Nice song and dance Bob, But distraction doesn't let you off the hook for your primary statement or its implications.
So indeed, let us get back to your derision. Your statement sir: > sorry for my sarcasm, but I will save my worrying over > reality, and leave the really paranoid speculation to others. Now I'm not going to pick snits either for or against any absolute status of chemtrails, but I am going to ask, since when has what is plausible not been a part of reality? And as was pointed out, what you consider to be "paranoid speculation," or at least akin to it, has already been conducted by the military, defense contractors and the US government on several occasions in the form of intentional, radioactive releases. (Forget for a moment the thousands, if not tens of thousands, who were used as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing, for which "proof," as you repeatedly demand evidence of, was noticeably absent for numerous decades.) Who would have ever thought that the unthinkable and unconscienable would become an all too frequently reproduced and almost daily reality? So frankly, the plausibility that is dwelt upon by others - what you call "paranoid speculation" - is further reinforced with each new government/industrial/corporate boondoggle, in sum total leaving your specific and rather broad claim of "paranoid speculation" rapidly diminishing to port and an integer approaching zero. As for > evidence for a conspiracy to harm the public? Who said that "to harm" is the requisite and functional part of conspiracy or necessarily the intent of those who pursue such folly? Conspiracy is to comit an act in secrecy, whether harm is intended or not, or to cover up that act or that harm in order that it remain secret. You make it sound as if "to harm" is the primary focus in all instances.For some it may very well be. For others public harm could just be an "acceptable risk," or an inevitable outcome in pursuit of whatever the agenda/goal is - a rather queer and twisted rationale to justify what in many instances is known in advance to be a disparate outcome. But work very well it does and the masses generally fall for it. And do you really have to be so naive as to as ask where the "evidence of" > public harm as a side product to personal greed is? Do you really find it absolutely necessary to dry up the time of others in pursuit of the obvious? Or do you have to ask (and correct me if I'm interpreting this wrongly) where public harm has been derived > even as a side product [of people who] > intended to do good [?] And aside from all that Bob, I'm somewhat surprised that you missed the point entirely, unless, perhaps or of course, that was your intent from the onset. It's not necessarily a matter of whether chemtrails are perfectly a matter of fact or fiction, present or past. It's far more a matter of the off-handed manner in which you dismiss all that isn't as tangibly evidenced as the tomatos on your dinner plate or hasn't had three tiers of peer review and been published in six academic journals. Using your strain of logic, argument could probably be made that global warming doesn't exist and creationism is a virtual impossibility because you have neither a two-million year old, half-mile deep, core sample of ice in your freezer or God almighty shackled and chained in your basement as irrefutable proof.. That's the point Bob. Not whether or not something is evidenced to exist. But how quickly you diminish whatever doesn't quite fit your cup of tea, no matter how plausible. I'll say it again. Absence of proof doesn't constitute proof of absence. But whoever functions as if it is guarantees themselves and probably others that they'll live in a fog of smoke and mirrors rather than reality for as long as they breathe. Todd Swearingen >Dearest Todd, once again you've strayed from my original rejoinder to the the >chemtrail post, and >gone off on a tangent involving "plausible denial" or some such. Let's get >back to my derision: > >a few links to chemtrails sites via google: >featuring ufos >http://www.rense.com/general53/lum.htm >a chemtrail rainbow- so water vapor refracts light, so? >http://www.rense.com/general53/lum.htm >chemtrails hazing the grand canyon? the four-corners coal fired power plant >is a much more >plausible explanation. >http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm >and on and on. > >The problem I have with the whole chem trail story is that the are simple >plausible explanations for >the observations: water vapor from jet exhaust and correlations between >events which are not causal. > >Let's stick to one issue at a time lest we run in circles and forget what we >are discussing. Show >me the evidence. Sure attempts have been made, generally unsuccessfully as I >recall to seed the >clouds with sliver iodide to increase the chance of rain fall, sure their are >low level crop dusters >spreading no end of pesticides, sure their are sky writers proclaiming tony's >love for cleo. But >where is the evidence for a conspiracy to harm the public? Or public harm as a >side product to >personal greed, or even as a side product intended to do good. When you find >such evidence, I will >be ready to believe, until then, as far as I am concerned the data falls in >the category of >zero-point energy and and anything from hulda clark. > > > >Appal Energy wrote: > > >>Actually Bob, >> >>We both know that what was written was far from irrelevant in light of >>your heavily "nuanced" statement that those who tend to think of the >>possible (or at least the "chemtrail" possibility) are essentially paranoid. >> >>What I pointed out was the fact that on numerous occassions what was >>previously deemed to be unthinkable has been revealed to be actual fact, >>replete with wanton collusion, fraud and wreckless disregard for human >>life. And even when found out, the rationale is what? That those who >>object aren't looking at the "bigger picture?" >> >>Enter Josef Mengele..., all for the greater good, right? >> >>So one would think that knowing what you know and in light of the >>historical record of deviant human behaviors, you might be a little less >>half-cocked and not so flip with your dismissals. Something as simple as >>aerial dispersal of unknown materials upon an unaware public is >>completely within the realm of reason, and in fact, it's already been >>accomplished on a number of occassions. Google search "Green Run" and >>then follow up on the numerous other intentional releases for "research." >> >>And as you well know, absence of proof is not proof of absence, as all >>the examples provided in my post unerrantly point out. >> >>But you'd rather declare the thoughts of those who perceive such as >>being paranoid. This game of "plausible denial," or just flat out >>denial, that you play is devious, destructive, distracting and >>fraudulently manipulative, no matter whether it is intentional or not. >>And we both can be pretty sure that it's not exactly unintentional. >> >>As for >> >> > If I use your logic, I have to construe that you accept every claim >> > regardless of source, or physical possibility, rational or not, as valid. >> >>Not at all McDuff. You don't have to construe any such thing. In fact, >>if you do, you're playing a little fast and loose with the rules of >>logic, much less how I would and do apply them. >> >>To deny, disregard and vaguely denegrate as flippantly as you do is >>foolhardy, deceptive, distracting and even illogical, especially in >>light of what has transpired in nearly inumerable instances and is no >>doubt occurring somewhere, in some venue or another, several times over >>as this is being typed. The same can also be said about those who openly >>accept every claim as being irrefutable fact. >> >>While you may take the route of glib dismissal, I'd rather keep one eye >>open and half a wit aware should ever a confirming slip of proof (paper >>trail or other) be stumbled across, as all things are possible, >>plausible, and all too often probable when dealing with the aberrance of >>the human mind. >> >>Todd Swearingen >> >> >> >> >>>Todd, other than everything you wrote was irrelevant to my writing, I >>>agree with you whole-heartedly. My comments were directed at fears of >>>"chemtrails" , which I stand by as paranoia until I see a lot more >>>proof. Show me some evidence that the observed chemtrails are something >>>other than the usual vapor trails emitted from jets. Show me a rational >>>as to why someone or some entity would be doing such a thing. For >>>profit? meanness? world domination? I just do not see much motive, do you? >>> >>>more below >>> >>> >>>Appal Energy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Uhhhh....., let's see Bob, >>>> >>>>Paranoia is it? >>>> >>>>You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US >>>>citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That >>>>nasty little "paranoid" conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's. >>>>http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>You're preaching to the choir, here as I agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>You seem to forget the thousands of US military personel exposed during >>>>Operation Crossroads as well as thousands more intentionally positioned >>>>to observe atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons at the Nevada test >>>>sites, not to mention the forty years of denial and deceit that followed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>agreed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Let's forget the decades that literally millions of US citizens were >>>>exposed to fad, over-the-counter drugs containing radium, such as >>>>Dentarium, Ointarium, Kaparium, Linarium and just plain Arium, or the >>>>water "elixir" labeled "Radithor." They were all being deemed perfectly >>>>safe and denials were issued by all private and government entities >>>>fifteen years after people started dropping like flies and up to the >>>>very days that each was separately pulled from the market.. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>agreed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>You seem to forget that for thirty-eight years, between 1932 and 1970, >>>>the US Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute conducted >>>>studies on 399 black men diagnosed with syphilis. They intentionally >>>>withheld treatment and diagnostic information from these men for >>>>decades, treating them with "placebos" and setting up elaborate "free >>>>medical" schemes to keep their "study group" from venturing out of their >>>>purview so that they could maintain the "integrity" of their data. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>agreed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>And even with such a dispersed yet long-lived historical track record >>>>and monumental data sets, you continually poo-poo and dismiss all >>>>reports or concerns of all other deceit and debilitating chicanery >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>No Todd, I don't. >>> >>> >>>as if >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>claims of such are the ravings of lunatics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> You are extrapolating to what is not there. I have never made such >>>all encompassing claims. >>> >>> >>>If I use your logic, I have to construe that you accept every claim >>>regardless of source, or physical possibility, rational or not, as valid. >>> >>>(plans for tinfoil helmets to protect from alien attempts to control our >>>minds are forthcoming.) :>) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Nonsense. >>>> >>>>One of us is either really gullible or really stupid Bob. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I guess I'll have to leave that to you as to which of us is what. I >>>think it is plain stupid or gullible or both to not make a distinction >>>between what I think is real and what is not. >>> >>> >>>You if you >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>don't believe precisely what cold and calculated depths concerted public >>>>and private interests are capable of stooping to, and me if I accept >>>>your overly eager dismissals of anything and everything >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>not every thing and anything, I try to be selective. Shouldn't you? >>> >>>as being nothing >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>more than "paranoia." >>>> >>>>Todd Swearingen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>and have a nice day, too Todd. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>** >>>> >>>>bob allen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>woo-woo alert! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Charles Tounah wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>>As far as the grey layer of crud that's built up in >>>>>>the atmosphere, there have been airplanes whose sole >>>>>>apparent purpose has been to lay that grey layer down >>>>>>in the atmosphere. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>oh really? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I have personally observed them in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>many different cities, even in different countries, >>>>>>for about the last five years. The phenomenon is >>>>>>called chemtrails, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>other than usual exhaust emissions- water vapor, CO2, and trace >>>>>combustion products such as NOX, what is there? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>and you can find a whole education >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>on the internet regarding it. www.carnicom.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>woo-woo. woo-woo. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>(which I have not visited in years) is probably the >>>>>>most well-known. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>sorry for my sarcasm, but I will save my worrying over reality, and >>>>>leave the really paranoid speculation to others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Charles Tounah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Biofuel mailing list >>>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org >>>> >>>>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>> >>>>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 >>>>messages): >>>>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Biofuel mailing list >>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org >> >>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >> >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
