LISTEN LIVE OR CALL IN » CLICK HERE!
Most Popular
‘Batman’ Gun Grab: The Port Arthur Massacre Parallels
The recent ‘Batman’ massacre in Colorado has evinced several characteristics of past gun related atrocities which, if anything, only serve to seriously undermine evidence against these alleged ‘lone gunman’. This incident is clearly becoming a precursor for a campaign to restrict gun ownership in the United States.
On 28th April 1996 the Port Arthur massacre which claimed 35 lives, was until then the greatest massacre executed by an ‘individual’, and was seminal in the subsequent evisceration of Australian gun ownership rights thereafter. Upon closer scrutiny however, the similarity of facts make these ‘lone gunmen’ suppositions at best ridiculous to downright impossible. Moreover, elements of these dubious circumstances tend to chillingly parallel similar terror related events in recent history, which strongly indicate a pattern of governmental participation.
Vaccination and your rights with Bronwyn Hancock
Last week we looked at the question of vaccine efficacy and safety. Our discussion today focuses on the question of your rights. Are vaccines compulsory? Can day care centres legally refuse entry to unvaccinated children? Can schools demand vaccination records? Will parents of unvaccinated children receive the government health care rebate?
My guest today in the 2nd hour is Bronwyn Hancock, a passionate advocate of health freedom, who runs the Vaccination Information Service in Sydney, Australia. Bronwyn's organisation provides assistance to many people engaged in custody battles where one parent insists the child must be vaccinated. Such cases often end up in the family court, and Bronwyn has been helping parents who are against vaccines to present legally sound arguments.
The central question addressed in today's show is about fundamental freedom and the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children. This transcends the controversy over the science of vaccines, for it is about our most basic beliefs about how society should be structured. Should we entrust the power of life and death over ourselves and our children to governments and mega-corporations? Should we surrender our free will and independence to the "experts", believing that only they can make the right decisions for us?
Or do we trust our own capacity to think, judge and act in our own best interest?
This vital question, I believe, is at the heart of the crisis in today's democracies, as we progress towards fascism. In the emerging fascist state, the rights of the individual are subordinated to an almost mystical notion of the greater good, as determined by corporate sponsored scientists, technocrats and self serving politicians - who are all exploiting the general population in some way. We are being lied to, ripped off, lectured to, and injured by those who run the key institutions at the heart of our society.
This situation is clearly intolerable, and there must ultimately be a revolution of sorts to restore basic common law and morality to our body politic. Let's hope the revolution can be achieved peacefully.
I hope you enjoy the show!
Related Links
Meryl Dorey on vaccine safety
Our guest today for the 2nd hour is Meryl Dorey, who runs the Australian Vaccination Network, a non-profit organisation which sets out to inform people about the hidden facts regarding both the efficacy and safety of vaccines.
As noted in last week's show, Meryl has been investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) due to her vocal criticism of mainstream medical science.
In July 2010, the HCCC issued a warning after the AVN failed to comply with its recommendation to disclose on its website that the group's purpose was to provide anti-vaccination information. The AVN appealed, and in February 2012 the NSW Supreme Court ruled the HCCC should not have issued a public warning at all - and was not within its jurisdiction in doing so.
In addition to the official investigations, Meryl has been the target of an aggressive campaign from a lobby group calling itself "Stop the AVN", whose goal is to completely silence the AVN, and by implication, anyone one else who might dare to publicly challenge the absolute authority of the of the government/corporate partnerships which control our health care system.
From the AVN website:
By the time an Australian child is 12 months old, they will receive 23 vaccines and by the time they start school, that number will more than double. We owe it to our children to be fully informed about all aspects of vaccine safety and effectiveness. If we don’t investigate this issue fully, we may not be doing the best thing for our children or for ourselves.
The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc. (AVN) has been operating since 1994 with a mandate to provide scientifically-sourced information on this complex and difficult issue. We believe that everyone has the right to access all available data on vaccinations, immunisations, immunizations, inoculations – whatever you choose to call them. The government and the medical community provide you with one side of the story – the AVN gives you the other side. Taken together, this data will allow you to make the best possible decision for the health of your child.
Our discussion today covers a broad range of questions in relation to the safety and efficacy of immunisation. Meryl also documents some of the protracted legal struggle in which she has been engaged, simply for asserting the right to present an alternative opinion to the public on matters of health.
Related Links
- Australian Vaccination Network
- Anti-vaccine group wins court victory
- Assistant Police Commissioner tells Sydney town hall forum "now is the time to fix the city's alcohol addiction"
- THE GREATER GOOD - A new documentary about childhood immunizations
- Insider Reveals GlaxoSmithKline Targeted Children with Illegal Drug Marketing
Free speech in Australia under threat
DISCLAIMER: This article is NOT an advertisement for "black salve", nor should it be construed as promoting the use of "black salve".
We tend to believe that in Australia, despite excessive taxation, nanny state legislation, over-regulation and a spiralling cost of living, we at least have free speech, right?
At least we are not like China where the government has a list of banned topics that cannot be discussed publicly, right?
Wrong!
Our government, via a maze of bureaucracies, can and does prohibit discussion, even in a purely journalistic way, about alternative health products and therapies which are not "approved" by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). TGA (the equivalent of the FDA in the US) has wide ranging powers to prevent the sale, advertising and apparently even the discussion of non-approved health products, one of which is the purported cancer cure known as "black salve".
My guest today in the 2nd hour is Leon Pittard, host of Fair Dinkum Radio, who has been served with a complaint from the TGA due to an interview he conducted with Meryl Dorey, Director of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), a non-profit organisation which helps people make informed decisions about vaccines.
The AVN has been targeted for several years by pro-vaccine lobbyists whose website, "Stop the AVN", declares that "the anti-vaccination propaganda issued by the AVN and its President, Meryl Dorey, is a menace to public health". This group has been behind complaints against the AVN which were upheld by another government organisation, the "Health Care Complaints Commission" (HCCC).
More recently, the AVN was ordered to stop selling a DVD titled One Answer to Cancer, which promotes the use of a herbal remedy known as "black salve". Despite complying with the demand to remove the DVD from sale on their website, the AVN and Leon Pittard are now being harassed simply for talking about the subject during an interview on Fair Dinkum Radio on on 5 May 2012.
Leon Pittard has documented the entire saga in his article and press release, "Australian thought police target free speech".
Next week we will be interviewing Meryl Dorey to get her perspective on this deeply troubling chain of events.
VIDEO ON BLACK SALVE FROM PANACEA BOCAF
Related Links
Celebrating year zero of the eco-technic dictatorship
To mark the introduction into Australia of the most barbaric, pointless and deceptive tax ever conjured up by a phony democracy, we bring you a replay of an interview with Christopher Monckton which dates back to January 2010.
At that time Lord Monckton was touring Australia to talk about climate science fraud and to warn against the introdution of the Emissions Trading Scheme as it was known back then. You can listen to the full, original interview here.
In the second hour, my guest is Joshua Blakeney, co-organiser of the Vancouver 9/11 hearings. In recent shows our guests have raised concerns about the quality and reliability of the research conducted by those who spoke at this event, so in this show we provide an alternate opinion from someone who proudly describes his mission as "expanding the boundaries of 9/11 Truth".
World Roundup with George Georgios
Today we bring you a show which covers a wide range of stories from around the world, including news on all the latest annoying Nanny State measures which our listeners have come to expect from TNRA.
Some topics covered include the introduction of high tech surveillance drones in Queensland, forensic science fraud, government legal threats over anti carbon tax posters the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes to "protect" people from degue fever, the "revised" swine flu death toll, and a report on the Rio Summit from Chistopher Monckton.
For part of the show I am joined once again by George Georgios.
Please enjoy!
Related Links
- Where are all the dead bodies from swine flu? CDC’s new estimates of half a million dead prove too comedic to ignore
- Queensland Police to trial hi-tech surveillance drones to chase criminals
- Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes Released in Australian Towns
- Swine flu death toll revised to nearly 300,000 people
- Forensic sciences are misused and unproven according to top forensic law authoritiy
- Warning issued over anti-carbon tax posters
News roundup and an interview with Frank Legge
NOTE: Due to major commitments, I am currently unable to remove ads from TNRA podcasts. I welcome any offers of assistance in this regard.
In this week's show we begin with a roundup of breaking news within Australia and around the world.
Some of the topics covered include Julian Assange's bid for asylum in Ecuador, the ongoing hostilities against Syria, and the collusion of Amnesty International in spreading disinformation and war propaganda.
In the second hour John Bursill interviews Dr Frank Legge on his 9/11 research and recent papers published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
SYRIAN GIRL ON AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL:
Related Links
David Chandler and John Bursill address the fringes of the truth movement
Today John Bursill takes the helm as guest host.
John is joined by two excellent guests who have become known within the 9/11 Truth Movement as two of it's most wise and reasonable voices. We warmly welcome Ken Jenkins in the first hour and David Chandler in the second. Also we are very lucky be joined by film maker and expert on the Oklahoma City Bombing Chris Emery.
On today's show John takes a look a the current state of the 9/11 Movement and the evidence that conspiracy paranoia and unfounded theories are taking back ground within the alternative media circles and bloggs.
John Bursill: "Many highly dedicated and educated advocates have provided so much solid evidence that the official account of 9/11 is false, it would be a shame for that work to now be destroyed in the public by outspoken uneducated folks simply because they decide their opinion is more important to be heard than facts and the science."
I hope you enjoy the show!
Exposing the criminal injustice system with George Georgios
In today's show we are joined in the first hour by Josh Jackson from Germany. We cover the fiscal crisis in Europe and Josh gives us some interesting insights.
In the second hour George Georgios returns to talk about the systemic injustice and corruption within the criminal justice system. George has many insights into this subject based on in depth interviews with both prison inmates and judicial authorities.
Some news stories covered in this show include the shocking news from New Zealand that the courts now have been given control of the reproductive rights of women, with powers to issue a blanket ban on having babies to women deemed to be at risk of harming or neglecting their offspring.
We present an excellent video released by Koozzoo Media, highlighting the risks associated with full body scanners.
We also take a critical look at recent news on the Carbon Tax, with the Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, stating that the Carbon Tax is "here to stay".
Related Links
Short, powerful video explains why we must oppose body scanners in Australia
This excellent video was produced by the video production company Koozzoo for Civil Liberties Australia.
Recent Comments
Leonard Clampett,
again: what do you think was the altitude of the Cirrocumulus clouds visible close to the upper right edge of your third picture?
Were they above the contrails? Or just closer to you?
By Josh on 2012 12 03 - 17:27:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Dear oh dear Hereward, your ignorance of the law and Maxims of same are shining through. I suppose you did a Google search to find something that fits your claim. Right?
How about “•Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probatio. The proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies.”
and as you and Josh affirm that chemtrails do not exist you must demonstrate the proof of your claim. I do not deny that chemtrails exist and you and your sidekick, Josh, do. Over to you.
I accept your claim on proof of claim as I have no need to pursue a claim of right as chemtrails are available for sighting every day.
Your great problem is that it is not possible to prove a negative averment.
Best of luck old son.
Another good adage to remember is “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging lest you become lost in it.”
This is my blood sport, discussing matters of great import with those who come to a battle of wits totally unarmed, such as Josh and your good self. Some play football but I choose discussion as words are the path to real truth.
Leonard, you said:
Until you come up with something concrete that demonstrates that there is no chemtrail spraying across the globe, the evidence stands as fact as non-rebuttal is silence, and silence is consent.
Here you have expressed another logical fallacy, known as “shifting the burden of proof”:
Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
- source
I have noticed that chemtrail theorists continually use this kind of flawed reasoning when they argue their case. It is puzzling.
By Hereward Fenton on 2012 12 03 - 12:24:31
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 03 - 12:59:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard, you said:
Here you have expressed another logical fallacy, known as “shifting the burden of proof”:
I have noticed that chemtrail theorists continually use this kind of flawed reasoning when they argue their case. It is puzzling.
By Hereward Fenton on 2012 12 03 - 12:24:31
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Hereward and Josh. And now for something different, the bullshit surrounding 9-11. I remember posting this back in about 2002 and it has popped up on a web-site after a search. I wonder if you two apply the same critical criterion to the 9-11 events as you do to chemtrails, or do you agree with the corrupt US Administration as well on this?
Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation
The Communications Officer
IFALPA
Dear Sir,
Having retired for some few years, and with time on my hands, I have
been trying to unravel the events of September 11 2001.
Most intriguing of all is the claims regarding American Airlines flight 77 which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon building.
An examination of the photographs released by the authorities, taken by a security camera outside the pentagon, allegedly showing an aircraft approaching and hitting the building, appear to have been manipulated with regard to the time frame.
The claimed aircraft in the first photograph is most certainly not a
large civil airline aircraft but appears to be more like a cruise
missile.
The authorities claim that the four photographs released were taken
4/100ths of a second apart.
The problem with that claim is that if it were so, the four photographs would show only the approach and not the collision because the aircraft concerned could not have moved far enough in 4/100ths of a second to hit the building.
Given the following;
Boeing 757 is 155 feet long and 44 feet high at the top of the
tailplane.
Assume 450 knots. If the aircraft appeared in the first photograph, then it would advanced 30.4 feet, or about 1/5th of the length of the
fuselage, in 4/100ths of a second. There would have been no explosion as the aircraft would not have reached the building by that time.
450 knots by 6080 feet divided by 60 minutes divided by 60 seconds
divided by 100 by 4/100ths equals 30.4 feet traveled in 4/100ths of a
second. i.e. approximately 1/5th of the length of the fuselage.
At 550 knots the aircraft would have advanced 37.15 feet and
at 650 knots would have advanced 43.91 feet.
At any of the above speeds the aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon between the first and fourth photographs. Even a subsonic missile could not have reached the building in that time and if it was a missile at supersonic speed the sonic boom would have been heard by all in the vicinity.
The time recorded for the photographs is nowhere near 9 am local time of the alleged event.
The aircraft would not have been a blur on the film it would have loomed large.
The wreckage shown as claimed to have come from the 757 appears to be
either an engine cowl or large fairing of some kind from a much smaller craft, perhaps a cruise missile. Indeed the blur in the first photograph looks suspiciously like a cruise missile in shape.
According to the measurements shown on the site the tail of a 757, at 44 feet, would have been about two thirds of the way up the building, 71 feet, in aspect.
There would have been identifiable wreckage at the crash site regardless of the intensity of the fire. An aircraft hitting a mountain in cruise always leaves wreckage, particularly from the empennage (tail section) and that is why the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) and CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) are mounted in that area. There would have been less longitudinal compression of the wreckage (if you can find it, and in 35 years in the aviation industry, and seeing numerous crash sites, I have never heard of an aircraft completely dissolving following a crash) in comparison to hitting a mountain as mountains are scandalously solid compared to man-made structures like concrete buildings.
Has American Airlines confirmed conclusively that they lost two aircraft on that day?
Has the FDR or CVR from American Airlines (AA) Flight 77 been recovered?
What were the serial numbers and registration designations of the four
crashed aircraft?
Does Boeing throw any light on the subject of the four aircraft as to
their serial numbers?
Which insurance company/ies paid out on the hull of AA 77?
Is it proven that four aircraft crashed or went missing on September 11 2001?
Did two flight crews from each of American Airlines and United Airlines die that day?
What were their names? The pilots/flight attendants unions should be
able to confirm this.
Has anybody confirmed the existence of the American Airlines aircraft
that has been reported sitting at an airport in Manitoba since early
September, under heavy US military guard?
Leonard W. Clampett
Airline Transport Pilot (Retired)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
[020320]
I have been reading a few postings with interest.
Some of a few facts that have been missing from a lot of these
discussions is that, for instance in the Pentagon matter, should a
number of things happen in a 757, certain other things happen
automatically.
In all civil Transport Category aircraft, whenever the aircraft is put
into certain configurations, all kinds of warning and override systems
operate. These are mandatory requirements and all checked pre-flight
before every flight to ensure their operation. This is why civil
aviation has such a high safety standard and performance.
Fly too slow without flap and leading edge high-lift devices extended or with the landing gear retracted and the computer system will advance the thrust levers to ensure the aircraft maintains sufficient flying speed.
Fly too low without having the aircraft in the landing configuration
(i.e. gear and flaps down) and the Ground Proximity Warning System
(GPWS) will remind you in a very loud synthesised voice which conveys
greater urgency the longer the condition persists without correction.
Computers will take over and fly the aircraft out of trouble if the
system is not purposely disabled. Purposely disable the system and
operation of the aircraft becomes restricted.
One problem with the theories of the control of the aircraft being taken over by external sources, such as in “Global Hawk”, is that pilots are trained to deal with all probable emergencies and have various ways in which they can disable electrical systems and/or redirect power supplies by pulling circuit breakers and fuses. Loss of control over flight management systems is a probable emergency pilots are trained for. I seriously doubt that an aircraft would be approved to fly if the crew could not maintain on-board control of the aircraft in the event of electrical system/computer malfunction except in extreme circumstances such as complete loss of all electrical and hydraulic power. If an external source took control it would have to do so through the aircraft’s own systems and the pilots would know their systems were still capable of operation and could isolate the problem.
Most pilots are critical analysts who realize they may have to deal with very unusual circumstances at some time, and know their aircraft systems back to front so they can take care of such events.
A pilot without many years of experience on a type will not know the
minor intricacies of how to deal with system problems.
Flying a 757 at high speed close enough to the ground to collide with
the Pentagon building, without knowing how to disable the aircraft
systems, is quite laughable. To do it and hit the building with any
accuracy would take a pilot trained on and experienced on the type. 300 tonnes of inertia has to be controlled in anticipation, at high speed.
In the WTC events the only system that would warn of the approaching
towers would be the GPWS and that could be disabled with the pulling of a circuit breaker. The pilots may not have bothered disabling it because it would have only sounded for a few seconds at the most just prior to collision. The aircraft would otherwise be in normal flight according to the systems, flying straight and level or manoeuvring at high speed.
Amateur pilots hitting the WTC? Possible. Amateur pilots flying a 757 at high speed into the Pentagon building? Not likely and highly improbable.
Leonard W. Clampett
Airline Transport Pilot (retired)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 03 - 12:09:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Josh Anonymous, Verily forsooth, gadzooks and odd bodkins, see what my good friend came across after perusing the faux web-site “Truth News”.
Truth News Australia
@truthnewsoz
Boldly venturing beyond the spin, deception and propaganda of mainstream media.
Sydney · http://www.truthnews.com.au
After getting that I just had to return to see whatever else you and Hereward are offering to the viewers as entertainment today. I can’t pass up the chance of a good laugh at any time and that was funnier than the day that granny got her rather ample backside jammed in the seat of the old long drop dunny, but talk of long drops probably goes back too far for you two to even know about.
As you and Hereward consider yourselves to above others in your self aggrandised knowledge platform, and as neither of you seem to have ventured into the upper atmosphere, let alone the real world of actual reporting of truth, pray tell, which of the authors-unknown-to-you web-sites have attempted in vain to debunk the following
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=78rKNoR4T0w
Just a snippet, a tad, of information for you and Hereward. A discussion between myself and some other pilots, all of who would have personally spent more time in the air, at the controls, than you have been breathing, according to your self claimed offerings, resolved that the pair of you are either simply pushing your misconceived beliefs or are practising disinformationists, but the general consensus is that you would not be clever enough to be disinformationists so you must be simple and clinging to your ill-informed beliefs.
As to aircraft operating in controlled airspace sans a clearance, note that the culprit aircraft are not visible to the local area radar except perhaps as a small indiscernible blip because they are not operating transponders. This also means that none of the aircraft concerned could be properly utilising their TCAS and only visual flight could save them from a collision. TCAS being the on-board Collision Avoidance System. Air Safety par excellence, oui?
Note in the video, about the 6 minute mark, that a couple of the chemtrail spraying aircraft are not emitting anything from the engine exhausts, but the spraying is clear to see.
Just some info for you pair regarding the Brisbane chemtrail spraying operation shown in my photographs. The Brisbane International Airport Control Zone extends from ground level to 3,500 feet. From the boundary of that Zone to 12 nautical miles the controlled airspace limits are 1,000 feet to FL200 (Flight Level 200 which is 20,000 feet above the altimeter setting of 1013.2 Mb/hPa - Millibars/Hectopascals). From 12 nautical miles to 15 nautical miles the limits are 2,000 feet to FL200. From 15 nautical miles to 30 nautical miles the limits are 4,500 to FL200, all based on the BIA (Brisbane International Airport) reference point. Our home at Enoggera is within 10 nautical miles of the BIA and regardless of your thoughts, from your geographical location, wherever you hide it, about the location of the chemtrails shown in my photographs, the facts are clear and laid down. Until you come up with something concrete that demonstrates that there is no chemtrail spraying across the globe, the evidence stands as fact as non-rebuttal is silence, and silence is consent.
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 03 - 08:22:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett said:
“Take a look at the following video, but I strongly suggest that you don’t if you think a few facts will get in the way of the ‘truth’ as you see it.”
This video has already been debunked, I won’t start all over again:
Thread at the Metabunk forum
You also said:
“there will always be those like yourselves, who are unable to let go of their belief and accept what is real, even when it is before your very eyes.”
I am accepting what is real.
The atmospheric soundings retrieved with weather balloons are real.
They show that the variability of the atmospheric humidity is real.
It’s real that one tonne of jet fuel generates 1.3 tonnes of water when burned.
Supersaturation is a reality and can cause persisting contrails even without other clouds present. Real scientists don’t have any doubt about this.
It does not require any belief to accept persistant contrails with all their varying appearances as normal and part of the reality.
On the other hand: someone claiming that all these things are not real can be expected to provide some very convincing evidence.
Otherwise it’s indeed just a matter of belief.
By Josh on 2012 12 03 - 04:08:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Hereward Fenton, Hereward Fenton, Hereward Fenton, and Josh anonymous,
Take a look at the following video, but I strongly suggest that you don’t if you think a few facts will get in the way of the “truth” as you see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xx-STEA-Vqo&noredirect=1
Hereward, you may remove my log-in details as I see no point in attempting to converse with people who are unable to discuss and have an agenda only to try to debunk something that has been occurring since the 1960’s.
Have a great time sitting at your computers pretending to be “experts” on a subject about which you have had no experience.
You have exposed yourself Hereward Fenton, as wanting to be exactly the same as mainstream media. No matter who makes any claim of any kind, there are always those who will disagree, and there will always be those like yourselves, who are unable to let go of their belief and accept what is real, even when it is before your very eyes.
Josh anonymous, having done the meteorology examination (although I note you don’t claim to have passed it) equal to a Private Pilot Licence, come back and try a discussion after you have done both Commercial and Airline Transport meteorology examinations. Then you will be able to say you have learned something.
Hereward Fenton, I would not be party to your “show”, as that is what it is for, just a show, and your intent is obviously to attempt to maintain your claim that there are no chemtrails being sprayed across the globe, as they have been for over 40 years, and appears to outsiders to be a stunt for whatever purpose you have in mind. That is not called debate or even discussion. It is a deceitful act of pretence.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I note for the record and for readers to this page that you have flatly refused to come on my show to debate this topic.
By Hereward Fenton on 2012 12 01 - 17:19:43
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 02 - 12:30:47
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett said:
“as you appear not to have any training, qualifications or experience in aviating, you would not know the severe penalties for breaching controlled airspace.”
I have a glider licence and I’m working on the one for TMG. I have done the same meteorology and air traffic rules exams as my fellow powered pilots.
But this is beside the point. Even at 10000 feet, you may get permission to cross an airport area if you ask. It’s up to the controller.
At 30000 feet, you are always in controlled airspace, as you certainly know.
Anyway, all your reasoning is based on your altitude estimation:
You insist you could tell the trails were on 10000 feet, ergo they must have been chemical spraying, ergo they were in the airspace above Brisbane airport, ergo they were sprayed with consent of whatever authority.
What do you think was the altitude of the Cirrocumulus clouds visible close to the upper right edge of your third picture?
By Josh on 2012 12 01 - 19:21:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett said:
“Josh simply took a guess and claimed that the chemtrails in the photographs were at 30,000 feet with no substantive evidence on his part”
You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post.
I did not claim a certain altitude. I was referring to your assumption that these trails were directly over Brisbane airport.
Now, the likelyhood of a contrail forming below 30000 ft or so is very low. So if one accepts the fact that these were normal contrails (I understand very well that you don’t), the minimum horizontal distance to the observer can be calculated.
You on the other hand have made the claim that the trails were definitely at 10000 feet. Your evidence is “level of visible details”.
Again, the amount of visible details of any object depends on its size as well as its distance.
You will need a better argument why you are assuming the unlikely over the likely.
As to your 50 years of experience, allow me the remark that you may have missed some of the more recent steps of progress in science and technology.
Are you still insisting that there is no such thing as supersaturation
or dew point reporting from radio sondes?
By Josh on 2012 12 01 - 18:13:37
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard, your whole argument about the altitude of the contrail seems to boil down to these assertions:
1) you have 50 years experience observing contrails
2) your on the spot observation overrides the photographic evidence
Now, the first assertion is just an appeal to authority and as such is a classical logical fallacy - so I will disregard it immediately. (More information on logical fallacies can be found here).
As for the 2nd assertion, first you advanced a photo as evidence for your case, then, when that evidence did not stand up to scrutiny, you “moved the goal posts” by claiming that your “on-the-spot” observations supercede the photographic evidence:
I think you’re playing games Leonard. You seem quite intelligent. I think you know what you’re doing. It’s pretty low.
I note for the record and for readers to this page that you have flatly refused to come on my show to debate this topic.
By Hereward Fenton on 2012 12 01 - 17:19:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.