Message posted by Terry93 on January 28, 2004 at 14:19:13 PST:
Please do not think me cruel or confrontational as I am interested in the topic but unfortunately your process is flawed. Pardon my deconstruction of your last posting on the subject. "unfortunately due to security reasons, I am unable to approach said aircraft verify if any extensions." This is very convenient. In your prior post you used your working at LAX as an “appeal to authority” to justify your statements. This is a logical fallacy. Statement of fact with no evidence to support, another logical fallacy. I thought you said you could not approach said aircraft. "Third in retrospect there was story of an aircraft mechanic who had to check the back of an 737 for a mechanical problem and disovered (sic) that a device of some sort was placed in the back of said aircraft." Hearsay. Another version of “ I know a guy that knows a guy.” If you can find the primary source for this claim I would be interested in reading it. It also raises the question that we both agree on, that of operational security. If there were spray apparatus on board, and it is as highly a classified project as it must be if it exists, then why would they let a mechanic on board to fix things that was not indoctrinated into the program. Such an individual would be very familiar with the systems that should be present and would indeed notice these strange apparatus. "There is another story that boeing (sic) had diagrams of said device and were not disclosed So there already has been a discovery of an unknown device the details of it were not given for whatever the reason." "Oh as far as the security thing goes Janet airlines has never disclosed to my knowledge the fact that they fly workers to Groom. It was researchers that observed the flights and did their homework so i am saying is yes security measures do work and I'll use janet (sic) airlines as example. As for that matter look at Roswell and today is still being nondisclosed (sic) as well." Apples and oranges. This unfortunately, is a very poor example to prove your point. There is empirical data to support both these FACTS, and it was compiled by researchers who used good process. There are first hand observer reports backed up by both photographic and communications intelligence that supports the premise. Chain of evidence was observed making the facts stand on their own merit. This is not the case with “chemtrails”. To say that “you think” that this may be the fact is the first intellectually honest thing you have said in this post. You stated in your opening that you would not be allowed to approach said aircraft to verify due to security, now you state that you have not seen any and therefore they must launch from elsewhere. You cannot have it both ways. I would add that absence of data is not a proof. If we can agree that we are speculating and offering opinions then we can have a useful discussion on the subject. As I stated in my first posting I am agnostic on the subject. There are indications that I believe require further research, the type that has been used to identify at least some of the activities at Groom Lake; tracking of aircraft, checking patents, ELINT, photography. To merely make a statement of fact with no supporting evidence smacks of a religious belief rather than serious research. I have my own opinions on the matter and would be happy to share them with you as long as you realize that it is mere speculation that may possibly lead to fruitful avenues of research to prove or disprove the premise. I will not enter into a “yes there are, no there aren’t” discussion. I stopped doing that in grade six.
" secondly(sic) said aircraft that do the chemtrail spraying do not land nor depart LAX."
Once again, hearsay. To start a statement “there is a story” is to invalidate it immediately. And then to use an unsubstantiated statement as a proof is another logical fallacy.
"Finally I have looked on the ramp for spray nozzles on commercial airliners. I think these commercial jets that are doing the spraying are not launching from civilian airports. Because as you state there would have been a security leak!. "
In Reply to: Re: terry has brought up an issue posted by Aaron Johnson on January 28, 2004 at 12:10:30 PST:
Replies: