thermodyamics is the curious fact that nothing much happens at the subatomic scale, unless there is someone to observe it happening. The problem is that pretty much all subatmic states are simpe "either / or" situations: Is the particle spinning left or spinning right? Is it positive or negative? Did it go this way or that way? And the wierd thin is that, until someone actually observes the particle, it realy is doing BOTH at the SAME TIME. It is spliing both left AND right, it is both positive AND negative, it went bot this way AND that way. Until you actaully observe it, that is, then all of a sudden you know for a fact which one of the two it is, and always has been, even though it was both until you peeped. it does not take on a certain state, and is, in fact, in BOTH states at once, until you look.

This is the whole point behind Schroedinger's dead/alive cat. According to Schroedinger, you could build an aparatus with a cat inside it, and a vial of poison gas that only gets released if a certain particle happens to have a certain state. As long as you don't look at the particle, the cat must remain both dead AND alive at the same time. As soon as you look, then at that instant everything falls into place, and the cat becomes either dead or alive, and in fact will ALWYAS have been that way!!!

Yeah, I know, its WIERD STUFF.

But the interesting part is that "observer" bit. It is the ACT of observing a subatomic particle that makes it decide what it always was. Can you think of someone who might literally be observing the universe into existance, by chosing exatly which particles to observe, and what way to observe them in? I can. I call him "God"!!!!!

I think I see what he's getting at, and it's not too bad. HE understands the dual nature of light (both particle and wave at the same time), which is another tough one to get your mind around.

Yeah, I can agreee with that, especially the part where he says "... there is no ether...". he is maiking it clear that the Aether (or "ether") does not actually exist in reality, but it is a useful mental prop to help you imagine what space-time is like.

so far so good. I saw nothing in there that is glaringly worng, and it kind of jibes with my own personal views.

What is an "Ultimaton" accoriding tto his guy? That is not a term that I've ever seen used in physics.

Well, gravity waves and variations are a distinct possibility, adn there are a number of experiments underwya right now to try to detect them, but if they do exist, they are extremely small: Even a pair of super-massive blackkholes colliding at near light speed would hardly cause much more than a tiny ripple.

OMG, Stuart, you amaze me once again, and yes indeed I did read about the "perception of the viewer" or "consciousness" factor in the sub-atomic realm and you wrap it up all quite effectively in your writing. You are truly an amazing thinker and writer, which is why I introduced the U Book to you. As a side comment, I strongly feel that there's a book in the making in your mind... just consider the possibility... physics for Dummies, if you will (LOL!) and maybe a comparison of U Book physics to present known theories.

Love the fact that you resonate with the GOD aspect of all of this! (hug!) Truly warms my heart as most scientists, maybe excepting Hawkins and in a lesser way, Kaku, fail to include or recognize the maker and creator of the whole universe system of energies, including puissant, potential, and actual....not to mention multi-dimensional and consciousness related energies.

And of course you're so right about wrapping our minds around new discoveries related to sub-atomic particle behavior! Can't wait to read your responses to your reading in the U Book. I hope you take the time to explore the genesis of the book as well, after you've explored the various scientific and spiritual aspects. It's a read that will blow your mind.... blew mine and is still always kind of a reference for me in the energy realm.... but whether I totally and truly grasp it all is another question. I figure someone of your caliber could shed some light on it and translate it to a digestible level. The study of the U Book is world-wide and the book has been translated into many languages with study groups in many countries and cities worldwide, an easy search on the net will inform you of the study groups. There might be a group in Santiago and it would be easy to find out. Intellectuals seem drawn to the book as it combines for many, the advanced cosmology concepts along with the reality of God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son.... quite a synergy of spiritual and physical truths all in one rather complicated revelation. I might add that many Christians of various sects are also attracted to the book.

Again, you amaze me and I'm thankful you take the time to explain to me and put into words your understanding of theories and physics......... so appreciated!

Overwhelming gratitude and joy,

BC :D

halva

02-07-2005, 09:51 AM

OK, so Boomer Chick is going to ignore both me and Raynolds.

That's better than going away.

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 10:14 AM

Boomer Chick, as I said at the time of my departure from the CTC Council, the ideological hold of attitudes like this in the United States is why the country, like Nazi Germany, is going to have to be 'liberated from without'.

Here is what I said about 'freedom of speech' in 'Jekyll and Hyde":

"What really has to change is the behaviour towards ‘chemtrails’ activists and anthropogenic climate change skeptics respectively. Though critical of the dwindling number of corporate-funded scientists still seeking to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the media – ostensibly in the name of pluralism – still reserve a role of controversial opponent for climate change skeptics. But there is no correspondingly pluralistic attitude when it comes to ‘chemtrails’ activists, who are ignored, disdained, stigmatized, in short given no role at all in the debate, not even the role of pointing out the absurdity of the geoengineering pseudo-solutions to climate change. This is a role the climate scientists reserve for themselves, presumably owing to fear that things will get out of their control if they allow the task of criticism to be delegated to anyone else. We are thus presented with the weird spectacle of seeing scientists advocating measures which they simultaneously ridicule and deny are being implemented.

And the situation is out of their control anyway because the fossil fuel and nuclear power lobbies are still calling the shots."

You defend Raynolds' freedom of speech at this forum. AS IF IT NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED BY YOU!!! It is defended by Arianna's moderators!

You are a footballer who can't understand that if you are a footballer you cannot at the same time be the referee. Particularly when the footballers on the other side have already usurped the referee role for themselves as well, and have everyone in the stadiums agreeing with them.

What you can do is insist that you want a real referee, at the same time playing football for all you are worth.

At least two American presidential elections have now been stolen by the political entity that Raynolds represents here, and the stealing mechanism (outsourcing and computerisation of the election process) has been successfully institutionalised almost without a shot being fired. And you defend the freedom of speech of people who have done this to you!!!

They will use their freedom of speech to deny that they have done it. And they will be believed.

Well, as I say, your input is justified to the extent that it introduces differentiations among the debunkers. But when you openly side with Raynolds against me, that is not the effect that you are having.

This is why Jim calls you naive.

I defend my free speech on this board and that includes your attempts at controlling me. Get off your fantasy white horse and get down on the ground of reality.

Again, you fail to comprehend my previous responses, Halva. I don't care what you think. I know what goes on at the political level regarding science, DOD ops, and the scientists who work for them, as well as the lobbying and the oil oligarchies. Those of us on the trail of particulate spraying as well as other truths (911) realize the gigantic handicap we are under. But to whine and complain and insist that those polar opposites who may indeed be more closed minded than we are somehow an entity to also control.... is a fantasy that as long as you keep, you will spin your wheels into madness. YOU CAN'T CONTROL OTHERS. And yes, free speech reigns and if you can't handle it and continue to play the "football" game, you only waste time. Your assumption that I'm somehow on a "team" to fight another "team" is immature and illusionary. Period. Would I actually fight with White Supremecists knowing their false foundation of reality lacks credibility? No. Guess who fights them here? The FBI !

And if there are gov. paid debunkers, so what?

You see, Halva, I do believe in causes and fight for them, but the activism involves spreading knowledge to those who don't have it and then it's up to them what they do with it. We can't control others. WE join groups to further our power politically, donate funds to those groups, work at a grassroots level in furthering those politicians who would protect the environment or simply present an open-minded attitude with a "people first" not a "corporation first" mindset. The gov./ science operations are HUGE and worldwide in their affiliations as well. Of course we should never underestimate the power of one person in affecting change, but if you focus on the gnats on the wall, instead of continue to get your message out to those who WOULD be open to the messages and questions, then you're wasting your time. YOU CANNOT CONTROL others. Yes, I agreed with you over at CTC, and you know it, that the forum should be closed to those who simply want to disrupt or to prevent exploration of the topic. But when you go to a public forum and insist that I behave in a certain way and assume that I should adopt some battle mentality..... you're wasting your time.

I am a free agent for truth. If I see it or hear it out of the mouth of someone whom you consider "the enemy".... too bad. I will respect your request for not posting here from the Ama Lahi forum, and that is all I will respect. Debunkers have their place... and that doesn't mean I like them necessarily or buy their various tactics. But they are free. You decide where to pick your battles and frankly, you, as an activist should be continuing your efforts enlightening your gov. officials and citizens to what you deam are threats to their health and safety. Getting on the net and willingly fighting cyberspace battles is about as profitable in terms of real life accomplishment as playing a video game online. Your writing to scientists involved in programs funded by government agencies may seem valid to you, too, but guess what? They support families and careers on the gov. dole, whether British or American.... so why would they put their necks on the chopping block? DUH!

And, FYI, I'm quite aware of the fascist element and I will not be called an ignorant-equated German Reich timeline citizen by anyone. And remember that there are groups to fight the overcontrol of our major propagandized media as well. I join them.

Nothing is black and white. Did you get that? There are gray areas.

Yes, the PTB and the secret ops from the black ops to the space weaponry ops do what they want regardless of who's in power in the White House and what the citizens want.... and yes, our election was stolen. So you sit over there in Greece and flail about as if none of us over here know what's going on and insist that fighting on the internet and expressing your views that debunkers should go............ is simply displaying adolescent rage at a situation that is beyond your control or ours at this time. No I'm not throwing my hands up in despair. But we work to bring awareness and that's all we can do as well as the political activism I mentioned. Pur your efforts where they'll produce measurable results.

GET REAL!!!!!

What is activism, Halva, and how best can you affect change? In reality? This is the question you should be asking yourself.

The bottom line? As David said and I agree, the attempts at mitigating pollution and global warming have only delayed the ultimate scenario (climate change related to global warming), not prevented it from happening. It happened before and it will happen again and we will all adapt. As I also said before, the aspect of war and weaponry involved in nuclear and HAARP like physics in the hands of those who either will not respect the power and are intent on destruction or ignorantly experiment with it..... the worst planetary threat to us all... not global warming or pollution. Yet all efforts to clean up the environment are worthy.

Now leave me alone! I have NOT openly sided with ANYONE! This is your battle mentality coming back at you! I am not part of it.

BC

Insurrectionchemistry

02-07-2005, 10:25 AM

Insurrectionchemistry

02-07-2005, 10:37 AM

Gaia writes:

Naming their new Star Wars weapon HAARP sounds so angelic, it almost makes us question the assumption that angels sit on clouds, play harps and use milk and honey in their lattes.

==========

Well---one would defintely have to blame me for the HAARP naming, because I wanted the religion factor in there.

HAARP was symbolic for all the religion factors connected with the Manhattan Projects reason for existance and the message of Christ second coming connected to the chemtrails symbolism.

HAARP, Chemtrails, Star Wars are all part of a highly integrated package the Pentagon really liked. And places like ORNL really liked, because it allowed them to cover up the massive HF / Fluorine health and environment problems. The GOP that support the war monger society in DC like the profits for pharmacy and big medicine and killing off a large part of the population at a faster rate.

Many people thing far to small for the scope of the thinking and interactions connected to HAARP. It is all about how science and religion merged and became as one.

But you have to be kinda bright to make all the associations----and most here are none to bright. Maybe global dimming as several meanings.

IMHO,
is

Insurrectionchemistry

02-07-2005, 11:00 AM

Well, I see idiot Yaak is back with more of his mind gumming snale tracks across the Forum.

I even gave dummy Yaak the big clue on Molecular Absorption Spectra to look at why HF is such a big global warming factor. It was the link: http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/results.htm

Yaak's low mental aptitudes are suited for pushing a mouse and perhaps internet searches, but not for high level thinking. Yaak most likely won't be able to follow the logic below, but perhaps some others may read here that can sometime.

The deal with investigations for the GWP of HF begin with looking at its IR Absorption Spectra. Here we find that HF is a simple molecule and presents a well behaved hormonically appearing set of lines of high absorption values.

Now, we need to compare this spectra with another compound in the same class as HF, the class that is less than the MW of air that tends to float. Here the best one to look at is the Methane data, as it is lite. Methane absorbs less strongly than HF by about a 100, but when one does the integral calculus for the area under the curves the HF holds its own with methane, which is a GW gas.

Now, most simple scientists stop there, but one cannot assess HF's GWP without the consideration of all its follow on compounds. The big problem with HF is that it is one of the worst acids known. One cannot neglect that effect in GWP consideration. It is highly attracted to both metals and to hydrogen. Its attraction for hydrogen is why it makes the catalysist for oil refining. It grabs the hydrogen in the oil hydrocarbons and changes them.

So, what makes HF such a problem is not the HF absorption spectra itself, but its chemical reactivity leading to complexing with other lite C-H materials floating in the high atmosphere. HF will react with things like methane and ehtylene and others and make the more complicated compounds that behave more like the SF-6 absorption problems. IR spectral lines increase directly from the number of different atoms present, and thus the absorption.

HF is a catalysist that forces the combination with other hydrocarbons making them into more complex compounds with many atoms, and this most always leads to compounds that have huge IR absoption spectra. Which means the existance of HF is the real problem, and the release of flurine compounds in the air that will form HF by Sun's radiation. HF is a catalysist in the making of C-H and C-H-F compounds that highly absorb IR.

HF has a huge GWP because of its synergism effects as a catalysist with lite hydrocarbons in the upper atmosphere, these producing huge absorption problems with IR.

It is all simple common sense for anyone that knows IR Absorption Spectral trends for compounds, and recognizes the same effects for why HF is used as a catalysist in oil refineries.

The very same things that happen in refineries with HF, happen right over your head every second of the day. There is even a distallation column effect of these lite materials being forced together due to MW effects.

Which is the purpose of chemtrails, as the only way to cut down this effect is to strip the HF out of the air by rainout.

This is one of the most key concepts for chemtrails techniques and one of the goals for HAARP research.

When one knows this effect, the problem with global warming being dominated by man become the prodominate factor of causation for global warming. This man-made heating then drives up the crust expansion rates, and drives the earthquake and volcanic activisties that supply positive feedback issues for the man-made induced global warming issue.

This little effect is what the Reynolds gang wants to cover up the most, as it is the proof of man-made global warming.

CO2 problems contribute a good chunk of the GW issues and the rest comes from other emissions, and an huge chunk comes right from the HF catalytic effects of making lite hydro-carbon compounds. And they all go round and round up there in the sky with long retention times.

One of the big problems with jet planes is they leave trails of these unburned hydrocarbons that get into the upper atmosphere more easily and help upset things. So, jet planes supply positive and negative catalytic issues for the chemtrail remediation issues.

If you have watched closely, you will have to note that you were exposed to the oil refinery sciences, so you could understand more easily that HF is a cataysist used to make high octane gases. Then, it would be easy to note the same happening in the skies.

And all the reasons for why chemtrails were designed. Chemtrails main intent is to wash the HF out of the skies to cut this HF catalytic effect in the skies and to use clouds and rain to curb the CO-2 absorption by Mie scattering reflective methods for IR. Even to the point of promoting selective acid rainfall patterns over land [governed by commerical fligh corridors---all high over land] to keep the oceans plankton working best with less acid impacts.

Plus, if you notice, all this hydrogen sequested at the upper altitudes due to the HF catalytic cracking processes, sets up a second term for UV generation. When hydrogen ionizes, it emits a UV-b radiation. When more hydrogen experiences this effect, it raises the equitorial UV levels, plus provides an additional source term besides the Cl factor with ozone.

Simple science, fits like an expensive and elegant French designer glove.

IMHO,
is

gaiacomm

02-07-2005, 11:26 AM

The Guglielmo Marconi Case
Who is the True Inventor of Radio?

How many mistakes are there in our history books after all? How many facts are erroneously described and so replicated throughout the world, while the reality is completely different?

The invention of radio is one of these cases. Despite the fact that almost every book mentions Guglielmo Marconi as the inventor of radio, the only thing Marconi did seems to be nothing more than reproducing apparati Nikola Tesla had registered years ago. Marconi copied Tesla, made some modifications, built a large industry producing radio devices in Europe and spent huge amounts to advertise his supposed invention.

Yet, the inventor of radio is Nikola Tesla, as proved by official court decisions and as great scientists of his era admit. The Facts

1893 Tesla carries his first experiments with high frequency electric currents. The first demonstration of wireless communication. In his articles and lectures Tesla describes his first radio apparatus in detail.1895 Marconi presents a radio device in London, claiming it as his invention. However, the device is the same as what Tesla had already described in his articles. Later on, Marconi will claim that he had not read Tesla's articles, despite that they were translated in many languages very quickly.1897 First patent registered by Nikola Tesla on radio communication, Patent No. 645576. 1898 Tesla constructs the first remotely controlled boat and demonstrates it in New York. He registers this invention under Patent No. 613809. 1899 Tesla builds a large radio station in Colorado Springs, USA and starts his experiments. His observations are noted in his diary. 1900 Marconi starts selling his radio apparatus. Tesla says he wants to sue him.1901 Tesla begins the construction of a huge radio station in Wanderclyffe, near New York. This station, Tesla's biggest dream, would transmit electric signals and energy to the whole planet. It was never completed, due to lack of financial means. The same year, Marconi transmits his first message over the Atlantic. The world was impressed, but did not learn that Marconi was only using Tesla's Patent No. 645576 (1897). 1916 Marconi starts exploiting the rights of his supposed invention, considering himself, and not Tesla, the patent holder. 1917 In an article in "Electrical Experimenter" Tesla announces a system to locate metallic objects through radio signal reflection. This is the beginning of the radar. 1943 Nine months after Tesla's death, the Supreme Patent Court of the USA decides that Nikola Tesla must be considered the father of wireless transmission and radio. Justifying its decision the court notes that in Marconi's related Patent (No. 763772 of 1904) there is nothing new not having been earlier published and registered by Tesla. The Court considered Marconi's claim that he did not knew of Tesla's patents false.

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 11:29 AM

Well---I guess we know why the world is in the mess it is in. When Eng lit majors do late in life career changes------it sets science back to the stone age.

Can't science oriented hubbie teach her these things?

All these feelings and relations going on. Reems and reems of it, running on and on. Where is the background and mood music?

This is certainly why we don't let these type people make decisions and lock them out of the process---usually by their own ingornace.

IMHO,
is

Exactly WTF are you talking about? What do humanities majors have to do with science? Some kind of fantasy thinking is going here, Jim. You make no sense and you rave like you have something logical to say.... and yet... it falls flat. What? You think this board is some kind of exclusive scientific data base? Why don't you build your own lab and stick to reality, bud? Report your successes and failures if you want, but don't assume a public online board is akin to ANY kind of legitimate science or peer review board!

Your foolishness has no bounds! Unbelievable!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ......... ROFLMBO to the 100th power!!!

You want legimate peer review? Become a legimate scientist!!!

Better yet, get some couseling for your male-female issues!

BC :p :p :p

Insurrectionchemistry

02-07-2005, 11:53 AM

BC writes:

Exactly WTF are you talking about?

=========

I am talking about all your excessive gusiness that is disrupting the discussions on global warming and chemtrails. You are off the topic most of the time with nonsensical stuff.

Your gushing needs to go elsewhere, beause this is not the Eng lit class for chatty cathy.

Plus, now foul language.

Most professors would tell you to take it elsewhere and to go home, cause your not here to learn about the topic of interest.

Your run on and on stuff is even longer than the longest stuff from the debunk crowds nonsense. Which makes it pretty bad.

IMHO,
is

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 11:57 AM

Excellent, Boomer.:D

Thanks, Yaak! ..... Now where were we? :roll:

Thanks, too, to G for those links! Great reading, especially the ANPHEON site!

BC :cool:

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 12:09 PM

Most professors would tell you to take it elsewhere and to go home, cause your not here to learn about the topic of interest.

So you deem yourself a professor and this tiny little board, a classroom? Please. Get real.

How many here are actually listening to you, Jim? Don't you think another, larger and bigger, more academic platform would be suitable for your great and totally awesome information?

Why are you even here if you're so brilliant? If indeed your information is that earth shaking and truth bound........... why do you waste your time here with one guy in Greece your only audience?

Get your word out to the masses.... they certainly don't hang out here.

Did you find a counselor, yet? You lost any credibility with me and not because of anyone else on this board but you.

Peace..... and good luck and sanity, because you'll need them both!

BC

halva

02-07-2005, 12:29 PM

I defend my free speech on this board and that includes your attempts at controlling me. Get off your fantasy white horse and get down on the ground of reality.

Boomer Chick I would never want to live in the United States.

What have I been doing for the last year on this Californian chatboard?

I prefer 'the ground of reality' and I prefer normal people.

But I am never going to adapt to or submit to or acknowledge the inevitability or legitimacy of the mentality and behaviour of a Raynolds. I will never acknowledge its right of free speech.

Debunkers have their place, you say. My view of that place is that it is beyond the pale. It is the place Palestinians occupy in Israel, the place Communists occupied in Cold War United States, the place defenders of Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus occupy in Greece.

Having Raynolds as an opponent has forced me to behave as I have done. And I will behave the same way again if there is no other solution.

But for the moment anyway I will comply with your request to 'leave you alone'.

However, you are not making a good start attacking Jim Phelps for giving us lessons. Lately he has been giving us science lessons rather than lessons about the Jews. That is progress, and it will be a shame if you move us backwards again.

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 01:16 PM

Boomer Chick I would never want to live in the United States.

What have I been doing for the last year on this Californian chatboard?

I prefer 'the ground of reality' and I prefer normal people.

But I am never going to adapt to or submit to or acknowledge the inevitability or legitimacy of the mentality and behaviour of a Raynolds. I will never acknowledge its right of free speech.

Debunkers have their place, you say. My view of that place is that it is beyond the pale. It is the place Palestinians occupy in Israel, the place Communists occupied in Cold War United States, the place defenders of Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus occupy in Greece.

Having Raynolds as an opponent has forced me to behave as I have done. And I will behave the same way again if there is no other solution.

But for the moment anyway I will comply with your request to 'leave you alone'.

However, you are not making a good start attacking Jim Phelps for giving us lessons. Lately he has been giving us science lessons rather than lessons about the Jews. That is progress, and it will be a shame if you move us backwards again.

Halva,

You'll never acknowledge Reynold's right to free speech. Well, I think you have to. It's a right and it's real, and it simply is.

Face it!

Jim started attacking me for no reason, other than I'm a woman and I don't know about chemistry or physics. Is that right? Is that just?

No one forces another to behave in any way. Once you realize you have a choice in your own responses to others and your own behavior, you will feel empowered instead of helplessly reactionary. And when you consider the net gives you time to carefully measure and think about your responses, you reactionary "battleground" mode of operation seems that much more immature.

Reynolds hangs out in certain areas. He puts everyone's nose to the grindstone and so it is. If he offends you to your core....... deal with it. But don't put the blame on him. You know darned well how he is and instead of avoiding him, you confront him and then whine about it and blame him for your battle mentality. Why don't you just stay over at CTC? Why battle Reynolds? Why not send your truth out to the masses? You aren't reading what I write nor are you answering the important quesitons, you just skim over it all and write inane judgments like my attacking Jim.

Jim's free to post his information all he wants. But he doesn't have the right to control others' responses to him just as you don't.

Enough said. I've said it all and there's nothing more.

Post something credible and informational and I shall read it. I'm on nobody's team. Get that? I work one on one.

BC

Insurrectionchemistry

02-07-2005, 02:52 PM

Hi Halva,

BC sure did show up at a critical time in the presentation on chemtrails and global warming factors. Plus, she does fly the Mason's big symbol on the back of the Dollar Bill. The eye from the top of the Pyramid for the NWO.

Now, it should be interesting to begin asking questions on just what did Reynolds and his crooked crew know and when did they know it. We certainly know Reynolds spends 12 hours a day in the internet trying to run off persons looking at chemtrials and human global warming factors.

We also know that Reynolds worked for one of the prime big oil companies and he is a walking talking GOP hate crime. We also know Reynolds knows the oil industry and the special trick of using a little bit of hydrogen fluoride to make lite hydrocarbons for gasoline yeilds. Everyone in the oil business knows HF is a cracking agent that goes after the hydrogen bonds.

We also know Reynolds knows the exact molecular weight of HF, and how it stacks up in the distillation column of oil refineries and how it stacks up in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a big distillation effect for things like methane, ehtylen, and HF as the catalytic cracking agent.

So, just as it happens in oil refineries, a little bit of HF goes a long long way in the generation of lite hydrocarbon compounds. Which is the principle issue for its high GWP.

Now persons like Reynolds should have noted that nearly instantly. But he did not and has not. Why does he not admit the obvious-----because it will totally distroy his bogus claims and his atmosphere of bunk spread by he and his thug promoters.

What else can we begin to notice. The HF catalysist makes lots of these lite CH and CHF compounds which raise the levels of hydrogen compounds floating atop the atmosphere. Here the Sun's radiation ionizes this hydrogen and introduces greater UV emissions, as this is the band hydrogen ionization emits.

This also means that the UV problem at the poles is two part, one is the loss of the ozone concentration and the other is the HF catalytic effects have increased the hydrogen at high altitudes and the emissions of UV radiation from hydrogen.

I think everyone can begin to see the deliberate levels of deceit being presented by the Reynolds thug group to help cover this problem up from the people and put big money in the pockets of the GOP elite in the US. Not to mention, these issues play into the problems of rising illnesses due to HF catalytic effects on the benefical trace metals and toxic trace metals in the food chain. This effect too delivers huge profits to the pharmacy and big medicine GOP types.

With the background that Reynolds has in oil and his complete platform history of pure lies to date, one can only make one conclusion. Reynolds is a crook and helping to take power from the people by not reporting on the really simple issues of which everyone should be well informed. And all his little gremlins are of the very same mold.

IMHO,
is

So, when we put the same thing

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 02:55 PM

Information on radiative forcing including history:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095069/html/

_________________________________

Wow! Didn't expect the whole page! Well, these are only excerpts from the whole "book" and the role CO2 in the past is certainly worth considering in the total climate picture, as well.

I do suggest everone who hasn't at least skim the information. It's obvious to me that scientists are concerned and working on the situation, even if they are gov. funded!

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 03:20 PM

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 03:35 PM

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 04:02 PM

IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Storage and Capture: (Invitation to Comment)

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/srccs-review.htm

IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons
U.S. Government Review

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/sroc-review.htm

OK, well what I learned is that the gov. studies show a 20% role in the sun's affectation of the mean temperature gradients. I may be too high in my estimation that the sun plays a larger role than forced radiation in the total equation, but I'm still open to the present high solar activity levels of the CME's and which seem to affect solar system planetary behaviors as well. And I will stay open to cosmic energy forces as well, not emanating from the sun.

Phelps, doesn't any of this ring a bell with you? Hydroflourocarbons?

BC

Insurrectionchemistry

02-07-2005, 04:25 PM

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 04:28 PM

Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations and Review of Integrated Scenario Development and Application

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-1/sap2-1prospectus-draft.htm

North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle [also known as the Prototype State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR) focused on North America]
Draft Prospectus for Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.2

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/sap2-2prospectus-draft.htm

Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Library

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/climate.html

Well, at least they're working on it at this level. I find nothing wrong with it! Am I not seeing something?

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 04:45 PM

Halva,

Do take note that the HF GWP is a synergism between the releases of HF and the releases of hydro-carbon products. This is something new, that is not considered a natural event.

So, the HF factor and its synergistic GWP are from man's influences.

One should not believe the chants of the Reynolds crooks that omit the synergistic role of two components.

IMHO,
is

Jim, I think there's enough information here from gov. sources that support your case in terms of radiative forcing from manmade sources. I would have hoped that you would have noticed. Hello?

BC

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 04:54 PM

Boomer Chick

02-07-2005, 05:31 PM

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aero/

Aerosols Group (AERO)

Aerosol measurements began at the CMDL baseline observatories in the mid-1970's as part of the Geophysical Monitoring for Climate Change (GMCC) program. Since the inception of the program, scientific understanding of the behavior of atmospheric aerosols has improved considerably. One lesson learned is that human activities primarily influence aerosols on regional/continental scales rather than global scales. The goals of this regional-scale monitoring program are to characterize means, variability, and trends of climate-forcing properties of different types of aerosols, and to understand the factors that control these properties. CMDL's measurements also provide ground-truth for satellite measurements and global models, as well as key aerosol parameters for global-scale models.

Quality Control Plots - Data from the aerosol monitoring stations are updated daily. Web plots of raw measurement and instrument monitoring data allow CMDL staff to review current station operations.

Research - CMDL's measurements of aerosol optical properties provide information about the trends and factors that influence the climate forcing effect of aerosol particles. The study of aerosol properties on various spatial and temporal scales yields information about trends in aerosol distributions. Other factors such as relative humidity and aerosol chemistry also determine the role aerosols play in climate forcing. Presentations and publications provide an in depth look at some of these issues.

Instruments and Measurements - In situ measurements of a variety of aerosol optical properties are made at CMDL's aerosol monitoring sites. The measurement suite enables calculation of direct aerosol climateforcing. The measured values relevant for climate forcing calculations are: light absorption, total scattering and backscattering. These measurements are used toderive parameters required in the forcing calculation.

A study among many:

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/publications/search.php?year=2004&authors=&keywords=&Submit=Submit

Stations - Baseline and regional stations provide information about long-term changes in background aerosol properties and the influence of regional sources on aerosol optical properties statistics and trends. In addition to long-term monitoring at the baseline and regional stations, the aerosol group participates in short term field campaigns to study specific regional issues. Two recent field experiments were INDOEX and ACE-Asia.

Title: Sulfur hexafluoride at Cape Grim: Long-term trends and regional emissions
Authors: Fraser, P.J., L.W. Porter, S. Baly, P.B. Krummel, B.L. Dunse, L.P. Steele, N. Derek, R.L. Langenfelds, I. Levin, D.E. Oram, J.W. ELKINS, M.K. Vollmer, and R.F. Weiss
Publication Name: Baseline Atmospheric (Australia) 2001-2002
Year: 2004
Volume / Issue / Pages: : 18-23
Keywords:
Abstract: Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) has been measured at Cape Grim since 1978 via a combination of in situ and flask measurements, including measurements on the Cape Grim air archive. The long-term growth rate of SF6 as observed at Cape Grim has increased from 0.1 ppt yr-1 in the late 1970s to 0.24 ppt yr-1 in the mid-1990s. Since then the growth rate has remained relatively constant at 0.23 ± 0.02 ppt yr-1, indicating relatively constant global emissions (±10%) since 1995. Pollution episodes at Cape Grim have been used to estimate regional (Melbourne and environs) and Australian emissions of SF6 at 3 ± 1.5 and 15 ± 7.5 tonnes yr-1 during 2001-2003.

_______________

Interesting material!