George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I in no way consider myself as a pioneer. . . Just a concerned citizen. . .
I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
- Status
I in no way consider myself as a pioneer. . . Just a concerned citizen. . .
WHAT "data and evidence"?!?
So far, I have seen nothing of the sort.
All I see is your misinterpretation of research papers which you manipulate to fit your particular beliefs.
You hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread..you HAVE fooled yourself.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I might emphasize the fact that it took decades and even centuries to go through the process from discovery to acceptance by the establishment . . .the discovery was most likely begun by a hunch, inference, intuition, and educated guesses as well. . . .
Well, from reading the post I replied to...it sure seems like you are suggesting it. Are you unable to see that?!
"But took years of other tinkers (thinkers?) risking their lives and reputation to supplant. . . I am sure the new theory was ridiculed and the individuals propsing their new theory were castigated and rejected. . . ."
Sound like you are aligning yourself with this group...are you not?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Data and evidence from official mainstream research. . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Don't think so . . . I might have read and supported Galileo's intellect but would have never wanted to participate in the ramifications of his Persecution by the Catholic Church. . . .
Could you PLEASE share it with us?
Wow, that has nothing to do with my comment.
JFDee
Senior Member.
Hmm, if I understand you correctly, there is no specific phenomenon that your collection of hints and assumptions tries to explain.
You were made aware of the chemtrail theory, which people are using to "understand" seemingly strange atmospheric manifestations.
You however knew or you realized that this theory is not needed to explain contrails, yet you felt attracted to the conspiracy idea.
Now you have collected a lot of "material" - but you don't have anything to explain.
I daresay that you can apply this "strategy" to any and all issues ... but there is no gain, except a way to pass the time.
Isn't this a bit sad?
You were made aware of the chemtrail theory, which people are using to "understand" seemingly strange atmospheric manifestations.
You however knew or you realized that this theory is not needed to explain contrails, yet you felt attracted to the conspiracy idea.
Now you have collected a lot of "material" - but you don't have anything to explain.
I daresay that you can apply this "strategy" to any and all issues ... but there is no gain, except a way to pass the time.
Isn't this a bit sad?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That is your opinion. . . The evidence I have collected convinces me there is a high likelihood there is a aerosol injection program ongoing. . . My inability to prove it to skeptics doesn't invalidate my conclusion nor does it validate it. . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sorry you don't understand. . . It was perfectly clear to me. . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Contrail mitigation schemes, atmospheric sounding data and research, blog discussions of Edward Teller and other scientists, NASA, NOAA and DoE research on persistent contrail and cirrus cloud behavior. . . Etc. . .
I wasn't referring to those who disagree with the past science pioneers....I don't CARE about them as far as my post goes. It's just that you were suggesting that people are sometimes dismissed because of their views....BY ANYONE...that doesn't mean your views are anything like the views of those who's beliefs were eventually accepted.
It seems you are suggesting that people in the past were ridiculed for not having mainstream opinions. and were eventually exonerated....and that you believe this will happen with you...It really matters LITTLE who is/was dismissing the beliefs.
You are no pioneer....and just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm anything like the Catholic church.
You have NOTHING but suspicion , assumption...and ignorance about what few documents you have read about this matter.
I'm asking for more...you have claimed there IS more...that you have held back..
Please share.
So far...your "argument" isn't anything of the sort.
No, not the same old vague suspicions/assumptions.
Have you ASKED the authors of these papers if you may be misunderstanding what they wrote? Have you asked for clarification? Because, I have read the same things you have..and so have others here...and we tend to come to different conclusions.
Does that mean YOUR conclusions are right...and ours wrong?
I say we ask for some clarification about unaccounted for particulates...
Because I cannot come to the same conclusions you come to...no matter how hard I try, unless I make several assumptions. And science doesn't allow for much of that...sorry.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have never asked anyone to believe what I believe. . . I have volunteered to explain why I believe the way I do and have tried to do so. . . .Noble , I will share the new information when I feel it is the best timing . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, I have corresponded with NASA, a self proclaimed expert on persistent contrail prediction, and some pilots . . . The information I gained from the exchanges changed my position very little. . . It maybe helped me to better define my
beliefs. . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems I am not going to get my debate with three judges to make a determination of outcome. . . So I will just continual to present information until no one cares to view or debate . . .*
So in that spirit . . . I will continue . . .*
1) If there is some type of intentional aerosol injection project there must be practical ways for someone to do this unless there is technology that is unknown and not available to the general public
2) So one of the things I have investigated is *. . . do aircrews have the situational awareness to know if they are being used to accomplish an intentional aerosol injection mission *. . .?
3) So I asked one self Identified pilot who had both military and commercial experience if he was aware when he would be leaving a persistent contrail behind his aircraft. . . See discussion below. . . .
4) as I have stated before a persistent trail is not in, and of its self, evidence of a Chemtrail, but many do feel this is likely . .*
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1097900/pg6
My Comments and question: **
"Thanks very much for your information . . . it is about what I expected. The thing is that the Contrail/Chemtrail thing is as I said very complex.*
I know no reasonable a pilot is going to poison him/her self or their loved ones.*
My position is that Chemtrails are used for many different objectives and they can be identified.
Let me ask you a few questions . . . as a pilot (of a multi-engine jet commercial jetliner) would you always know if you were laying down a Contrail . . . or would you even care?
Do you know any other information about your fuel other than the gallons (or pounds) and type of fuel you received?
Do you know what is truly in the fuel in the aircraft you are are flying?
Do you always know the source of the fuel you are flying with . . . as long as you have no engine performance issues you probably are not overly concerned?"
Answer . . .*
"Excellent questions. Seriously.
As to knowing whether we're conning, there are two ways:
First, if you're flying a fighter (I was an F-16 pilot) your wingman will tell you when you start to con. Being line-abreat, they can see your 6:00 and can see it. We used to climb up to find the con altitude before a mock battle because we wouldn't want to give our position away - we'd climb to find the con flight level (flight level is altitude) and then fight below that altitude. The con flight level changes with the charachteristics of the atmosphere. Every hour it's different at every altitude, so we'd have to check it before every engagement.
Second, in an airliner where you have no wingman that can check your 6:00, the only way I was ever able to tell if we were conning was to look at other airplanes at close to my altitude, OR, if the sun was at the right angle - looking at my shadow. The airplane and the con cast a shadow - if the sun is at the right angle you can see it.
As to the fuel - yes. The fueler who pumps fuel into the jet gives us a "report" (fuel slip). That report indicates the quantity of fuel, the tanks the fuel was put in to and the type of fuel that we were fueled with.
As an interesting aside - since jet fuel weighs approximatly 6.7 lbs per gallon and since .67 (decimal shift intended) is mathematically two-thirds... it was easy to check the weight of the fuel in the airplane.
If they pumped 10000 lbs of fuel into the airplane, you divide 10,000 by 2/3 (when you divide by a fraction you multiply by the inverse of the fraction - 10,000 x 3/2 (or 1.5) - disregarding the decimal) and you get 1500 gallons.
So, when you're pumping jet fuel, take the pounds and multiply by 1.5 and you get gallons divided by ten.
Now, as to these aerial photos you have - these are air-refueling tanker tracts. In a war, you have to have many gas stations in the sky. Tankers orbit waiting to give gas to returning fighters. That is what those cons are - unless they're photoshopped.
As to the oval cons in a previous post, that is an FCF tract. I was an FCF pilot. FCF stands for "Functional check flight." Whenever a military or commercial jet has an engine change or a flight control change, it has to be tested on a flight before it can be used operationally. Those tests have to be conducted withing a certain airspace. So, the pilot goes out a ways and then turns and comes back towards home base. They have to stay in military airspace. If they get back home and the test isn't complete, they turn away and do it again. There is no conspiracy there."
So in that spirit . . . I will continue . . .*
1) If there is some type of intentional aerosol injection project there must be practical ways for someone to do this unless there is technology that is unknown and not available to the general public
2) So one of the things I have investigated is *. . . do aircrews have the situational awareness to know if they are being used to accomplish an intentional aerosol injection mission *. . .?
3) So I asked one self Identified pilot who had both military and commercial experience if he was aware when he would be leaving a persistent contrail behind his aircraft. . . See discussion below. . . .
4) as I have stated before a persistent trail is not in, and of its self, evidence of a Chemtrail, but many do feel this is likely . .*
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1097900/pg6
My Comments and question: **
"Thanks very much for your information . . . it is about what I expected. The thing is that the Contrail/Chemtrail thing is as I said very complex.*
I know no reasonable a pilot is going to poison him/her self or their loved ones.*
My position is that Chemtrails are used for many different objectives and they can be identified.
Let me ask you a few questions . . . as a pilot (of a multi-engine jet commercial jetliner) would you always know if you were laying down a Contrail . . . or would you even care?
Do you know any other information about your fuel other than the gallons (or pounds) and type of fuel you received?
Do you know what is truly in the fuel in the aircraft you are are flying?
Do you always know the source of the fuel you are flying with . . . as long as you have no engine performance issues you probably are not overly concerned?"
Answer . . .*
"Excellent questions. Seriously.
As to knowing whether we're conning, there are two ways:
First, if you're flying a fighter (I was an F-16 pilot) your wingman will tell you when you start to con. Being line-abreat, they can see your 6:00 and can see it. We used to climb up to find the con altitude before a mock battle because we wouldn't want to give our position away - we'd climb to find the con flight level (flight level is altitude) and then fight below that altitude. The con flight level changes with the charachteristics of the atmosphere. Every hour it's different at every altitude, so we'd have to check it before every engagement.
Second, in an airliner where you have no wingman that can check your 6:00, the only way I was ever able to tell if we were conning was to look at other airplanes at close to my altitude, OR, if the sun was at the right angle - looking at my shadow. The airplane and the con cast a shadow - if the sun is at the right angle you can see it.
As to the fuel - yes. The fueler who pumps fuel into the jet gives us a "report" (fuel slip). That report indicates the quantity of fuel, the tanks the fuel was put in to and the type of fuel that we were fueled with.
As an interesting aside - since jet fuel weighs approximatly 6.7 lbs per gallon and since .67 (decimal shift intended) is mathematically two-thirds... it was easy to check the weight of the fuel in the airplane.
If they pumped 10000 lbs of fuel into the airplane, you divide 10,000 by 2/3 (when you divide by a fraction you multiply by the inverse of the fraction - 10,000 x 3/2 (or 1.5) - disregarding the decimal) and you get 1500 gallons.
So, when you're pumping jet fuel, take the pounds and multiply by 1.5 and you get gallons divided by ten.
Now, as to these aerial photos you have - these are air-refueling tanker tracts. In a war, you have to have many gas stations in the sky. Tankers orbit waiting to give gas to returning fighters. That is what those cons are - unless they're photoshopped.
As to the oval cons in a previous post, that is an FCF tract. I was an FCF pilot. FCF stands for "Functional check flight." Whenever a military or commercial jet has an engine change or a flight control change, it has to be tested on a flight before it can be used operationally. Those tests have to be conducted withing a certain airspace. So, the pilot goes out a ways and then turns and comes back towards home base. They have to stay in military airspace. If they get back home and the test isn't complete, they turn away and do it again. There is no conspiracy there."
Yeah, when you actually find something compelling...
That's because you are just that stubborn.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Ok . . .let us build a way to deliver aerosols to the atmosphere with only using the existing aircraft and their exhausts . . .
Using the below quote . . . as a starting place . . .
"As to knowing whether we're conning, there are two ways:
First, if you're flying a fighter (I was an F-16 pilot) your wingman will tell you when you start to con. Being line-abreat, they can see your 6:00 and can see it. We used to climb up to find the con altitude before a mock battle because we wouldn't want to give our position away - we'd climb to find the con flight level (flight level is altitude) and then fight below that altitude. The con flight level changes with the charachteristics of the atmosphere. Every hour it's different at every altitude, so we'd have to check it before every engagement.
Second, in an airliner where you have no wingman that can check your 6:00, the only way I was ever able to tell if we were conning was to look at other airplanes at close to my altitude, OR, if the sun was at the right angle - looking at my shadow. The airplane and the con cast a shadow - if the sun is at the right angle you can see it.
As to the fuel - yes. The fueler who pumps fuel into the jet gives us a "report" (fuel slip). That report indicates the quantity of fuel, the tanks the fuel was put in to and the type of fuel that we were fueled with.
As an interesting aside - since jet fuel weighs approximatly 6.7 lbs per gallon and since .67 (decimal shift intended) is mathematically two-thirds... it was easy to check the weight of the fuel in the airplane.
If they pumped 10000 lbs of fuel into the airplane, you divide 10,000 by 2/3 (when you divide by a fraction you multiply by the inverse of the fraction - 10,000 x 3/2 (or 1.5) - disregarding the decimal) and you get 1500 gallons.
So, when you're pumping jet fuel, take the pounds and multiply by 1.5 and you get gallons divided by ten.'
"
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I also asked a senior pilot similar questions recently . . .
I would like to ask the following. . . The questions are . . .
"1) Are you an experienced pilot o fmultiengine jet engine aircraft . . . ? Yes.
2) How many hours of flight timedo you have . . . ? 19,000 hours total 14,000 multiengine jet.
3) Can you list some of the airframes you have piloted . . . ? DC-8, B-707, L-1011, Learjet, Hawker
4) When was the last time you flew professionally . . . ? March 2001
5) When you were flying as a professional pilot were you aware or take notice when you would leave a persistent contrail? no. Impossible. Do you think pilots in general take notice? No, there is no way to look in back.
6) When you took on fuel . . . were you aware of the specifics of what wasloaded . . . I know you knew the pounds and which tanks were loaded but did youknow the type of fuel or the additives in the fuel? Yes, fuelers are required to give us SP Grav for the log. Learjets required PF-55MB anti-ice directly into the fuel.
7) When you did you pre-flight inspections could there have been small tubes orspraying orifices on the wings or airframe you could have overlooked . . . ? The engineer or F/O does the walk around. Capts just sit on their butts and bitch. Since the trailing edges are so sharp, clean and smooth, someone would notice a tube large 1/2"+ enough to spray a chemical. Since all modern jets have wet wings it would be difficult to mount a tube that distance.
8) If you had noticed visible vortices on your control surfaces during cruisingaltitudes would you have questioned their presence . . . ? Can't see any control surface from the cockpit on any modern transport jet.
9) Are you aware of the concept of a Chemtrail Conspiracy? Yes.
10) Do you believe there is an Intentional Aerosol Injection program fordispersal of substances at 30,0000 feet or higher? Probably
11) Have you noticed an increase in contrail persistence in general and if so .. . when did you notice it happen? I resisted this claim until about a year ago when it became obvious someone was doing something.
12) Can the increase in jet engine efficiencies, the number and frequency ofhigher cruising altitudes, and the size of jet engines and their resultingturbulence account for the increase in persistence contrails? No. Contrails depend on per cent of saturation and temperature of the outside air."
I would like to ask the following. . . The questions are . . .
"1) Are you an experienced pilot o fmultiengine jet engine aircraft . . . ? Yes.
2) How many hours of flight timedo you have . . . ? 19,000 hours total 14,000 multiengine jet.
3) Can you list some of the airframes you have piloted . . . ? DC-8, B-707, L-1011, Learjet, Hawker
4) When was the last time you flew professionally . . . ? March 2001
5) When you were flying as a professional pilot were you aware or take notice when you would leave a persistent contrail? no. Impossible. Do you think pilots in general take notice? No, there is no way to look in back.
6) When you took on fuel . . . were you aware of the specifics of what wasloaded . . . I know you knew the pounds and which tanks were loaded but did youknow the type of fuel or the additives in the fuel? Yes, fuelers are required to give us SP Grav for the log. Learjets required PF-55MB anti-ice directly into the fuel.
7) When you did you pre-flight inspections could there have been small tubes orspraying orifices on the wings or airframe you could have overlooked . . . ? The engineer or F/O does the walk around. Capts just sit on their butts and bitch. Since the trailing edges are so sharp, clean and smooth, someone would notice a tube large 1/2"+ enough to spray a chemical. Since all modern jets have wet wings it would be difficult to mount a tube that distance.
8) If you had noticed visible vortices on your control surfaces during cruisingaltitudes would you have questioned their presence . . . ? Can't see any control surface from the cockpit on any modern transport jet.
9) Are you aware of the concept of a Chemtrail Conspiracy? Yes.
10) Do you believe there is an Intentional Aerosol Injection program fordispersal of substances at 30,0000 feet or higher? Probably
11) Have you noticed an increase in contrail persistence in general and if so .. . when did you notice it happen? I resisted this claim until about a year ago when it became obvious someone was doing something.
12) Can the increase in jet engine efficiencies, the number and frequency ofhigher cruising altitudes, and the size of jet engines and their resultingturbulence account for the increase in persistence contrails? No. Contrails depend on per cent of saturation and temperature of the outside air."
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So what hve we found out . . . ????
1) The aircrew and not necessarily the pilot might find modifications to the airframe which could facilitate a spraying system . . . on a pre-flight check . . .
2) The aircrew is not capable of seeing if they are leaving a persistent trail except under unusually circumstances and probably wouldn't be concerned even if they were . . .
3) The captain would not know if something were added to his fuel unless it changed the SP (I assume the Specific Gravity) of fuel as reported on the load report he/she receives . . . or if there were a performance shortfall . . . less miles per pounds of fuel . . . probably around the 1% - 2% range as I was told by another commercial pilot . . .
1) The aircrew and not necessarily the pilot might find modifications to the airframe which could facilitate a spraying system . . . on a pre-flight check . . .
2) The aircrew is not capable of seeing if they are leaving a persistent trail except under unusually circumstances and probably wouldn't be concerned even if they were . . .
3) The captain would not know if something were added to his fuel unless it changed the SP (I assume the Specific Gravity) of fuel as reported on the load report he/she receives . . . or if there were a performance shortfall . . . less miles per pounds of fuel . . . probably around the 1% - 2% range as I was told by another commercial pilot . . .
*yawn*...so?
More yawn...
more.....So?
You found someone who claims they are a pilot and is also a conspiracy nut...or who is a pilot...and a conspiracy nut..Who "believes" something may be happening.
Good for you.
1) Are you suggesting a pilot wouldn't recognize a "spray system" during a pre-flight?! Gimme a break....
2) So? I'm not concerned about that either..
3) Again, so?! How is any of this EVIDENCE?! It's just more speculation/assumption/suspicion...
Is it that you just don't understand the definition of the word "compelling"?!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What did I say . . . ?
"1) The aircrew and not necessarily the pilot might find modifications to the airframe which could facilitate a spraying system . . . on a pre-flight check . . ."
And you DON'T consider this compelling. . .
"9) Are you aware of the concept of a Chemtrail Conspiracy? Yes.
10) Do you believe there is an Intentional Aerosol Injection program fordispersal of substances at 30,0000 feet or higher? Probably
11) Have you noticed an increase in contrail persistence in general and if so .. . when did you notice it happen? I resisted this claim until about a year ago when it became obvious someone was doing something."
1) If there were something to find..the aircrew...not necessarily the pilot might find it...So? If there is something...someone may find it...has anyone found anything? NO!
Not compelling...in the least!
10) I honestly don't care about what one supposed pilot thinks of the "chemtrail conspiracy". That's not evidence...of anything more than this particular unnamed pilot (probably Lear) believes that "chemtrails" may be real...so?! If it IS Lear...that's not all he believes...he's got many screws loose. Pilots aren't gods....they are susceptible to mental illness like everyone else.
11) Just opinion. If this person is, in fact, a pilot...he would be aware of the huge increase in flights...then it's just a matter of probability.
No. nothing here is compelling.
Is the evidence you held back?!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I agree with you. . . But it is possible there are modified versions you have not seen. . .
MikeC
Closed Account
However for the chemtrail hoax to actually not be a hoax requires that these modifications to exist - which means there are drawings, mechanics who did the work, engineers who designed the modifications, and planes that actually incorporate them, companies that built the parts. They have to be maintained, materials have to be supplied.
And all this on a significant number of aircraft - not just 747's, but also 777's, 767's, 757's, 737's, and the Airbus fleet, and less well known types - BAe 146's, Embraers, Canadairs, etc.
Should be a doddle to spot at airports then shouldn't it?
So how come no-one has??
MikeC
Closed Account
Ground crew also do this check.
What's more mechanics pore over the aircraft at regular intervals - and being one such I know we get absolutely everywhere
correct - but somewhere in teh fuel company someone would.
And since the specification for Jet A1 is published and publicly known (search for Def Std 91-91) you are free to buy some fuel and get it tested against that standard.
If the fuel differs then that is probably a criminal offense (ie someone supplying non-standard fuel to an aircraft) under various regulations worldwide that allow only approved materials to be used - so you could supply such information to law enforcement authorities as evidence of a crime being committed!
If you do find any such evidence of course.
So far, AFAIK, no-one has.
Billzilla
Senior Member.
That would also mean that all the ground engineers I know - from Qantas, Air Atlanta Icelandic, Air Pacific, and many others - all have also never seen anything like that on any aeroplane.
None of the military engineers either.
MikeC
Closed Account
And how tight do companies test fuel?
Just so happens that completely serendipitously I have seen over my desk in the last 5 minutes a report by a fuel company about contaminated fuel found in routine testing.
A mechanical failure of a valve meant that the concentration of fuel system icing inhibitor in a tank was 0.13% whereas the allowable limit is 0.02% (I haven't actually checked the Std - that's just what the report says).
The batch of fuel was pumped into quarantine, the tank cleaned, and the contaminated fuel will be mixed with fuel that has no inhibitor to get the level down. No contaminated fuel made it to an airport let alone onto an aircraft.
Just so happens that completely serendipitously I have seen over my desk in the last 5 minutes a report by a fuel company about contaminated fuel found in routine testing.
A mechanical failure of a valve meant that the concentration of fuel system icing inhibitor in a tank was 0.13% whereas the allowable limit is 0.02% (I haven't actually checked the Std - that's just what the report says).
The batch of fuel was pumped into quarantine, the tank cleaned, and the contaminated fuel will be mixed with fuel that has no inhibitor to get the level down. No contaminated fuel made it to an airport let alone onto an aircraft.
solrey
Senior Member.
Another A&P here. Exactly...As Mike says every aircraft goes through detailed inspections at regular intervals. By detailed I mean every square inch, inside and out, is checked for damage, defects, cracks, etc., along with checks of all systems and lubrication schedules followed. People like George have NO IDEA what goes on behind the scenes while thousands of highly trained individuals keep those planes flying safely and (mostly) on schedule. If there were strange devices on any of those planes, lots of people would know.
cheers
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am not disagreeing . . . Seems if a spraying system is used . . .the whole process would have to be self contained within a dedicated aircraft and a dedicated airfield and personnel. . . Not impossible but difficult. . . .
solrey
Senior Member.
To support a covert 'round the clock global operation with any meaningful effect of any sort? Do you have any idea how many aircraft, airfields and/or refueling flights that would involve? Not to mention the inherent lack of compartmentalization that would have to be involved. Beyond difficult, bordering on impossible... yet squarely within the realm of absurd.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
George, this person has taken you for a fool and took you for a ride. Its probable he isn't a pilot at all. I have several reasons for saying this. It is possible you fabricated this whole episode. We wil never know, because nothing of what you posted above will ever be confirmable.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Please specify your reasons . . . before you do . . . I assure you the information was presented as was asked and responded . . . I have no reason to believe this person is not who he says he is . . .
Billzilla
Senior Member.
George, be aware that some pilots .... um ... stretch the truth a little at times.
I flew with one guy who claimed to be a Captain in other airline to get a job with the airline I worked for. Turned out he was only a First Officer and simply lied. Another had a decade of lies behind him, claiming he was a Boeing test pilot, etc. Another was a little ... odd ..... we ended up having to buy him a Bluetooth earpiece to make him blend into the crowds better as he talked to himself out loud quite a lot.
Another was a very clever guy, a bit of an inventor; he could not be convinced that the Apollo Moon landings happened, no matter how much I showed all his evidence to be incorrect.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have no doubt that your information is correct . . . however, I do know this person personally and know he is what he says he is . . . I asked him to respond to this Forum in person but the individual is reluctant for the obvious reasons . . . he does not want his identity to be connected with the conspiracy . . . like a lot of professional people . . . I have no such issues myself but I have to respect the people that do . . .
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Science - If bigfoot is there, it could be a bear.
- Latest: Todd Feinman
