Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations

Mick said:
The thing is, I don't think that he's trolling deliberately. He thinks he's cunningly talking us government shills into corners where he can reveal our inconsistencies.

Unfortunately, due to his lack of understanding of the subject he's effectively trolling.

I don't normally like to point out to anyone that they don't understand what they are talking about. I think that's a weak form of ad-hom. I prefer to show rather than tell. But in this case lees has proven impervious to being shown anything.
Click to expand...

I suspect the intensification of insult and untruths are due to the proximity of the point you now realize is about to arrive. Any kind of comment from you must be taken in the context of what you previously wrote about me - a blatant lie, no other word for it. I haven't had an acknowledgment or withdrawal, or even an attempt to back up your ridiculous claims about what I - according to you - put forward in the 9/11 thread. How about an acknowledgment that it was a fabrication? An apology even?
There's a reason for getting you to explain how you think these things work - having spent enough time 'debating' with you and your ilk, it's clear that the only way to avoid your wriggling off the hook is to get you to say things categorically, then we can all refer back to them.

Now, let's have a word - in layman's terms - on how clouds form. No links, just in your own words. If you don't then I will, but you'll be asked to verify and approve, so you may as well do it yourself. Then there'll be no argument. If you really believe I don't understand the physics we're discussing then why not throw in a red herring or two - I'd never know, would I?

I think Ross would be the perfect man for the job.
 
Spongebob said:
In this image:


001-0406074700-broken_chemtrail_sharpen.jpg

Was there any change to the make-up of the exhaust particles in the aircraft's exhaust between where the trail stops and starts again?

The particles that act as the trigger, (that cause the trapped vapour to rapidly turn to ice crystals) did they just stop?

Or was the exhaust output identical throughout, meaning that there was another cause for why the trail is intermittent?
Click to expand...

You know, if you're going to be consistent about saying who knows jack about what they're talking about, maybe you should tell this guy?
 
lee h oswald said:
I suspect the intensification of insult and untruths are due to the proximity of the point you now realize is about to arrive.
Click to expand...

AHA! Now we are getting somewhere.

So, you claim this conversation is actually going somewhere, that there's a point.

Tell us what the point is, then we can proceed. Until then, I really don't have anything to say to you. You can't claim I'm avoiding the point, if you don't tell me what you are talking about.

So come on Lee, instead of complaining about how everyone is misrepresenting what you said, why don't you simply tell everyone what you mean?
 
lee h oswald said:
You know, if you're going to be consistent about saying who knows jack about what they're talking about, maybe you should tell this guy?
Click to expand...


I think you were bringing up the point: "The particles lead on to something a little more persistent..."

In which case - I was asking anyone if the particles would have to 'stop' being emitted in order for the trail to 'stop' (as in the image as well as personal observation of many similar on off type trails)

If the trails are only due to the particles emitted then the exhaust particles would stop at the point the trail stops, and that is not the case is it...



It was an open question:

"The particles that act as the trigger, (that cause the trapped vapour to rapidly turn to ice crystals) did they just stop?
Or was the exhaust output identical throughout, meaning that there was another cause for why the trail is intermittent?"
Click to expand...
 
Spongebob said:
Did he just ask why clouds form ? AGAIN!?
Click to expand...

He is also asking for an apology from his host, Mick.
He who lied about his identity and tried to pretend he was someone else.
He who would have been banned from that point forward at ost other forums,
except for a host that forgave him and continues to do so.
lee, you are incorrigible.
 
There are three basic requirements to the recipe for clouds to occur:
  1. Water vapor must be present in sufficient amounts so that saturation can be reached by some means.
  2. Cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) must be present to provide a surface on which water will condense. (Examples of CCN include dust in the air from the earth's surface, salt particles from the sea, combustion products, and volcanic or meteorite dust)
  3. Cooling mechanism is required to cool the air temperature to the dewpoint temperature.
Anything to add or subtract here?
 
Jay Reynolds said:
He is also asking for an apology from his host, Mick.
He who lied about his identity and tried to pretend he was someone else.
He who would have been banned from that point forward at ost other forums,
except for a host that forgave him and continues to do so.
lee, you are incorrigible.
Click to expand...


So, now you know who I really am, does that make a difference? For all I know, your name is Dolores Golightly and you own a cat called Crumpet. What does it matter? What's in a name?

Look, if I stated here that you spent many pages supporting 'the moon is made of Gorgonzola' theory and presented it as fact, wouldn't you object? I think we all know the answer to that one.
 
lee h oswald said:
Well, here's a point, somewhat pertinent to your comment above on these new engines. I quote you, from this thread, post #34 to be precise. This with regard to the proliferation of aviation induced cloud cover, you responded thus: It happens more now that it used to, sure. But ...engines run cooler

Well, it's no wonder I get confused when you are too, isn't it? So if: it's not that complicated... Then how complicated is it? Complicated enough for you to get it wrong?
Click to expand...

Doesn't anyone want to comment on this?
 
Spongebob said:
I think you were bringing up the point: "The particles lead on to something a little more persistent..."

In which case - I was asking anyone if the particles would have to 'stop' being emitted in order for the trail to 'stop' (as in the image as well as personal observation of many similar on off type trails)



If the trails are only due to the particles emitted then the exhaust particles would stop at the point the trail stops, and that is not the case is it...



It was an open question:
Click to expand...



On reflection, I apologize. I should not have denigrated your attempts to understand what is happening.
In the heat of discussion, it appeared as though you were making a statement in the guise of a question - The particles that act as the trigger, (that cause the trapped vapour to rapidly turn to ice crystals) did they just stop? It's wrong because the particles don't act as a trigger for contrails, that's explained better here, from post #283:

This question: So the additional soot helps with contrail formation. Why?

The answer: It provides additional condensation nuclei. The additional nuclei mean there are more initial ice crystals formed. The ice crystals can only form during the initial high-humidity stage with lasts only a second or so. The more ice crystals are formed[initially], the higher the persistence and optical density of the contrail

It's important to remember this, too: particulates, or particles (soot, unburned hydrocarbons etc) from the engine are not prerequisites to contrail formation in the first instance - even if there are no particles, given the required conditions a contrail will form anyway (without particles), as shown in this exchange, post #268: ....a contrail is the amount of water vapour emitted from the engine - take it as given that all the other factors are positive,...rh, temperature, atmospheric pressure etc. - then, all we need is an injection of hot moist air...And bingo: contrail
 
If the trails are only due to the particles emitted then the exhaust particles would stop at the point the trail stops, and that is not the case is it...
Click to expand...

"and that is not the case is it..." :D
 
lee h oswald said:
There are three basic requirements to the recipe for clouds to occur:
  1. Water vapor must be present in sufficient amounts so that saturation can be reached by some means.
  2. Cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) must be present to provide a surface on which water will condense. (Examples of CCN include dust in the air from the earth's surface, salt particles from the sea, combustion products, and volcanic or meteorite dust)
  3. Cooling mechanism is required to cool the air temperature to the dewpoint temperature.
Anything to add or subtract here?
Click to expand...

In what context? Can you explain the point you are trying to arrive at?

It's a reasonable recipe. Contrails are ice clouds though, and it's a bit more complex. But explain what you are getting at.
 
Mick said:
In what context? Can you explain the point you are trying to arrive at?

It's a reasonable recipe. Contrails are ice clouds though, and it's a bit more complex. But explain what you are getting at.
Click to expand...

Anything to add or subtract? was the question. Well?
 
Mick said:
Keep on target

Click to expand...


Is this from your very own 'guide to debunking'? Where does it say anything about lying about your contributors' positions? Or incorrectly stating volumes of glass to steel, that type of thing...I can't find those bits...maybe you need a bigger pyramid?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeC said:
On engines running cooler - why would anyone want to comment on it? What do you think you have discovered or revealed that is of interest to others??
Click to expand...

Well, you just have.


What it shows is that while patronizing me for making a perceived error, Mick, also made exactly the same error. But on this occasion, the villagers stayed at home with their pitchforks. It's a simple point, but worth making.
 
lee h oswald said:
Well, you just have.


What it shows is that while patronizing me for making a perceived error, Mick, also made exactly the same error. But on this occasion, the villagers stayed at home with their pitchforks. It's a simple point, but worth making.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you felt patronized, that was not my intent.

Anyway, you mentioned earlier we were about to arrive at some point. What was that point?

And why do you keep asking about cloud formation?
 
It appears my time here is marked. You have recently excluded (banned) me for a week without reason; allowed to return only to have my first comment referred for 'moderation' and subsequently censored; I was then banned; I was then unbanned 'by accident'; and here I still am. Not for long, I suspect.

So you've closed the 9/11 thread? Just when it was getting interesting. Why not edit it a bit?

That's enough of that

My last post was a picture of a building exploding. Those matchsticky looking things in the picture, the ones being ejected from the dissociating structure, were structural steel beams. And you say, in your final word on the thread before closing it, that I am not interested in science. I think you should re-open the thread, and if you don't want to take part, then don't take part. Just like that.


I expect it won't be long before the axe falls, but in the meantime - was there anything to add or subtract from the cloud recipe? Anything for you?

Oh yes: Sorry if you felt patronized I didn't feel patronized at all, I was.
 
lee h oswald said:
was there anything to add or subtract from the cloud recipe? Anything for you?
Click to expand...

lee h oswald said:
There are three basic requirements to the recipe for clouds to occur:
  1. Water vapor must be present in sufficient amounts so that saturation can be reached by some means.
  2. Cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) must be present to provide a surface on which water will condense. (Examples of CCN include dust in the air from the earth's surface, salt particles from the sea, combustion products, and volcanic or meteorite dust)
  3. Cooling mechanism is required to cool the air temperature to the dewpoint temperature.
Anything to add or subtract here?
Click to expand...

It's a reasonable approximation of what is needed for clouds to form. Reality is a little more complex. But I don't see any need to add or subtract anything until you explain the context.

So, no.
 
lee h oswald said:
Well, you just have.


What it shows is that while patronizing me for making a perceived error, Mick, also made exactly the same error. But on this occasion, the villagers stayed at home with their pitchforks. It's a simple point, but worth making.
Click to expand...

I'm puzzled - if you have a point why not make it?? I have no idea what you are trying to prove with this discourse, nor what your point is, nor why you think this reply of your should enlighten me in any way shape or form.

As far as I can see it is simply nonsensical.
 
I think Jay hit the nail on the head when he said lee was using a corrupt version of the Socratic method.

The Socratic method is where you ask someone questions with the intend of getting them to realize something. It's a good teaching aid as you are not telling them something, you are showing it to them, and they are more likely to remember it. It's also good for teaching children to think for themselves.

Unfortunately lee seems to have a constantly moving target, so we never get anywhere. I think some of the points he are trying to make might also be based un misunderstandings, or perhaps just on a different set of axioms. So I suggest he tries explaining his point directly, to avoid confusion.

Lee, why do you keep asking about clouds?
 
MikeC said:
I'm puzzled - if you have a point why not make it?? I have no idea what you are trying to prove with this discourse, nor what your point is, nor why you think this reply of your should enlighten me in any way shape or form.

As far as I can see it is simply nonsensical.
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from - but you might not see the Alice in Wonderland qualities of where you are and what your illustrious leader is doing.

On points: I've made loads, you could see them if you wanted to. I can point them out but that would be tedious and without any net gain; it's likely you still wouldn't see them. Can you really, seriously not find a point or two that I have made?
 
Mick said:
I think Jay hit the nail on the head when he said lee was using a corrupt version of the Socratic method.

The Socratic method is where you ask someone questions with the intend of getting them to realize something. It's a good teaching aid as you are not telling them something, you are showing it to them, and they are more likely to remember it. It's also good for teaching children to think for themselves.

Unfortunately lee seems to have a constantly moving target, so we never get anywhere. I think some of the points he are trying to make might also be based un misunderstandings, or perhaps just on a different set of axioms. So I suggest he tries explaining his point directly, to avoid confusion.

Lee, why do you keep asking about clouds?
Click to expand...

L'Enfer, c'est les autres

[Edit by Mick: To save time, the above quote is Jean-Paul Sartre, usually translated as: "Hell is other people."]
 
Well the point I get now is that you have no point to make, and it is all my fault that you cannot make them.

Sorry - not buying into your victim mentality - your inability to articulate yourself clearly for the understanding of others is NOT the fault of the others.

Take some responsibility for yourself!
 
As far as I can tell the only points that you have made are that scientists have talked about geoengineering, you don't trust the government, and secret geoengineering projects might look exactly like contrails, so we can't say for sure that nobody is doing it.

But why do you keep asking about clouds? What's your point?
 
MikeC said:
Well the point I get now is that you have no point to make, and it is all my fault that you cannot make them.

Sorry - not buying into your victim mentality - your inability to articulate yourself clearly for the understanding of others is NOT the fault of the others.

Take some responsibility for yourself!
Click to expand...

So I can't express myself and I haven't made any points. Is that a fair summary of what you think?
 
Mick said:
As far as I can tell the only points that you have made are that scientists have talked about geoengineering, you don't trust the government, and secret geoengineering projects might look exactly like contrails, so we can't say for sure that nobody is doing it.

But why do you keep asking about clouds? What's your point?
Click to expand...

So are you going to stop censoring 9/11 an Inside Job?
 
lee, this is getting annoying. I'm going to give you three posts in which to explain your point about the recipe for clouds, and if you don't at least attempt to explain it, I'm going to ban you for a month.

Here's what needs explaining.

lee h oswald said:
was there anything to add or subtract from the cloud recipe? Anything for you?
Click to expand...

lee h oswald said:
There are three basic requirements to the recipe for clouds to occur:
  1. Water vapor must be present in sufficient amounts so that saturation can be reached by some means.
  2. Cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) must be present to provide a surface on which water will condense. (Examples of CCN include dust in the air from the earth's surface, salt particles from the sea, combustion products, and volcanic or meteorite dust)
  3. Cooling mechanism is required to cool the air temperature to the dewpoint temperature.
Anything to add or subtract here?
Click to expand...

It's entirely your call. And "it's already been explained" is not acceptable. Explain what your point is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top