text:
Several planes look a little odd, or have attachments that look odd, and so some people feel they must be part of a decades long conspiracy to spray stuff into the atmosphere to alter the weather or reduce the population. That's obviously nonsense, but what are these strange planes?
[Update: there are many other photos like the "barrel" interior below, I've collected a lot of them on Metabunk]
Here's one making the rounds, scary looking barrels, and a sign on the wall that possibly says "Hazmat inside"
What is it? It's a Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner, specifically it's WD001, a plane that was used for flight testing. The original photo can be found here – note the "Hazmat" text was added later. The barrels contain water, which is pumped around to shift the center of gravity to test various flight characteristics.
Here's a description of a similar setup from the 2002 book, "Inside Boeing, Building the 777″, page 76., describing tests done in 1994.
From Boeing's blog:
Remember, we test at the extremes of the weight/CG envelope. This requires us to control the CG during ground and flight conditions. We can move weight, in the form of water, forward or aft with the use of the water ballast system. This system is comprised of 48 barrels, each capable of carrying 460 pounds, connected by tubing to a pump. A computerized system tracks fuel placement, fuel burn, people placement, ballast, flap setting, landing gear position and water barrel quantity. The information is processed to display the airplane's current CG. We move water or specify fuel tank usage to configure the CG within the specified test requirements.
Why are there overhead luggage compartments? It's a test plane, and for FAA certification they have to demonstrate that everything works. That includes stuff like the emergency oxygen system, and more minor things like the luggage compartments. It's a requirement that they don't pop open in flight – so that needs to be tested. They are also handy for stowing the engineers' stuff.
Here's some pictures from Boeing:
And a lot more photos can be found on Boeing's site.
This one gets a lot of use in the "chemtrail" forums:
Particularly because of the unusual collections of pipes sticking out in various places. There's those two at the front, and then there is a group over the wing. Here's some close ups
Very sinister looking tubes, but why are half of them facing the wrong way?
The plane is not for spraying the atmosphere, it's for sampling the atmosphere. It's a research aircraft, registration N701BN, operated by th e department of energy's national labs. It's pretty much one of a kind, so it's hardly likely to be responsible for all the persistent contrails we see every day. The research is mostly on pollutants in the atmosphere, particularly from coal and oil burning power plants. But they also investigate the properties of clouds, which includes contrails.
Here's another photo you see in "chemtrail" videos, with the implied suggestion that it's some kind of evil spraying device:
Actually it IS a spraying device, but quite innocuous. It's on an NKC-135A (55-3128) with the refueling boom modified to spray water. This used by the air force to test icing of planes in flight.
Here's the original photo:
See also: https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/news/march04/raptor.html
Here's some more details:
This plane is quite interesting:
It's an E-6B "Tacamo". This photo shows it dumping fuel (photo from tacamo.org). The E-6B is used by the United States Strategic Command as an airborne communication center. You can see the navy logo on the right wing. The E-6B is a modified version of the Boeing 707-320, and the fuel vents have been moved from the wing tips to between the fuselage and the engines in order to separate it from the communication equipment in the wing tips. This is what the wing-tip ESM/SATCOM pod looks like:
It looks like this odd assemblage is also creating some wingtip vortex contrails as well. The plane is pretty much all white, which is something you hear mentioned from time to time in "chemtrail" conspiracy theories.
Here's another photo of the same plane, taken from a "chemtrail" YouTube video:
It shows the opening and drogue for the ELF trailing wire antenna. This is a very long wire antenna that is extended behind the plane for several hundred feet and used for communications with submarines. The "drogue" is just a cone-shaped weight. Here's a close-up
This plane also looks at first glance like it might be dumping fuel (click image for full sized photo):
But the trails are actually coming from six smoke generators. It was part of a NASA test to study wake vortices, you can read about it here:
Six smoke generators were installed under the wings of the 747 to provide a visual image of the trailing vortices. The object of the experiments was to test different configurations and mechanical devices on the747 that could be used to break up or lessen the strength of the vortices. The results of the tests could lead to shorter spacing between landings and takeoffs, which, in turn, could alleviate air-traffic congestion.
Here's another image of the same plane:
This plane also occasionally get brought up in chemtrail conspiracy groups:
This is obviously not a contrail, it's far too low and the trail is dropping too rapidly.
It's a Boeing 747-100 "Supertanker", modified by Evergreen Aviation, the only one of its kind. Specifically designed for fire fighthing. That's it dumping water. Here's some more recent photos.
Here's a video of it in action, titled "B747 chemtrails". It's interesting reading the comments, as the first comment correctly identifies what it is, and then everyone else just ignores that and starts speculating.
This one looks like a plane spraying stuff. But again it's rather close to the ground. It's actually taking off with the assistance of rockets. It's not spraying, that's just rocket exhaust.
This particular plane is a Boeing B-47B, rocket assisted take off, April 15, 1954. An no, that's not a contrail in the sky behind it – it's rip in the photo. Click on it for a large version from Wikipedia.
This one is used for cloud seeding. It does not actually spray anything but uses silver iodine flares that are either ejected, or burn in place.
It's operated by the Sandy land Underground Water Conservation district of Plains, Texas, as part of their SOAR program. They have some more photos of similar equipment on their site. They are all small aircraft not capable of getting to the above 30,000 feet where contrails normally form.
This next photo is also of silver iodine flares, fixed underneath at large plane.
These also show up in "chemtrail" literature. They are sold by Weather Modification Inc, they make a range of weather modification equipment. About this one they say:
WMI racks for ejectable flares are mounted on the belly of the aircraft fuselage. Each rack holds 102 cartridges. When fired, the pyrotechnic is ignited and ejected from the aircraft. In this configuration, the WMI Lear 35A is equipped with four 102-count racks for ejectable glaciogenic pyrotechnics, a total of 408 flares.
Here's another, this time from North American Weather Consultants, Inc.
About which they say:
This aircraft-mounted cloud seeding generator is fixed in place, and can burn a silver iodide solution during flight.
This one is the "Mk.32 drogue-type underwing pod on the Armée de l'Air Boeing C-135FR Stratotanker" ("93-CC"- s/n 63-8472 of GRV 93). It's an in-flight refueling system on a French Boeing C-135FR Stratotanker, photographed in Canada, Feb 2005.
See: http://www.baha.be/Webpages/Navigator/News/tanker_flight_240205.htm
The following is supposed to be a plane that has "chemtrail aerosol nozzles" over three of the engines.
In reality, this plane N707MQ is a Boeing 707-320B. The engines are Pratt & Whitney JT3D-3:
It should be perfectly obvious that the "nozzles" are facing the wrong way to be spraying anything. They are actually turbocompressors, which are driven by engine bleed air, and are used to pressurize the interior of the plane. There are only three, as that's all you need. Here's a discussion:
1,442 Responses to ""Chemtrail" Aircraft Photos"
[Great Web Sites to view Contrails/Chemtrails from a Satellite View!]
I think you are unlikely to observe all air traffic passing overhead just visually, unless you are unusually good at the task – the aircraft are small, often cannot be heard and even when they can the noise will "appear" to come from somewhere otehr than where the a/c is at the moment, usually leave no contrails at all.
So if you are in the US or Canada I would recommend using http://flightaware.com – it takes a bit to get used to, but almsot certainly less time than you would need to carefully scan an entire sky visually.
If you are elsewhere then http://www.flightradar24.com/ is probably your best bet – but it has some significant coverage limitatinos – it does not register many older a/c still in common service, and it only has coverage where people are voluntarily enabling it – it is very good for Europe.
Oh I meant to add that using these will enable you to view differences in altitude which might not otherwise be noticeable – so 2 a/c "flying in formation" might actually be 1000 or more feet apart vertically along the same route. This will help avoid a potentially common error.
Western PA's instructions are a start, but about a decade out of date. The idea that only military jets can make persistent contrails called "chemtrails" was found to be false many many years ago.
Probably the biggest danger of telling folks that ordinary jet traffic can never make persistent contrails called "chemtrails" is that sometimes folks actually take it upon themselves to identify that ordinary commercial jet traffic is making the exact same persistent 'trails.
Here are quite a few examples of a confirmed believer in chemtrails, who found that 100% of the 42 persistent contrails he documented over Las Vegas were from ordinary commercial jets going about their business from airport to airport carrying passengers and cargo.
How do you explain this curious case, Western PA?
WesternPA's method would never work and in fact probably cause more false positives. Unless you live directly underneath a final approach course for an airport there would be very few common routes. You would need to be less than ten to fifteen miles from the airport to witness consistency. Even common Departure procedures and terminal arrival routes have too much variation to depend on. So even if you expect to see something one day to the next for the same procedure it probably won't happen.
The FAA doesn't record military traffic? The FAA certainly does so. Otherwise how would they know where they are? The only time the Feds don't care about the military traffic is when they are in the MOAs. Once they're in there they can go wherever they want. Look at all the MOAs and notice how they're all over non-populated area's or over the ocean.
Besides- somewhere on this site the math has been done to prove that there's just not enough aircraft in the world to lift the amount of aerosol material to effect any change.
Wester Pu's comment was just copied and pasted from Rense…from 10yrs ago…
well there you go. Either way it's all bogus.
Like many chemtrail posts that was a clear case of 'Rense and repeat'…
Must be gratifying to see that people are using the photos on this site……… even if they totally misunderstand them.
I love how "killing us slowly…" uses the photos with no attribution. I would point that out there, but it woukd be a waste of time.
I did try a post with deatils of the photos, but it is moderated so the post never appeared.
What does anyone make if this latest "spray" plane with supposed nozzles:
Explanation here – http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/44248/ – 707 #1 fairings lack some of the components for aircon that are fitted in the other fairings.
[…] conspiracy. Perhaps it is so, but speculation makes for poor science, especially when many planes outfitted with spraying devices are openly discussed and […]
"Potent Security", your first link is an article by William Thomas who has stated he has hundreds of photos clearly showing military refueling jets spraying from their extended tailbooms at treetop level. I have been waiting to see those pictres for 12 years now.
What does that tell you about William Thomas?
"Potent Security" , your second link states that contrails only form at temperatures under -76 degrees.
What does that tell you about the accuracy of your references?
Richard. Ignorance is just lack of knowledge, and so can indeed be 'cured' with information. This can range from informing people about complex hydrostatic physics, to simple facts, like informing you your caps-lock is on.
Your website mentions nothing about actual chem trails except debunking it. There's is no way to debunk chem trails when you look into the sky and see planes spraying over your head.
Gene that would be because there is no actual evidence that "actual chem trails" exist – but if you know of any good evidence then I'd like to see it?
Yes, though the idea that people are witnessing something called "chemtrails" is not debunkable, the evidence people present, if it bunk, can be debunked. So far, all evidence has been debunked, but maybe Gene, you can be the first to show something which cannot be debunked, or point out some error in the debunking already done.
Do some long hard study at this site, then decide on the best, most eminently non-debunkable piece of evidence you can find, and tell us what it is. I hope you will use science, fact, logic, and come with documented sourced information, because to do otherwise you are doomed to failure. Imagine you are presenting the information in a few minutes of sworn testimony before the Congress, and show us what you have. I'll be waiting.
[Admin note: this was posted as if it were an advert for WMI, however the poster's internet address comes from Leeds, in the UK, so it appears to be a hoax]
Now, more than ever, the worldwide need for solutions to atmospheric necessities such as water resource management and environmental quality monitoring, is critical. With nearly a half-century of successful programs, our experience speaks for itself.
Let us help you better manage your atmospheric and water resources.
[Admin note: this was posted as if it were an advert for WMI, however the poster's internet address comes from Leeds, in the UK, so it appears to be a hoax]
Weather Modification, Inc., has been modifying and operating aircraft for cloud seeding and atmospheric research operations since 1961. We maintain and operate a fleet of more than 35 twin-engine aircraft in various configurations that meet the needs of every client.
Weather Modification, Inc., uses several models of aircraft in our own operations, although we can adapt our equipment to virtually any type of aircraft for specific customer needs. Weather Modification, Inc., has the following aircraft types in service and available at this time:
a href="http://www.weathermodification.com/aircraft.php"
Looks like "Weather Modification Inc" migh be a chemtrail believer trying to shock us with the existence of a well known an unsecret company that has been doing weather modification unsecretly for a few decades as proof of the existence of chemtrails??
Oh, and btw, what kind of aircraft does WMI use? It would not happen to be mostly piston engine propellor planes would it, that weight about as much as an average family size car or SUV?
Are most of the planes small Pipers and Cessnas?
Many chemtrail believers seem to be under the impression that weather modification is some sort of secret activity that only they have "woken up" to a unique awareness of.
Strange then that weather modification organisations have for many decades made instructional and promotional films in a deliberate attempt to increase public awareness and understanding of cloud seeding.
A very strange way to try to keep something "secret" .
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=9344 just a few patents for spraying I understand cloud seeding has been around for a long time Ben Livingston had a big part in it I can only speculate why they spray but I do know what I see now versus 20 years ago they didn't use to linger as they do today
Uncinus you have the patients of Jobe I respect that
what are these contrails getting spayed right over my house about once a year by the military? they are flying like 2 0r 300 ft of the ground. 1st plane doesnt spray 2nd plane is spaying or smoking really bad. same thing every time. just checked it out and they look like C-130 Hercules planes
Maybe mosquito abatement?
I am glad to have been referred to this site. I have a Military background. I grew up less than 2 miles away from what was a HUGE US Naval Air Base and as such I've been exposed to jet aircraft ALL MY LIFE! With all due respect to the moderator, Uncinus – is this correct – on one hand I commend you for your efforts but on the other I KNOW the difference between vapor trails & these very un-natural lines that span horizon to horizon THAT DISSIPATE SLOWLY & form a mucky haze. I have hundreds of hours of video I shot myself that clearly show these very unnatural lines & the actual transformation of what began as beautiful Blue skies to a very nasty, unnatural haze. I am relative of USAF (ret) Brig Gen Wiltz P. Segura – WWII "Flying Tigers" (Google him & his accomplishments in the USAF) so PLEASE SPARE US THE HYPOCRISY! I have dedicated the past 6 yrs+ of my life to this topic, having gone in totally neutral & unbiased & can provide countless Operation & Project Names that point directly at the Office of Naval Intelligence, Dept of Defense, Natl Sec Administration, NASA & more as principals in this ongoing deception. Blood tests do indeed show extremely high levels many times over the so called acceptable/ toxic levels. OH! You may BELIEVE I WILL BE BACK with plenty for you to try to explain your way out of or dispell. Till next visit, I bid you well. We KNOW what is going on! Operation Cloverleaf, Operation Red Sky, Project BlueBeam & more – just to name a few! GET READY MY FRIENDS!
Nice to hear that you will come back and offer your six years of experience telling me how my fifteen years of experience has been all wrong. My own father few B-24's in WWII, and so it was logical that I asked him and other pilots about how ordinary contrails behave. Here is what those fellows told me.
Are you saying they were all wrong?
Strange that you people haven't gathered a large contingent of retired military or commercial pilots who agree with the chemtrails claims. How do you explain that?
No Jay, it's not strange at all given technology at hand – computer programming & satellites etc. As for pilots & military coming forward, some already have. Some whistleblowers, (John Wheeler & Matt Simmons re: "BP") end up dead, in dumpsters too! When I say I have concrete "Proof Positive", I indeed do. Actually I would love for someone to explain & disprove all I've come to know as Fact! Till next post, have a great day. BTW – are YOU telling me that this world wide phenomenon is normal!? I mean, REALLY! I'll be more than happy to make known my credentials and the Proffessionals I work closely with EVERYDAY!
Again – Good day.
I have hundreds of hours of video I shot myself
That's cool because if there's one thing this conspiracy is short of it's videos of white lines in the sky.
Come on now MyMates, lets not dismiss Bulldog. Agreed, he almost certainly does have simple video footage of contrails forming and behaving in agreement with the scientific predictions of nearly 100 years of atmpospheric physics.
However, he is certain that some of his information is in opposition to the known physics defining the formation of condensation trails. If we can set aside his claims to authority for a moment, and look at what he sees as his most important information, perhaps there is some progress to be made here.
So Bulldog, which specific piece of supported evidence would you say underpins your mistrust in the current understanding of physics governing the atmosphere in which these trails form? Put another way, how long have condensation trails lasted since they were first observed in 1919?
[My apologies, that link should in fact be 1915.]
Someone please tell me the name of the fallacy that has to do with "who you know" or your background? I can't remember.
I'd like to point out that the majority of the professional pilots know about this theory and we all think it's hilarious. Not only is there no group of pilots that has come forward there is also no other group like a group of mechanics, group of Air Traffic Controllers, group of fuelers, group of engineers, group of EPA, group of private sector air quality monitors. How does technology or fear prevent all of those people from blowing the whistle?
Indeed I should have said 'appeals to authority' instead of 'claims to authority'. It usually boils down to 'my dad's a war hero, so you can't disagree with him, or me'. Sufficed to say, we'd all love to see the science behind hereditary knowledge…
Bulldog? Where are you?
Thanks guys- I hear that one all the time. But how is it not always considered a fallacy? Especially when in a debate?
You could never say "I'm a scientist" for example or could you?
Bulldog, still waiting for your "concrete proof positive" and your credentials…..
Or should I just refer to your youtube channel @ SuperDeltaBravo1 and start debunking?
Bulldo, I see you are from Lafayette, LA. I work in Houma, and would be happy to meet with you to discuss chemtrails some time. Email me @ [email protected] and we can arrange a meetup.
You non believers are delusional or simply sheeple. Our weather here in Texas is absolutely abominable and we've had nothing like this in the past 50 years. Of course we are being sprayed. Commercial jets don't follow the lines the chemtrails do. And even though some contrails may last for hours (although I've never seen it) these chemtrails don't dissipate like contrails do, nor do they move and change like normal clouds do. Also, I've studied meteorology in college and these are not normal clouds. As for Haarp, I lived in Alaska when that one was being built and the newspaper accounts indicating what it was for then has changed numerous times over the past 25 years and has nothing to do with what they now claim it is for. As a toxicologist, I can tell you that we are definitely being poisoned. Our government has already signed the Codex and already popular magazines are trying to debunk the many benefits of vitamins. It's just a matter of time before they are controlled or illegal here just like they are now in Europe. Genetically modified foods? Another attempt to decimate the population of the world. The folks behind the One World Govt are not shy about admitting that they want to rid the world of at least 2/3 of it's population. Why? Watch the youtube video by the Univ. of Colorado prof of economics called "the most important video you'll every see" and you'll understand that even at our current population and current store of resources, our planet simply cannot continue to support human life. Former vice president Rockefeller openly admitted that this is their plan. And George Soros has openly admitted that his greatest moment in life will come when he has totally destroyed America. Do some simple research for yourself and you'll find that this is true. It's all been captured on film. Just watch the youtube documentary "The Money Masters" and maybe you'll wake up. Even now our horrible non-American president Obama is mandating further implementation of birth control pills and abortion pills to stave off population increases. Wake Up America! Wake Up people of the world!
Why is it that you can tell it's non-focussed rambling just by the outward form of the text: no breaks, no paragraphs?
As for content: how is one going to discuss any of this?
hi kcsmith, I studied Meteorology for 4 years at University too. What is it about these trails which you feel makes them inconsistent with all the laws of thermodynamics, hydrostatics, and general atmospheric physics we both learned and used?
Since then I've progressed from Meteorology to Typographic Design, but just out of interest, I wondered how you moved from Meteorology to Toxicology?
Also, at what point is the 'planned mass population culling' due to have any observable effect?
I wonder…
As a species, is there a distinct advantage to have a few select members of the species be overly paranoid about things? Or maybe I should say was there a time in our evolutionary development when individuals with a hightened sense of paranoia served a valuable purpose?
Perhaps these individuals alarmed at even the slightest hint of danger such as a predator approaching and although inconvenient and wasteful when there really was no predator the real danger of such a predator outweighed the cost of increased caution.
Or perhaps these individuals served as a balance to those that became placid or unwary, the net effect being that the group was generally as cautious as was required for the environment despite the desensitization caused be familiarization.
Of course it should be obvious that over time, through our development, our success as a species is partly owed to the fact that with increased knowledge it became less necassary to alarm at every turn. We were able to devote less time and energy escaping and more time developing and learning.
It could be said that the need for the specific type of individual that is overly paranoid has now become more detrimental to the species as they are now wasting valuable time and energy alarming at things that are not, in fact, dangerous.
kcsmith wrote:
"Our weather here in Texas is absolutely abominable and we've had nothing like this in the past 50 years. Of course we are being sprayed. "
So what caused it 50 years ago when it was worse?
Our government has already signed the Codex and already popular magazines are trying to debunk the many benefits of vitamins. It's just a matter of time before they are controlled or illegal here just like they are now in Europe.
I wonder if Holland and Barret know they're black market.
Even more primal than a rustle in the grass is death from the air. I've had a flock of guineafowl, some of the most alert sharp-sighted brids on the planet. Constant alarming not just when a hawk flies over, but almost any other bird such as harmless crows, etc. Aren't we all aware of instinctive 'ducking' to protect our heads when approaching a close obstacle? Ever had a plane fly over you very low, but still obviously not going to hit you? Can you resist the urge? I do think there is something programmed in for that.
All I know is that I witnessed a made-made cloud being made by airplanes. Last Saturday, the skies above Lubbock were inundated with airplanes forming persistent chemtrails.
This natural phenomenon hasn't happened again over the last week. Apparently the same planes on that that dreary Saturday hasn't been flying since.
If this is a natural phenomenon, than why don't we see that same type of contrail / chemtrail every day? Why only that one day did our sky go from clear to cloudy with planes crisscrossing the sky all day long?
I noticed the NASA's website admits that planes make man-made clouds. This was posted in 2005. Ask anyone over 40, when did they start teaching that planes make man-made clouds and you will get answers like "I never remember being taught that planes make clouds."
I'm 46 and I certainly remember being taught at a very early age that airplanes create "clouds". Actually contrails…which can and do spread out to create contrail cirrus.
I have known about persistent contrails through my entire life. And I have asked those around me if they remember seeing them, and I can't find anyone who doesn't!
I have to wonder if it's really not a regional thing There are far too many people saying they never saw them…and far to many people saying they are a normal site.
It certainly must be the area you live in. I don't trust pics on the Internet as they can be manipulated. However, I did search through a bunch of old photographs before 2000 in the Lubbock area and not one persistent contrail. And there isn't anyone who can convince me that what happened in Lubbock a week ago Saturday was a normal event. Yes the weather changes… However, over the last week, the weather has changed in favor of contrails and yet, I haven't see anything like the phenomena that occurred a week ago Saturday. You could see planes in all directions billowing out smoke. Since then, it's a rare occasion that you can spot a plane. Your website is very informative. However, it hasn't shown me any proof contrary to what I saw on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, Lubbock, TX. Your explanations are just that. "Explanations"
Frank wrote:
"If this is a natural phenomenon, than why don't we see that same type of contrail / chemtrail every day? Why only that one day did our sky go from clear to cloudy with planes crisscrossing the sky all day long?"
Probably because the weather/conditions at 30-40,000 ft was different on different days – why would you think it is always the same??
As for memory – I am 52, and in the late 1960's they introduced Boeing 737's in New Zealand where I lived – I clearly recall seeing persistent contrails from then on, and in 1976 I started an apprenticeship as a mechanic working on those same B737's.
Aviators have known about contrail en mass since WW2, when the sky over France and Germany and England was also often covered in them. If it is not taught commonly in school then that is just because it is a fairly specialised topic – why would you bother to teach it in a school curriculum??
I completely understand what you are saying. However, even if the planes you were mentioning didn't produce a contrail, you should still be able to see the planes flying across the skies. The planes as well as their contrails are visible.
However, I've never witnessed the amount of planes flying over our city with or without contrails as they did on the day our skies were darken.
It's not a natural phenomena in Lubbock Texas for planes to make the sky dark. This is the flat lands. You can see from horizon to horizon and usually there's not a cloud in the sky, so it's easy to spot planes with our without a contrail.
Two great TED talks by Shermer for Fitch:
Thanks for all the great information. Not only can I not see the planes, I cannot hear the planes. The night before when I noticed this unusual phenomena, I heard lots of planes, and I could also here the planes that produced the persistant contrails. Since February 4th, I haven't heard the amount of planes traffic as well as not seeing the planes either.
The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation states:
"In addition, TDLR issues licenses and permits to other organizations, as well as individuals, responsible for carrying out weather modification operations for both rainfall enhancement and hail suppression. The aim of the regulatory function is to ensure that various methods of modifying the weather do not dissipate clouds nor inhibit their ability to produce rainfall to the detriment of people or property in the affected areas."
So we know for a fact there are organizations licensed to make clouds and not just cloud seeding.
I am pretty sure the quote is about cloud seeding.
Frank wrote:
"So we know for a fact there are organizations licensed to make clouds and not just cloud seeding."
The quote makes no mention of making clouds at all though – so I do not see how you can reach this conclusion from it, or anything else on that site.
I would first like to say, great site. I appreciate that you patiently explain why people are wrong about this issue without calling them loonies.
A couple of questions never brought up by chemtrail believers:
1. Lets assume "they" are spraying. There would have to be someone refilling the spray tanks. Who is responsible for that and are they in on the conspiracy?
2. Why would the "spray" be visible? Would it not be better to cover-up by designing undetectable sprays?
3. How can the "spray" make people sick if its just hanging up there at 30,000 ft?
4. If what they are spraying is poisonous, how do the people responsible for the spray program keep this from affecting themselves and their families?
Just a few from the top of my head.
"Just a few from the top of my head."
How about this one: why don't they just spray at night so no one will see it?
As an aircraft mechanic , I appreciate the work you're doing. I doubt facts/reality will have any effect on anyone's opinion. I can't count how many times I've explained the bleed air system, fuel dump masts, or the fact you'd have to gut an entire plane to carry the kind of weight needed to spray as much stuff as they're claiming. I'm thinking that if some people left their parents basements, saw a real airplane…maybe even flew in one…then took a science class or two…we'd quit having to explain something so ridiculous. Or maybe physics is just another conspiracy perpetrated by the MAN?
You have really kept this running with great content and everyone s input has been fantastic.
I was abit skeptical about the whole Chemtrail crap..
I am not here to present evidence or anything like that. I've done my research and most of it is in favor of these chemtrails infact being contrails, and i think that maybe there has been alot of paranoia and fear mixed in with the whole cocktail of this.
But i'll make it known. I am totally open to conspiracy theories and i totally believe there is a shadow government and a global Elite pulling strings where they like.
BUT, this is really not a great argument. I'm only 20 so i spose im not the most "knowledgeable" person around when it comes to this contrail and chemtrail BS. But at the end of the day i think that people will believe what they want to.
People will trust what the government tells them 100% and people won't and its the same with this. No amount of evidence will change anyones mind because it has already been set in their heads. So even if our presidents and prime mininsters all stood up and made a detailed speech about all this shit. It aint gonna change who thinks what. It'll just add to all the "oh they're hiding it from us" stuff and the "well if the president has said it then thats all there is"
Clearly you have come to this website so you can weigh up the info yourself. But you can't do that if you're not being OPEN MINDED to everything. NOT EVERYTHING can be part of an elite conspiracy for a New World Order. Certain things, yeh ok.. But not everything you can point your finger at.
I think people need to really analyze what they think is being presented as evidence. Because there is no such thing as just evidence and facts when you read anything or watch anything. It is all biast. ALL of it. There is No such thing as reading something that is just "presenting facts", it's either one way or the other. You cannot believe absolutely every single thing you read… Because if you do that, your just being ignorant. Whether its for or against the whole Illuminati stuff. It's still being ignorant if you arent being open minded.
In saying that,
A few things i do not entirely understand about this contrail chemtrail crap is:
Why are they so bloody common and seen so often…
WTF are they doing on top of my stupid house all the time…
Why are there so many of them that fly at the same time…
Why would the Australian Air Force be constantly flying over Melbourne to train or practice or whatever…
Like there are plenty of places they can fly why are they always playing naughts and crosses over here for?
Thanks all for reading
Hi mr uncinus,
I'm a smoker so I sit on my porch every morning for a cigarette and coffee and I can see the normal commercial flights as they usually fly in the same areas of the sky..
These ones do exciting little manoeuvres and stuff and I don't think passengers would appreciate them to much if they were onboard.
No they sorta do a loop di loop and then start again lol..
Next time i see them i will take a recording for you =)
Hi mzgr3ko,
When you say loop the loop, do you mean like this:
or like this:
Uncinus – "Interesting. Do they leave contrails while doing maneuvers?"
That was already "answered" by mzgr. – read back. Hard to keep concentration when you spray prefab, eh?
"Maybe you could take a video?" That so "passé" – and a diversion tactic, serving to shift the vividness of the multi dimensional narrative to the side. Reduce it. You have seen probably 100s of the "Contrail clips", so why ask for the nth variation? The eyewitness account is more than enough, I can visualize and relate perfectly to the vivid description given. Why ask for "back-up"? "So we can discuss it?" As said it's like a military drill/flight exercise on some days, not at all in step with "recent" increased commuter plane traffic, that's how organized and aggressive the whole operation is.
Some observations, thoughts:
frequency – abnormal
low altitude massive spraying – abnormal
flight direction, manoevering, – abnormal
correllation with weather changes, slight atmospheric differences – nope, sorry, doesn't quite cut it
linking of observations of Spraying Days from elsewhere in the country, province, with obvious differing weather conditions, which, with these particular "trails", do not matter at all; you can just synchronize the reports from Amsterdam, Utrecht, Assen, Antwerp, Hamburg. They all report massive spraying days on the same dates. Sometimes the area from which people report synchronized, almost identical, accounts, is smaller than the one I just mentioned.
Your explanatory toolkit is dated, Occam's Razor is missing as well, and your explanations are just that: an explanation, as someone said a few posts back, rejected on the grounds of being too speculative, invoking settled, unsettled science, along with flaccid speculatory theories that explain really not any of what is being eye-witnessed and reported, in detail. You're left with your rhetoric, incinus, and some detailed knowledge of planes and atmosphere. Which is enlightening at times.
I do appreciate your efforts, though, and this thread was quite interesting on occasion, most of the time though you played around with some of the visitors, BUT – you were too clinical, almost detached, and "all sciency", in a very re-assuring tone at that, except for when you slightly slip and give one of your "So what you say is right and what 7 decades of …" – come on, one more time, I can not deliver that line quite like you can.
Greetings from Amsterdam.
"You have seen probably 100s of the 'Contrail clips', so why ask for the nth variation?"
We want what would stand up in court. Eye witness testimony is all well and good, and even better from an expert, in say Meteorology or Aviation. But what stands up is recorded evidence, so that same event can be viewed first hand again, by those with the expertise to understand and explain what was seen.
"…with obvious differing weather conditions … from Amsterdam, Utrecht, Assen, Antwerp, Hamburg. … They all report massive spraying days on the same dates."
As any meteorologist will confirm, the weather at the surface has little connection to the conditions in the upper atmosphere where condensation trails regularly form. In any event, the surface weather could not have been that different if the atmosphere was transparent and observable up to the tropopause from all those locations.
"Your explanatory toolkit is dated"
You seem to be suggesting that the reason condensation trails form, persist and spread should change over time. It comes directly from first principles of atmospheric physics, which are constant, so the reason will always be the same.
This comes as no surprise to those of us who are used to explaining the impossibilities of the 'chemtrail' hoax to its proponents. Each time the reasoning is shown to be illogical, the method impractical, the cover-up inconcealeable and the physics impossible, the 'chemtrail' believer simply changes their beliefs sufficiently to maintain the self deception.
After all, they are only following the example set by those who started the hoax in the late 90's, maintaining both an air of certainty by sidestepping the demonstrable inconsistancies, and a steady stream of income from the snakeoil sold to their faithful disciples.
Peter Wolf said:
"low altitude massive spraying – abnormal"
I would like to see a video or image about that, together with an explanation about how the altitude was determined.
tryblinking: ""Your explanatory toolkit is dated"
"You seem to be suggesting that the reason condensation trails form, persist and spread should change over time. It comes directly from first principles of atmospheric physics, which are constant, so the reason will always be the same."
I did not suggest any such thing, on the contrary, I expect atmospheric physics to be consistent, diverse, reliable, not fully understood, but sufficiently as to form a central piece, and platform for discussion on the topic.
What follows:
"This comes as no surprise to those of us who are used to explaining the impossibilities of the 'chemtrail' hoax to its proponents. Each time … the reasoning is ….shown…. to ….be illogical…, the method impractical, the cover-up inconcealeable and the physics impossible, the ….'chemtrail' believer…. simply changes their beliefs sufficiently to maintain the ….self deception….
After all, they are only following the example set by those who started the hoax in the late 90′s, maintaining both an air of certainty by sidestepping the demonstrable inconsistancies, and a steady stream of income from the snakeoil sold to their faithful disciples."
This collection of patent lies, speculation, ad hominems, insult, and related tripe, is deserving only of ridicule, and in a properly moderated forum snould therefore deleted, poster admonished.
Personally, while I stay around just long enough for a response from uncinus, whom I addressed, his "con-buddy" tryblinka can go out shopping for a saddle, apologies will not be accepted.
I'm not interested in what tryblinka has to say. And I will, after uncinus has replied, move away from the tribe.
Debunkers and Connies Exposed, might be a good title for a scientific psycho-analytical treatise on these 12 pages of "discussion."
JFDEE – I'll not fix you a pic, son, find one on the net – but I will disclose that I use a custom made sonar devise, and some vintage trigonometric analysis to establish fair approximation of a plane's altitude.
Thanks! The sonar device was obviously a crank, and your first reaction is very polite.
Not useful, though, but expected – maybe I'll drop by again, to ask a simpler question.
Geo-engineering has been taking place, and has been meticulously prepared using a wide range of scientific institutions' resources, tax-payer funded, as you can read from this heavy tome:
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:
Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base – Panel on Policy
Implications of Greenhouse Warming,
sponsored by the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
"The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar
radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the
atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud
condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of
particulate matter."
Delivery scenarios include of course passenger and military aircraft, it's all in the report.
This "delivery" is now documented from observation and research from all over the globe, and in Greece, Serbia, and Belgium, Spain and Italy there have been more than just protests; organizations supported by scientists have been erected, to file indictments upon federal institutions failing at their duty to keep the citizenry informed and healthy, to put it mildly.
On second thought, I'll refrain from further questions, now and in the future, since I have none, not here, and leave you and your little fun-bunch alone. It's OK to keep the public sharp, but the extent to- the manner in which you question people's eyewitness accounts, explain them away as 'normal' occurrences using fallacious reasoning* and argumentation from incredulity. And occupy the exact opposite position, accusing those who question eg the 911 "official story" of argumentation from incredulity.
* I can, and ought to, show you how you have done that in this thread, and where, but that will have to wait for now, due to among others time-constraints. And you know for yourself, I assume, since you're a pretty clever debunk-guy.
Yay! 9/11.
I like to refer to it as the conspiracists blankey.
there may be people here prepared to accept your numerous claims as facts – if there were any solid evidence. I for my part haven't seen that evidence though. People posting pictures and videos claiming "Oh my god, this cloud/contrail CAN'T be natural" is not what I would accept as solid evidence.
Where is the connection about scientists talking about possibilities of Geo-Engineering and contrails of commercial and military airplanes? Do you have real evidence for "chemtrails"
Peter Wolf: "Your explanatory toolkit is dated"
tryblinking: "You seem to be suggesting that the reason condensation trails form, persist and spread should change over time."
Peter Wolf: I did not suggest any such thing…
Dated means out of date; to bring something 'up to date' means changing it by definition. So when you describe explanations as 'dated' you mean explicitly that you believe the explanations should be changing over time. That's what you wrote, and that's what it means. If you meant something else, then we don't mind if you just retract the statement with the necessary apology, and an explanation perhaps of what you were actually trying to say.
As for your other confusion, I assume you had trouble with this sentence, minus the ellipses you helpfully added to indicate your struggles in comprehension. "Each time the reasoning is shown to be illogical, the method impractical, the cover-up inconcealeable and the physics impossible, the 'chemtrail' believer simply changes their beliefs sufficiently to maintain the self deception."
Peter Wolf: "This collection of patent lies, speculation, ad hominems, insult, and related tripe, is deserving only of ridicule, and in a properly moderated forum snould [sic] therefore deleted, poster admonished."
– Contained therein are no lies, patent or otherwise.
Speculation is a theory based on no evidence, and as the evidence supporting my statement is recorded repeatedly in the thousands of pages on this forum, it's not that either.
– My statement contains no attacks on the character ('ad hominems') of the 'chemtrail' hoax believers I described, only on their faulty willingness to believe in the face of documented disproofs.
– Likewise there were no insults within my statement, nor any reference to the meat from the stomach of a cow, related or otherwise.
– My statement simply and truthfully catalogs the experience of those on this forum, supported by the long digital record of its pages, undeserving of ridicule.
– Thankfully, this is a properly moderated forum, and so my post stands, without undeserved admonishment.
– Saddles are expensive and I don't ride, so shopping for one seems rather pointless.
No apology from me is necessary and hence none shall be offered.
And don't call me Shirley. I mean Connie.
As for "organizations supported by scientists have been erected, to file indictments upon federal institutions failing at their duty to keep the citizenry informed and healthy" I for one would love the details on that information. What are the web addresses of these organizations, what are their mission statements, and who are these scientists supporting their claims?
Oh, also Peter Wolf, to preempt calls of selective quotation, I assumed you had no problem with this sentence of mine: "After all, they are only following the example set by those who started the hoax in the late 90′s, maintaining both an air of certainty by sidestepping the demonstrable inconsistancies, and a steady stream of income from the snakeoil sold to their faithful disciples."
After all, you can have no problem with me passing comment on people you have yet to admit exist.
Thank you for this site. I'm not a genius, I'm not a pilot. I don't know much about physics or atmosphere. I do know I have been seeing grids and "Xs" in the sky here in the Denver, CO area and this morning there were enough trails that I got my camera out and took a few pics. The chem-trail info is compelling and I was beginning to believe it until it occurred to me that the pilots have families and each one of them would have to be insanely evil to spray poison on their own children and aging parents. So, due to this site, my doubt has become solid disbelief in "chem-trails."
Been alive 34 years… about 5 years ago I noticed weird stuff with the trails… now it's popular debate. My point? This has not been common for most of the time I've been alive, and scientists admit to study's involving spraying, and in fact in Britain they tried it in the 70's. Why try to cover up something they've done admittedly?
I'll add too there is a bunch of crap out there like phony pictures and so forth, but there are simple facts. Such as the temperature thing… I've seen it myself looking in the sky lower alt. trails staying in the sky condensed much much than higher altitude ones? Again, scientists admitting to the use of planes for psraying barium and aluminum and such chemicals being in ridiculous amounts found in the soil samples. Keep in mind, they can do anything in the name of going green. I'm not going to keep on, I'd just say all of you working so hard to deny this might be going on really need to look outside of your own vision, don't be afraid to consider something that may make you uncomfortable, and take another look. Peace.
I'm just wondering how common the assumption is that broader trails are at lower altitudes than thin ones.
Can it be that they are perceived as closer to the observer just because they have spread and have increased their size?
Can it be that the illusion of trails "sinking down" is created by a high spreading rate?
you should read more of this site Eric, if you're searching for truth. The area on sol samples might be very interesting to you.
You are SERIOUSLY covering up the truth. And you live in another world if you think chemtrails are not real. Anyone knows that CONTRAILS are just condensation built up on the engines or wings, and contrails are literally just the water falling off the wings and freezing as they fall to earth. Contrails stick around for maybe 20 minutes. Chemtrails are a completely different phenomenon. They stick around for hours. There is absolutly no way for frozen water to stick around for hours on end, that's ridiculous. YOU sir are covering up the truth. Yes, your explanations for most of these pictures could explain the pictures, but many of those applications on those jets could be used for many other things including spraying god knows what into the upper atmosphere. And I find it hard to believe sir, that you could put so much time and energy into compiling these images and data to post on the internet, but that you cannot tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. You either don't want to accept the truth so your argueing with 95% of the people on here, or your working for the government trying to disinform people. Personally, after reading through alot of the comments, I seriously can't imagine someone argueing against so many people for so long and so persistently without getting paid, or having a vested interest.
You say "No Evidence" really?? There is no evidence of chemtrails?? Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, hahahaha
Evan, why do you think contrails only last 20 minutes? Check some books on the subject.
Evan O wrote:
"Anyone knows that CONTRAILS are just condensation built up on the engines or wings, and contrails are literally just the water falling off the wings and freezing as they fall to earth."
No – contrails are almost all water generated by burning hydrocarbons. When you burn any hydrocarbon (eg petrol, diesel, jet fuel) it makes a range of exhaust chemicals – carbon dioxide is the most abundant, and water is the 2nd most abundant.
In fact a jet engine makes over 3 tons of CO2 and almost 1.25 tons of water for every ton of jet fuel it burns!
And if the air at high altitude is already full or almost full of moisture (ie it has high humidity) then that new moisture from the engine cannot dissolve into it, and becomes a contrail.
And the contrail will remain for exactly as long is atmospheric conditions remain suitable for it to remain – there is no set time limit.
If you would like to comment, or ask questions about Contrails or The Chemtrail Theory,
then please head over to the contrail forum at our sister site:


text:
Simple Definition of prejudice
: an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.
: a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logical
Full Definition of prejudice
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
Examples of prejudice in a sentence
But today most black Americans not hampered by poverty or prejudice take for granted their right to study Italian, listen to Britney Spears or opera, play in the NHL, eat Thai food, live anywhere, work anywhere, play anywhere, read and think and say anything. —Stephan Talty, Mulatto America, 2003
It is easy to suppose at this late date that there is barely any overt racism left in the United States, … Kennedy's catalog of mundane cases of explicit anti-black prejudice provides ample illustration of what lurks beneath the surface politeness of many whites. —John McWhorter, New Republic, 14 Jan. 2002
The boundaries between hate and prejudice and between prejudice and opinion and between opinion and truth are so complicated and blurred that any attempt to construct legal and political fire walls is a doomed and illiberal venture. —Andrew Sullivan, New York Times Magazine, 26 Sept. 1999
When my mother, who, unlike my father, was Jewish, encountered unpleasant social prejudice during my high-school years, I acquired a second marginal identity. —Carl E. Schorske, Thinking with History, 1998
The organization fights against racial prejudice.
religious, racial, and sexual prejudices
We tend to make these kinds of decisions according to our own prejudices.
He has a prejudice against fast-food restaurants.
Origin and Etymology of prejudice
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment — more at judicial
First Known Use: 13th century
Synonym Discussion of prejudice
Other Sociology Terms
Simple Definition of prejudice
: to cause (someone) to have an unfair feeling of dislike for someone or something
: to have a harmful effect on (something, such as a legal case)
Full Definition of prejudice
transitive verb
1 : to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)
2 : to cause to have prejudice(see 1prejudice)
See prejudice defined for English-language learners
Examples of prejudice in a sentence
Paul Revere … engraved the drawing and printed hundreds of vividly colored copies, which traveled throughout the colonies. Well might one judge at Captain Preston's trial complain that "there has been a great deal done to prejudice the People against the Prisoner." —Hiller B. Zobel American Heritage, July/August 1995
My friends would have had me delay my departure, but fearful of prejudicing my employers against me by such want of punctuality at the commencement of my undertaking, I persisted in keeping the appointment. —Anne Brontë, Agnes Grey, 1847
<all the bad stories I had heard about the incoming CEO prejudiced me against him even before the first meeting>
Origin and Etymology of prejudice
(see 1prejudice)
First Known Use: 15th century
PREJUDICE Defined for Kids
Definition of prejudice for Students
1 : a liking or dislike for one rather than another especially without good reason <She has a prejudice against department stores.>
2 : a feeling of unfair dislike directed against an individual or a group because of some characteristic (as race or religion)
3 : injury or damage to a person's rights
Definition of prejudice for Students
1 : to cause to have an unfair dislike of <The incident prejudiced them against the company.>
2 : to cause damage to (as a person's rights) <Newspaper stories prejudiced the upcoming trial.>
Law Dictionary
Legal Definition of prejudice
1 : injury or detriment to one's legal rights or claims (as from the action of another): as a : substantial impairment of a defendant's ability to defend <the court found no prejudice to the defendant by the lengthy delay in bringing charges> b : tendency for a decision on an improper basis (as past conduct) by a trier of fact <whether an ex parte communication to a deliberating jury resulted in any reasonable possibility of prejudice to the defendant — National Law Journal> c : implied waiver of rights and privileges not explicitly retained <District Court erred in attaching prejudice to prisoner's complaint for injunctive relief — National Law Journal>
2 : a final and binding decision (as an adjudication on the merits) that bars further prosecution of the same cause of action or motion <dismisses this case with prejudice> <the dismissal was without prejudice>
3a : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics <the Constitution does not prohibit laws based on prejudice per se — R. H. Bork> b : an attitude or disposition (as of a judge) that prevents impartiality <that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice…against him — U.S. Code>
Origin and Etymology of prejudice
Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- before + judicium judgment
Legal Definition of prejudice
1 : to injure or damage the rights of by some legal action or prejudice <if the joinder of offenses or defendants…appears to prejudice a defendant or the government — Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 14>
2 : to injure or damage (rights) by some legal action or prejudice <that the denial prejudiced his right to a fair trial> <this clause does not prejudice other rights>
Learn More about prejudice
Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for prejudice Spanish Central: Translation of prejudice Nglish: Translation of prejudice for Spanish speakers Britannica English: Translation of prejudice for Arabic speakers Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about prejudice
Seen and Heard
What made you want to look up prejudice? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Mouse - Lymphohematopoietic System - 827.pff
Image Name: 827.pff
Image Annotation: Model: MLL CBP Retrovirally Induced Myeloid Leukemia From Catherine Lavau. Dx: Myeloid Leukemia Infiltration of leukemic cells throughout the hepatic parenchyma. Subcapsular regions harbor dysplastic hepatic cells with regions tending to hemorrhage. Numerous hepatic cells have irregular oblong nuclei and unusually darker staining nuclei. 200x
Staining Method: Hematoxylin and Eosin Staining Method
Species: Mouse
Organ: Lymphohematopoietic System
Diagnosis: Myeloid Leukemia
Image donated by: Scott Kogan


text:
Top Definition
What Bart's comic on Homer was called, in the Simpsons.
Watch the simpsons, and you'll see.
作者 Fury1671 2004年7月12日
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?
when a Caucasian father recognizes his daughter is dating a black man.
White Girl: "When I told my father I was dating Tyree he was one angry dad."
作者 Trebor Sivad 2008年5月26日
a father that angers easily
Man on Radio: Don't you hate carpet stores that charge extra for the underpatting?
Angry Dad: I HATE THEM SO MUCH!
Angry Dad: I HATE THEM SO MUCH!
作者 Matthew 2003年12月23日
Someone that threatens to pull over the car, your friend that has coal up his ass, someone who attempts to stop the pancreas wars.
Stop being an angry dad chris
作者 Grim-Ace 2003年2月15日


text:
I want to see this movie, but it doesn't come out till tomorrow over here.
Who here thinks NT 2 is the best movie ever????????????????????????Honsestly,I think it is. What's your favorite part???????? Mine fav. is the part where he slides down the banister and at the bottom says "ello". Yours?????
Got Wii???
I want to see this movie, but it doesn't come out till tomorrow over here.
'I don't want to go back, I want a new day & age.'
Retired Moderator-[PM]
Brawl FC: 4682-8172-0512 [PM for add]
Originally Posted by Sumn0ob
It was great, but not the best movie ever. In fact, I think the first one tops it. Still a good movie though.
Shouldn't this be in the Entertainment Lounge? I haven't seen it yet, but am looking forward to it.
best movie ever? you must not see a lot of movies...
Everything in this signature except for this text was made by Wiired, he is my creator and almighty.
yea im looking forward to seeing this
Mii Artisan Code=6082-1457-2633
Check out MMA Arena!
120+ Vids/100+ Members
Wii Games:Wii Play, Wii Sports,Super Mario Galaxy
VC Games:Punchout!
I fear for the future of the film industry when a Jerry Bruckheimer film less than two weeks old is proclaimed the greatest ever...Originally Posted by Sovieto
I never add friend codes.
Originally Posted by AndThen?
I'm sorry, but best movie ever?Originally Posted by arogeek
You can't dismiss the classics, like Goodnight Mr Tom. BRILLIANT FILM.
Enoch was right.
Good film; however, I felt Nicholas Cage's acting was, as usual, over the top. If the movies solely revolved around him, they'd be terrible movies. Thankfully, though, we have Justin Bartha (Riley Poole) and John Voight (Patrick Gates) to pick up his slack and the both of them make the movies great. Plus, Helen Mirren did a fantastic job as Gates' mother, but that was expected.
In any case, I enjoyed the movie. It was adventerous and had good amounts of humor in it. I also loved how the end set us up for a sequel. It'll be interesting to see what exactly is on page 47.


text:
Writing Faster Than Thinking
Usually caused by a
, the author of such remarks has not really thought (his) response through. It is not uncommon for such remarks to include a logical inconsistency, or at least a statement embarrassing to the author. Consider the following example from
More likely the lecturer is an intolerant blowhard who accepts no ideas but his own.
People are diverse. Get used to it.
Lecturer in the given context means any person attempting to pass information via words - i.e. the vast majority of people. The following is based on (his) "logic": if A is the author of the remark, since A is a lecturer, A is most likely an intolerant blowhard who accepts no ideas but his own. This seems to be demonstrated by his last sentence - "Get used to it."
It seems unlikely that the author would purposely denigrate himself.
Note that the mantra "People are diverse." seems to fly in the face of the first sentence as well.
Upon discovery that one is
, it is best to recant immediately and make apologies quickly.
It would seem lecturer is too broad a term for variable A above.
denotes a specific variety of lecturer - which specifically was the object of the assertion found in the
in question.
View edit of
March 25, 2006
with title or text search