If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
If we began injections slowly in the 1990s it is just background noise now . . .

Why is the background noise decreasing over the eastern United States?

As a response to the declining sulfate levels, Leibensperger’s modeling shows temperatures over the central and eastern United States have increased by 0.3°Celsius between 1980 and 2010.
Content from External Source
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Military aircraft do not fly in restricted airspace - they fly in the same airspace as civilian aircraft.

There are some specific areas that are restricted for them, but they are published on maps and are all within national borders or have to be notified internationally whenever they are used such as for exercises or missile tests or the like.

The Manhattan project was perhaps comparable or even bigger in size - however not only was no-one looking for it, but it occured during wartime and in an age here there was not nearly as much information or communication technology around. the spraying of biological and chemical simulators was nothing like what you are proposing - it involved only a relative handful of flights, no mass modifications to aircrat, and no requirement to transport a million tons of materials annually.

You can imagine scenarios all you like - but in the real world there are real restrictions that you are simply ignoring or glossing over simply because you do not want to acknowledge them.

Imagining is not doing - I can imagine the USA building the Star Ship Enterprise in Area 51 too.
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
"and what the Brits call "Anoraks" aer hanging off eth end of runways and prowling the boneyards to get a serial nubmer in their log books."

These are the people you should be talking to George. Any deviations on an aircraft and one of these anoraks will have noticed. Their devotion to their hobby is phenomenal. I know of one "train spotter" who travelled all over Europe and Norh America on multitudes of trains just to say he had been on them.
If there are any "spray planes" out there, they will have been noticed, photographed,logged,routes recorded, pilots underwear colour recorded,tyre make written recorded etc etc etc ........... don't underestimate the single mindedness of "anoraks".
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why is the background noise decreasing over the eastern United States?

As a response to the declining sulfate levels, Leibensperger’s modeling shows temperatures over the central and eastern United States have increased by 0.3°Celsius between 1980 and 2010.
Content from External Source
Your data does not prove there is not stratospheric injection . . . it proves the EPA has had excellent success over the decade in reducing ground and tropospheric emissions . . . world wide stratopheric density has increased according to NOAA. . . during the same time period . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
"and what the Brits call "Anoraks" aer hanging off eth end of runways and prowling the boneyards to get a serial nubmer in their log books."

These are the people you should be talking to George. Any deviations on an aircraft and one of these anoraks will have noticed. Their devotion to their hobby is phenomenal. I know of one "train spotter" who travelled all over Europe and Norh America on multitudes of trains just to say he had been on them.
If there are any "spray planes" out there, they will have been noticed, photographed,logged,routes recorded, pilots underwear colour recorded,tyre make written recorded etc etc etc ........... don't underestimate the single mindedness of "anoraks".
Have they gotten to the remote areas of Russia, the US and Canada. . . ?????
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
Quite possibly, but you can grab one of your local anoraks who will be more than willing to spill the beans with no coercion whatsoever.
(However, you may need to introduce some form of threat to shut them up. :) )
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
georgeb said:
operative word is COVERT
George's proposal requires stretches of the figures at every step. we have mentioned them, he hasn't come close to comng up with real answers.
-amount of sulfur dioxide gas required
-payload capacity of aircraft
-altitude restriction of aircraft
-aircraft design to safely carry corrosive gas
-logistics of the supply chain
-funding of the operation

His James Bond fantasy still would require that a decade long operation be kept secret, with not a single whistleblower at any level.
The place where security would fail is at the bottom, every low paid worker, disgruntled truck driver or rail car handler would have to keep deliveries secret.
Some secretary, welder, janitor or coffee machine repairman would have to accept a salary and keep a secret.
No outsider, not even a neighboring landwoner or lawnmower man could ever be allowed to speak a word of question about it.
No accident could ever happen which might be investigated, no labor dispute could occur.

Even if all of this went perfectly, no inkling could ever occur within the larger community of air traffic controllers, pilots, or atmospheric scientists actively monitoring the skies.

Then, and only then, could the operation remain plausibly covert.

Still, his assumption that a covert operation overcoming the technical hurdles and security risks exists, however implausible, where does that leave "chemtrails", the persistent contrails that happen by the thousands every day?
They are not covert, they are demonstrably formed not by covert aircraft, but by thousands of photo identifiable commercial aircraft.

In the end, George's fantasy doesn't explain "chemtrails", it debunks them.

If you can believe that a James Bond fantasy could be real.

George has simply traded-in one fantasy, "chemtrails", for another.

Good luck with that, George.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
George's proposal requires stretches of the figures at every step. we have mentioned them, he hasn't come close to comng up with real answers.

And that's the problem. He replies to questions, that much is true, but I don't find his answers meaningful because of their purely speculative nature. A person's beliefs can be interesting, but it's what a person knows that is significant. Who is injecting what into the atmosphere? How are they doing it? What are the effects? Has he answered these questions?

George Says:
. . I submit . . . we can only speculate

He does not know so he replies with hypothetical musings that are thrown at the forum to see if they'll stick. People patiently point out errors, contradictions and explain logical fallacies. Then a modified set of half baked ideas are concocted and thrown at the wall to see if they will stick. over and over and over again.

6 pages of George's daydreaming can be summed as:

"We have the raw materials. We have planes. Get some really really super smart sneaky people to do it and hide it. Prove me wrong. The end."
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I think George used to believe in "chemtrails". When that got debunked, he simply created another fantasy which he could accept.

No different from other chemmies, and maybe a more rational course, but not radically different.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Your data does not prove there is not stratospheric injection . . . it proves the EPA has had excellent success over the decade in reducing ground and tropospheric emissions . . . .

It proves that sulfate concentrations are declining over the eastern US. If I were to SPECULATE, like you are so fond of doing, I would say it could be an indication that TPTB have stopped their spraying program. Sulfates are decreasing, temperatures are rising.


world wide stratopheric density has increased according to NOAA. . . during the same time period . . .

Solrey addressed that issue very well in post #52

The SciAm article has accounted for the sources of SO2. I didn't read any statements about unaccounted or mysterious sources of atmospheric SO2, like ones that might originate from secret spraying. If you read the article, then you know that BOTH natural and man made sources of aerosols have prevented 0.07 C of warming! Then what fraction of that 0.07 C is due to your secret spraying?

So a mysterious group of egomaniacal powerful scientists and politicians, some of the most intelligent and secrecy savvy people who have ever lived, planned, deployed and manage a secret spraying program. They are injecting millions of tons of sulphur into the atmosphere since the 90's, sabotaging rockets to hide their tracks, secretly repurposing KC-10 or 747s all done without revealing a stitch of direct evidence. All done to prevent some small fraction of 0.07 C of warming over 12 years.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.


The Dragon In My Garage by Carl Sagan



"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

Content from External Source
It's the same difference as some unidentified culprits using inscrutable methods to perpetrate an undetectable geoengineering program and no geoengineering program at all.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Guess what?? I just saw 50 rail cars in nowhere South Carolina and 37 cars were tankers carting oleum . . . Basically a solid form of sulfuric acid . . . I wouldn't have taken notice except for all our discussions . . .this is a very common sight throughout the country I bet . . .


"Oleum is probably the most common form for transporting large amounts of sulfuric acid compounds from the producer (usually an oil refinery) to industrial users. Oleum is usually transported in the U.S. by special rail tank cars fitted with steam conduits within the tank car. The United Kingdom uses road tankers. The oleum form of transport is safer than shipping concentrated sulfuric acid, partly because oleum is a solid at certain concentrations whereas sulfuric acid is a liquid, and partly because oleum is less bulky. The industrial user then carefully heats the tank car using the steam conduits to melt the oleum which is removed as a liquid. From oleum, the user can obtain sulfur trioxide by heating or dilute to obtain sulfuric acid.
Industrial uses are many, and may include:
• Roughly 60% of sulfuric acid production worldwide is used in the manufacture of
phosphoric acid and phosphate-based fertilizers.
• Sulfuric acid is used in the iron and steel industry to remove rust and scale from rolled
sheets and billets.
• Sulfuric acid is used to make aluminum sulfate from aluminum oxide (bauxite), which in
turn has uses in water purification and paper manufacture.
• Refineries use sulfuric acid in the manufacture of isooctane from isobutene and
isobutylene to boost the octane rating of gasoline.
• Steam power plants use sulfuric acid to regenerate their demineralizers in production of
boiler water feed.
• Vehicle batteries contain about 33 or 34% sulfuric acid.
• Oleum is used as a dehydrating agent in the manufacture of many kinds of explosives
such as TNT.
• The manufacture of many chemicals use sulfuric acid or oleum or sulfur trioxide in its
manufacture.
• Ore processing is another use of sulfuric acid.
Total worldwide production of sulfuric acid including oleum is about 185 million U.S. tons annually (in 2002). U.S. production is almost 50 million tons annually"
http://www.aristatek.com/newsletter/DEC09/DEC09ts.pdf

Notes below:


--13,500 gallons = about 50 tons
-- one rail tanker 50-90 tons of sulfur

-- one flight requires 150 tons of sulfur

-- one flight needs 3 rail car or less

At the same time - - - one 747 can burn 63,000 gallons or about 235 tons of fuel . . . fuel rail cars hold from 10,000 to 35,000 gallons so one flight can require 2-6 rail cars . . .

Bottom line . . . any air operation anywhere would have many, many rail cars constantly in motion . . . and no one notices . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why would anyone outside the very few people within the center of the operation need to keep fuel deliveries and tons of oleum secret???? The shippers could care less . . .if you need it they will sell it . . . they do it all day long . . . LoL!!!!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George's proposal requires stretches of the figures at every step. we have mentioned them, he hasn't come close to comng up with real answers.
-amount of sulfur dioxide gas required
-payload capacity of aircraft
-altitude restriction of aircraft
-aircraft design to safely carry corrosive gas
-logistics of the supply chain
-funding of the operation

His James Bond fantasy still would require that a decade long operation be kept secret, with not a single whistleblower at any level.
The place where security would fail is at the bottom, every low paid worker, disgruntled truck driver or rail car handler would have to keep deliveries secret.
Some secretary, welder, janitor or coffee machine repairman would have to accept a salary and keep a secret.
No outsider, not even a neighboring landwoner or lawnmower man could ever be allowed to speak a word of question about it.
No accident could ever happen which might be investigated, no labor dispute could occur.

Even if all of this went perfectly, no inkling could ever occur within the larger community of air traffic controllers, pilots, or atmospheric scientists actively monitoring the skies.

Then, and only then, could the operation remain plausibly covert.

Still, his assumption that a covert operation overcoming the technical hurdles and security risks exists, however implausible, where does that leave "chemtrails", the persistent contrails that happen by the thousands every day?
They are not covert, they are demonstrably formed not by covert aircraft, but by thousands of photo identifiable commercial aircraft.

In the end, George's fantasy doesn't explain "chemtrails", it debunks them.

If you can believe that a James Bond fantasy could be real.

George has simply traded-in one fantasy, "chemtrails", for another.

Good luck with that, George.
You have just as much conformation bias as I have . . . your world view dictates what you accept as an explanation . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It proves that sulfate concentrations are declining over the eastern US. If I were to SPECULATE, like you are so fond of doing, I would say it could be an indication that TPTB have stopped their spraying program. Sulfates are decreasing, temperatures are rising.




Have you not read solrey's answer in post #52? I thought they did a good job.

The SciAm article has accounted for the sources of SO2. I didn't read any statements about unaccounted or mysterious sources of atmospheric SO2, like ones that might originate from secret spraying. If you read the article, then you know that BOTH natural and man made sources of aerosols have prevented 0.07 C of warming! Then what fraction of that 0.07 C of warming is due to your secret spraying?

So a mysterious group of egomaniacal powerful scientists and politicians, some of the most intelligent and secrecy savvy people who have ever lived, planned, deployed and manage a secret spraying program. They are injecting millions of tons of sulphur into the atmosphere since the 90's, sabotaging rockets to hide their tracks, secretly repurposing KC-10 or 747s all done without revealing a stitch of direct evidence. All of this that to prevent some small fraction of 0.07 C of warming over 12 years.

Yes
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
prove it.
I have presented the evidence I have . . . I never thought it possible to prove it to you or others on this forum . . . I have encouraged a discussion and made you think about the possibilities . . . that was my purpose, nothing more . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
You have just as much conformation bias as I have . . . your world view dictates what you accept as an explanation . . .
George, I refuse to conform to your bias. You refuse to confirm your bias. I've watched you astutely. You are fighting yourself hanging on to an old hoax which had you spinning. Replacing one bad lie with another isn't going to help you validate yourself.

Get over it.
Get out of it.
Chemtrails was just a time wasting hoax that had you for awhile.
Find something productive to do.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The Unintended Consequences of Sulfate Aerosols in the Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
11/29/2009


http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-an...fall-2009/projects/MIT1_018JF09_sw_paper4.pdf


In order to quantify the severity of the potential consequences and the effectiveness of the scheme at decreasing global surface temperatures, I have proposed an experiment involving a small-scale aerosol injection scheme. The experimental design is based on computer simulation models done by Robock et al. (2008). The goal of the experiment is to ascertain the side effects of a scheme meant to increase the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic. Although the experiment will provide us with valuable knowledge regarding the consequences of a sulfate aerosol injection scheme, further experimentation will be necessary before any type of geoengineering scheme is undertaken.

Note: this is twice to three times the suggested rates of from 1-1.5 Tg in the original proposal . . . 3 Tg according to this paper is expected to reverse polar melting . . .




In an effort to confine the climatic response to geoengineering, a lower rate of injection is used, and again, following the simulation of Robock et al.(2008), the sulfate aerosols will be injected at a rate of 3 Mt/annum. This is suitable for an experiment, because it is equivalent to a Pinatubo eruption every 6.67 years, and would cause a sulfate level that would not overburden the Earth's natural capacity. The experiment will be continued for 10 years, long enough to see a decrease in global average surface temperature according to Robock et al. (2008). This would mean over 10 years, a total of 30 Mt SO2 will be introduced into the lower stratosphere.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, I refuse to conform to your bias. You refuse to confirm your bias. I've watched you astutely. You are fighting yourself hanging on to an old hoax which had you spinning. Replacing one bad lie with another isn't going to help you validate yourself.

Get over it.
Get out of it.
Chemtrails was just a time wasting hoax that had you for awhile.
Find something productive to do.
I have no problem with what I am doing . . . unlike you I believe something is going on . . . and I intend to keep looking until I satisfy myself that either I am wrong or someone confirms a covert injection program exists . . . you are just as dedicated to your debunking mission . . . You of all people should understand my motivation . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have no problem with what I am doing . . . unlike you I believe something is going on . . . and I intend to keep looking until I satisfy myself that either I am wrong or someone confirms a covert injection program exists . . . you are just as dedicated to your debunking mission . . . You of all people should understand my motivation . . .

Then why don't you try to figure out how one might go about confirming such a program, or satisfy you that you are wrong.

Speculate on those two things for a while.
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
No, you intend to continue believing something...and searching for information which matches your beliefs.

You don't care about the truth or facts. You care about keeping the fantasy alive.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Then why don't you try to figure out how one might go about confirming such a program, or satisfy you that you are wrong.

Speculate on those two things for a while.

I have found nothing to prove a program could NOT exist . . . I have found alternative explanations for everything observed . . .which is rather easy to do . . . I hold to the probability for several reasons . . . much of it being intuition regarding human nature and the history of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex . . . I think there are many "tells" which point to something . . . not concrete as you all demand but enough for me . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But the question is how you would go about confirming or falsifying your theory. Without a way to confirm or falsify it, then it's just idle speculation, like robot cats.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But the question is how you would go about confirming or falsifying your theory. Without a way to confirm or falsify it, then it's just idle speculation, like robot cats.
No . . . you think it is idle speculation . . . I think it is a fascinating search for an elusive truth . . . simply empiricism versus intuition . . . I contend people live as much by one as they do the other . . . one can actually prove very little in life, one has to live it . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The problem with intuition is that it's just your intuition. You can't share it. You need some evidence.

Call it what you like, it's all pretty meaningless without being testable.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I have found nothing to prove a program could NOT exist . . .

And my comment on that is "so what?"

there are any number of things that you could not find evidence of them NOT existing - can you be sure we all actually exist and are not in a "matrix-type" virtual reality? Or that the Starship enterprise is not in orbit above the Earth right now??

In fact the nubmer of things you cannot prove could not exist is infinite!

And using it as an argument that it DOES exist is called an argument from ignorance.


I have found alternative explanations for everything observed . . .which is rather easy to do . . . I hold to the probability for several reasons . . . much of it being intuition regarding human nature and the history of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex . . . I think there are many "tells" which point to something . . . not concrete as you all demand but enough for me . . .

Well if you choose to accept poor, misleading and outright wrong evidene then that is your choice - you have ben given a great deal of evidence that is good, checkable, and verifiable - and you have dismissed it in favour of rumour and speculation.

to me that speaks more about you than the existence of your conspiracy - sorry.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And my comment on that is "so what?"

there are any number of things that you could not find evidence of them NOT existing - can you be sure we all actually exist and are not in a "matrix-type" virtual reality? Or that the Starship enterprise is not in orbit above the Earth right now??

In fact the nubmer of things you cannot prove could not exist is infinite!

And using it as an argument that it DOES exist is called an argument from ignorance.




Well if you choose to accept poor, misleading and outright wrong evidene then that is your choice - you have ben given a great deal of evidence that is good, checkable, and verifiable - and you have dismissed it in favour of rumour and speculation.

to me that speaks more about you than the existence of your conspiracy - sorry.
And what evidence are you referring . . . ??? Nothing you presented proves anything . . . just descriptions of what is published that never even considers the existence of ICAAIP . . . show me one scientist who even mentioned it and gives a reason it doesn't or cannot exist . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Ironic isn't it (The Glory Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor)-the one instrument that could have answered many of the needed answers about aerosols possible origins and climatic effects was a Raytheon project . . . and . . . was somehow lost by a failed launch!!! What are the odds?????
---------

Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor


Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) will measure aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere to provide scientists and policy makers a better understanding of how those aerosols affect global climate change. Comprising 161 optical elements, including six precision-aligned telescopes that analyze light of varying wavelengths, the APS will make comprehensive measurements from multiple viewing angles in multiple spectral bands.


“The Glory Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor can distinguish between various types of aerosols and reveal the different role each plays in either warming or cooling our planet,” said Bill Hart, vice president, Space Systems. “Since black carbon aerosols generally contribute to warming, and sulfate aerosols to cooling, the concentrations of these aerosols and others must be determined to ensure accurate climate modeling.”


How will this help scientists understand the impact of global climate change?


Both natural and man-made aerosols are important constituents of the atmosphere that affect global temperature. Yet they remain poorly quantified and, according to NASA scientists, represent the largest uncertainty regarding climate change.


“Because these particles are transported over long distances by winds, their effects on climate are best studied through space-based observations,” said Hart. “With the information provided by the APS, policy leaders can make better-informed decisions with regard to addressing seasonal and regional climate change events.”


Unique sensor capabilities help to reveal the impact of atmospheric aerosols on climate


Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor was designed to collect global aerosol data for climate scientists during NASA’s 3-year Glory mission. It is the most advanced polarimeter ever to fly in space — and the only instrument able to distinguish various types of natural aerosols from the man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere.


http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/

On 4 March 2011, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) was lost as a consequence of the failed launch of the Glory Mission. On 6 March 2011, Dr. Michael Freilich, Director of the Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, directed the Glory APS Science Team to perform a comprehensive study intended to develop and evaluate the science rationale for an APS reflight.
http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/
Content from External Source


Some interesting evidence of the low probability of launch failures of both of the rockets and the satellites that were built by Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va. . . . and they still have the contract for the next launch . . . !!!!!
---------


Second Quarter 2009 Launch Report 1


The Second Quarter 2009 Quarterly Launch Report features launch results from the first quarter of 2009
( January - March 2009)


Figure 13 shows orbital and commercial suborbital launch successes vs. failures for the period from January 2009 to March 2009.


Partially-successful orbital launch events are those where the launch vehicle fails to deploy its payload to the appropriate orbit, but the payload is able to reach a useable orbit via its own propulsion systems. Cases in which the payload does not reach a useable orbit or would use all of its fuel to do so are considered
failures.


-----The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) is a NASA satellite mission intended to provide ... The original spacecraft was lost in a launch failure on February 24, 2009, when the payload ...


Figure 13: First Quarter 2009 Launch Successes vs.
Failures
Failure 6% (1)
Success 94% (15)
Total = 16


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2Q2009 Quarterly Report.pdf


---------


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/HQ-121473.pdf




Launch Successes vs. Failures
Figure 9: Launch Successes vs. Failures: April 2011 - September 2011
Failure 7% (3)
Success 93% (42)



------Fri, 4 March, 2011
Taurus Rocket Fairing Glitch Dooms NASA’s Glory Mission
By Turner Brinton



Semi-Annual Launch Report Second Half of Fiscal Year 2011


Figure 9 shows orbital launch successes and failures from April 2011 through September 2011.


From April 2011 to September 2011 there were three launch failures. From September 2010 to April 2011 there were four launch failures.


Total = 45 launches


------------
Semi-Annual Launch Report: First Half of 2010


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...st/media/semi_annual_launch_report_051810.pdf


Figure 9: Launch Successes vs. Failures: October 2009 - March 2010
Failure 0% (0)
Total = 33
Success 100% (33)


------------
Semi-Annual Launch Report: First Half of 2010


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...st/media/semi_annual_launch_report_051810.pdf


Figure 9: Launch Successes vs. Failures: October 2009 - March 2010


Total 33
no failures
------------
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Taxes are not guaranteed - especially not if you have good lawyers and accountants!

Many people have said that death and taxes are gauranteed - but simply accepting their statments as fact is no better than accepting any other assertion as fact - you should really look into things a bit more.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
And what evidence are you referring . . . ???

the evidence of payloads of aircraft, the evidence of their ranges, the evidence of the the effort required to convert them to "spraying"........the evidence you have often replied to and said words along teh ines of "those aer good points to consider" or simlar!!

Sheesh!

Nothing you presented proves anything . . . just descriptions of what is published that never even considers the existence of ICAAIP . . . show me one scientist who even mentioned it and gives a reason it doesn't or cannot exist . . .

It proves that ther serial numbers odf 747's are all known along with their disposition, it proves that ther are not enough KC-10's around to do what you say they could be doing, it proves that you did not consider what it would REALLY take to accomplish your "ICAAIP" in REAL LIFE.

It proves that youhavea good imagination, an enquiring mind, and few or no scruples in accepting hearsay evidence while at the same time rejecting verifiable and checkable facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
the evidence of payloads of aircraft, the evidence of their ranges, the evidence of the the effort required to convert them to "spraying"........the evidence you have often replied to and said words along teh ines of "those aer good points to consider" or simlar!!


Sheesh!
----------


Sheesh. . . to you as well . . .
1) Payloads, even off by a factor of 50% . . . would double the aircraft needed from (9) to (18) . . . big deal
2) range 8,000 plus miles . . . what is the problem with that??
3) Multiple research papers have made similar proposals . . . someone feels it is possible to overcome the engineering and technical retrofitting issues . . .




It proves that ther serial numbers odf 747's are all known along with their disposition, it proves that ther are not enough KC-10's around to do what you say they could be doing, it proves that you did not consider what it would REALLY take to accomplish your "ICAAIP" in REAL LIFE.


1) I presented the paper as a guide for discussion . . . I presented the idea of 747 variants because they would easily handle the range, altitude and load required . . . by the way, there are enough KC 10 extenders (76 of them I believe) if they were dedicated to the mission . . . which would only happen if the military was totally dedicated to halting global warming . . . which they are not . . .
2) About the dispositions of 747, did you ever hear of falsifying documents and a can of paint . . . and of course there couldn't be people willing to modify aircraft for a ton of money . . . or fly drugs or contraband . . . That ended with the Internet didn't it???




It proves that youhavea good imagination, an enquiring mind, and few or no scruples in accepting hearsay evidence while at the same time rejecting verifiable and checkable facts.


And it proves you don't adhere to the courtesy rules of this Forum . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
----------


Sheesh. . . to you as well . . .
1) Payloads, even off by a factor of 50% . . . would double the aircraft needed from (9) to (18) . . . big deal
2) range 8,000 plus miles . . . what is the problem with that??

Add the fact that you can't carry your full payload to full range (as the links/evidence I provided showed) then you get an even greater reduction in payload, so again you need more planes..

3) Multiple research papers have made similar proposals . . . someone feels it is possible to overcome the engineering and technical retrofitting issues . . .

there are no technical issues - I agreed with that already


1) I presented the paper as a guide for discussion . . . I presented the idea of 747 variants because they would easily handle the range, altitude and load required . . . by the way, there are enough KC 10 extenders (76 of them I believe) if they were dedicated to the mission . . . which would only happen if the military was totally dedicated to halting global warming . . . which they are not . . .

Wrong - only 60 KC-10 extenders were made, and as I showed you their payload figure included the fuel they have to carry - which means they might have as little as about 15% of their payload available for "chemicals!

Why do I have to repeat this?? Oh - that would be because you are ignoring teh evidence and skipping over the bits you do not like - that's why I have to repeat it!

also taking at least (even by yuour misleading figures) a large proportion of a small aircraft population out of its normal service wil be NOTICEABLE!


2) About the dispositions of 747, did you ever hear of falsifying documents and a can of paint . . . and of course there couldn't be people willing to modify aircraft for a ton of money . . . or fly drugs or contraband . . . That ended with the Internet didn't it???

I was the one who provided some ball-park figures for how much I think it would cost, and I said, multiple times now, that doing the modifications is not a problem.

why do you blithely ignore the actual evidence??

Originally Posted by MikeC

It proves that youhavea good imagination, an enquiring mind, and few or no scruples in accepting hearsay evidence while at the same time rejecting verifiable and checkable facts.
And it proves you don't adhere to the courtesy rules of this Forum . . .

You obviously have a sensitive soul........I suggest you build a bridge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
MikeC, Then why argue . . . Nothing you have posted would materially change the implementation of such a program if a powerful and wealthy group decided to do so . . . range, altitude, capacity, technology all possible . . .the only question is the types of airframes and the number to be used . . .

What facts prevent the implemention of such a program . . . and I don't believe the purchase and retrofitting of 10 - 20 aircraft is a show stopper . . .

Also, KC extenders (I would not use them however) could hold more fuel or sulfur (85 tons) if it were not designed to hold passengers and cargo . . . The KC-10 can transport up to 75 people and nearly 170,000 pounds (76,560 kilograms) of cargo a distance of about 4,400 miles (7,040 kilometers) unrefueled. . . . http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=109
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I have never said such a operation could not be done given enough resources - you completely mistake my point!:rolleyes:

so I'll summarise for you - IMO the chances of keepingng such an operation SECERT are next to nothing.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have never said such a operation could not be done given enough resources - you completely mistake my point!:rolleyes:

so I'll summarise for you - IMO the chances of keepingng such an operation SECERT are next to nothing.
Well thanks for clarifying your position . . . that is a question we will have to disagree on . . . I can tell you that I was in the Air Force for the entire time the F117 was designed, built, tested and flown in combat and did not know it existed until it was publicaly announced to the world at an Air Show . . . Thousands of people had to know of the crafts development and operation . . . so I have no doubt ICAAIP can be hidden as well especially when the scientific community refuses to accept the possibility that it exists . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I noted obvious and major differences between the F-117 programme and what you have proposed which you have, of course, blithely ignored.....:rolleyes:
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I noted obvious and major differences between the F-117 programme and what you have proposed which you have, of course, blithely ignored.....:rolleyes:
You assume the activities cannot be contained within secure parameters or materials and aircraft concealed from public disclosure . . . I disagree . . . millions of tons of sulfur are purchased and delivered every day without anyone noticing . . . thousands of aircraft take off and Land likewise . . . what is going to give it away ?????. . . People who believe in what they are doing can accomplish amazing things, so can tons of money and the threat of prison or worse . . . did you ever sign a non disclosure agreement???? Or hold a secret or top secret security clearance??? If not you may not understand their power to control behavior and disclosure . . .
 
Top