Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

“Schapelle is innocent” - Australian government

February 5, 2014, part 1 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here
February 5, 2014, part 2 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here

07 February 2014 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ Gerry Georgatos, Schapelle Corby ]

Kerobokan Prison
Floods are a common occurence inside Bali's Kerobokan Prison

Today in the second hour we welcome investigative journalist Gerry Georgatos, who will be discussing the Schapelle Corby case in depth and why he believes she is totally innocent of importing 4.2 Kg of marijuana into Bali in 2004.

Schapelle is due to be released on parole shortly and we have once again seen the media engage in baseless attacks on her character, the most outrageous of which was the suggestion on prime time TV, by a woman claiming to be her former lawyer, that Schapelle would be celebrating her release with a huge marijuana joint. In another bizarre smear a major media site published an article suggesting that Shapelle's supporters have exaggerated the pain and suffering caused by her incarceration. An article published on Yahoo 7 (now scrubbed), suggested that life inside Bali's Kerobokan prison was almost idyllic, with prisoners receiving art, reflexology, sewing, knitting and cooking classes. A reference to the deleted article can be found here. The reality, as documented by former inmate Rachel Dougall, is that life inside Kerobokan prison is very harsh indeed, with rampant drug abuse, the constant risk of violence and extremely poor living conditions.

Gerry Georgatos is an independent journalist who writes for The Stringer, and has previously appeared on the ABC 7:30 report exposing the mistreatment of minors held in detention over people smuggling charges.

In today's discussion Gerry makes the startling claim that officials in both the Australian and Indonesian governments have admitted to him privately that they know Schapelle is innocent.

By the time you read this article Schapelle will hopefully be free on parole, however the quest for truth, justice and restitution will have barely begun.

In our interview today Gerry explains that it is vital the Australian people are properly informed about the substantive issues in this case and the wealth of evidence held by the government that goes against the popular belief that Schapelle is guilty as charged.

As for the mainstream media and their decade long barrage of character defamation against the Corby family, this is a matter for all Australians to consider very deeply and to take action on. The media needs to be reformed and there needs to be justice meted out to those who have manufactured lies to protect corrupt government institutions.

The Schapelle Corby campaign will most certainly not end with her release from prison!

Related Links

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Andrew Adams,

you have argued that there would always be natural clouds present if conditions were right for persistent contrails.

In my reply I quoted an atmospheric scientist who spends his life with researching contrails. He says that persistent contrails can form in levels of ice supersaturation that are not yet high enough for natural cirrus formation.

Do you think he is wrong?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 18:54:22
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

what is your evidence for the aerosol spraying that you are referring to?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 18:39:28
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

There is no reason on earth why one should keep on talking about contrails vs chemtails just because those who launched this aerosol spraying decades ago thought that it would be nice to have the contrails cover story. The starting point for discussion is the claims by geoengineering advocates (such as Clive Hamilton in Australia) that solar radiation management would be a good idea and that aerosol spraying for geoengineering or other undisclosed purposes is not already a global reality. And the onus of proof is on them, i.e. those that are making this claim.

By Wayne Hall on 2014 11 01 - 16:42:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

josh dumdum,
you still seem incapable of comprehending the simple fact that i consider engaging seriously with you a complete waste of time..

your only qualification from the school of sophistry does not qualify you to pretend you are some sort of expert on anything, and again, nothing you say is of any interest to me. you have failed time and time again to prove people should not be concerned.

i dont need you to tell me anything, nor does anyone else. there are plenty of qualified experts who are not afraid to put their names to their claims who id trust way before someone who spends an inordinate amount of time on nondescript websites trying to “debunk” the truth…

that is the lie.

 

 

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 10:20:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

you say “if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present”.

And there often are other cirrus clouds around when contrails persist for long! In clear blue skies, contrails are quite often not persisting. Both does not always apply though; see quote further below which has the reason for that.

The process I described is how persistent contrails form; it’s not just a claim I make. Read NASA’s contrail pages for a starter. It has to say:

Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide), but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air.” (Emphasis is mine)

Or read Ulrich Schumann’s concise 2005 paper on contrails, which contains this sentence:

Contrails evaporate quickly if the ambient air is dry; they persist, evolve into more extended cirrus clouds and grow in particle size by deposition of ambient water vapour on the ice particles in the contrails if the ambient air is humid enough.” (Emphasis is mine)

In the conclusion of the paper, you’ll find a hint why it’s quite possible that there may be persistent contrails without surrounding clouds:

Many aspects of contrail formation are well understood. Contrails from for thermodynamic reasons when the ambient air is cold enough. Persistent contrails form in ice-supersaturated air masses. In such cases often contrail cirrus forms where no cirrus would form otherwise because ice supersaturation is often too low for natural cirrus particle nucleation.” (Emphasis is mine)

Now can you tell me where you think there is a lie?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 09:25:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.”

if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present, ones that have not come out the back of an aircraft. if the humidity is there, you wouldnt need an aircraft going past in order for clouds to appear in an otherwise perfectly clear blue sky.

appareently fenton likes truth here, yet not only does he tolerate your lies, he encourages it.

not the first sign of hypocristy we see from him though. still cant tear himself away from facebook i see )

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:34:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Burden of proof. Clever legal chess play.
Isn’t it the case that those that rule us do so in deference to our sovereignty.
Isn’t it the case that .many of us do not consent to the above mentioned rulership.
Isn’t it the case that if one were to ask one of the said rulers to write down and sign at their own individual unlimited commercial liability that geoengineering, including but not limited to “chemtrails”, for the purpose of weather manipulation is not being conducted that there would be a refusal.
Is it not the case that a refusal to the previous proposition would amount to tacit agreement that what is referred to is happening.
The burden of proof rests on him who affirms not on him who denies….but there are ways snaring the slippery.

By Cris on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

““i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.”

i think you need to look up the definition of dictatorial fenton. banning people here simply because you can would more fit the definition than me suggesting someone take a drink from a mug.

as far as honesty goes, i really doubt you have a leg to stand on there, because if i were to believe you really want me to “have a nice day” instead of it being a smarmy glib sarcastic jibe, then id be as gormless as josh, who still cant seem to understand the fact that nothing he can say here, in his role as unqualified mendacious shill, is of any interest to me.

further on honesty, you say “i think we can all agree that a plane hit the pentagoin” - not verbatim, but its close - so perhaps you can show us what you base that falsehood on?

further on honesty you continue to pretend chemtrails are a non issue, disregarding the concerns of thousands more qualified than you.

further on henesty, you call this site truthnews…

have a shitty day <—- at least im honest

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

the point that rational people make is that the stuff coming from the airplane exhaust stays indeed the same, but what’s changing is the situation around the plane. At one day there is dry air, at annother there is a lot of humidity. (See my explanation how the latter can happen when a front is approaching.)

If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.

By the way, that is a well-known plausibility argument against chemtrails - no plane is able to carry the mass equivalent of even a small persistant trail (search “ice budget”).

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 23:46:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

I don’t claim to be an expert. However, I have read a lot about both chemtrail claims and their dissection from a scientic point of view, from sources that are accessible to everyone.

If something specific that I wrote is wrong, I certainly welcome a correction. Usually, I’m giving references from actual experts, so it’s only fair that any rebuttal should include specific references too. Also, I’d welcome if we could stay polite.

The science of persistent contrails is well established. They were observed since the early days of aviation (see also the top article), and the conditions that favour them were researched in the middle of the 20th century (Schmidt and Appleman, see for instance the introduction of this paper).

The Appleman Chart is a rule of thumb for contrail prediction. It is not very intuitive, but there is a visualization available which allows to adjust the parameters and see how the contrail properties are changing (needs Java).

Any claim that a specific persistent contrail cannot be explained with this knowledge needs to be based on very good evidence. If the evidence is reviewed and still stands, science has to be corrected. That’s the whole idea about scientific research - but the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 22:38:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories