Evan Burton

This may be, in fact, a testimony in favour of nuclear power. I have got to get my facts checked, but I believe that all the nuclear power plants closer to the epicentre have shut down without incident, and the reactor(s) that are having the problems were due to be decommissioned in a couple of weeks because they were of old technology and didn't meet the standards required for today. Even so, they managed to get through a huge earthquake and a tsunami. Even the radiation leakage is relatively minor, if reports are correct (and yes, they may be quite wrong). Even if the reactors at risk were to suffer a meltdown, they are in containment buildings, unlike Chernobyl.

I think a post-incident examination of their performance may reveal they did very well.

They're not chemtrails Jack - they are called clouds. Don't you have any compassion for what these people have gone through? Instead, you try and link your crazy chemtrail notions to a natural disaster, trying to make miles out of it. You have no shame, do you? I put you in the same category as those religious zealots who claim it is some type of 'retribution from God' to punish the Japanese. You really are as bad as each other.

I have no idea whether or not these "clouds" contain chemicals.

They do, in fact. There is residue from fuel / combustion so they do contain chemicals... but they are not, in general, the "chemtrails" as people claim. So in fact we have a couple of points:

- Ordinary contrails do contain chemicals when formed by the combustion process from a jet engine.

- Chemical spray is a known process, so it is possible to have chemical trails laid by aircraft (I'll mention this later).

They resembled a "checker board" across the entire sky. We counted as many as 6 to 8 nearly straight lines running parallel to each other across the otherwise completely clear, blue sky and an additional 5 or 6 lines intersecting those perpendicularly at 90 degrees.

Again, quite normal. The airspace above us has "roads" in the sky, to help control aircraft and prevent collision. Some are one way, some are speed limited, etc. These often overlap... but are separated in altitude.

Eventually those well defined lines mutated into what appeared to be cirrus clouds and dissipated--but they did NOT disappear. They hung around in a different form. Then we would observe additional

"lines" being laid out by either the same or additional aircraft, which subsequently dissipated--without disappearing--building up cloud cover over a period of hours.

Under certain conditions, the contrails spread out; it all depends upon the environment. I have to question something here: how did you know it was the same aircraft?

Now, the sky was no longer "clear" at all. It was filled with "whispy" clouds. But, there is absolutely no question as to how these "clouds" were formed--in terms of their source. The source was definitely the aircraft.

Yep, that can happen with contrails. With the right lapse rate and little to no horizontal movement of the air parcel, that's what you'll see. It's been seen many time over all parts of the world on a regular basis.

However, it is NOT easily dismissed, as it is NOT as "obviously explainable" as some here suggest.

It is actually easily explainable. If people wish to claim that they are NOT contrails, then why don't they start by recording data such as pressure / temperature / height, wind speed / direction at various altitudes, dew point at various altitudes, what aircraft of what type travelled on what air route and when?

Why don't they arrange airborne sample collection?

(Ground samples are contaminated by whatever is on the ground / local industry, etc)

Lastly, and most importantly, use all that data to correlate where - if the aircraft were laying some type of chemical treatment - the effective area would have been? If you are laying a spray, you'd want to be about 500 - 1500 feet above the ground for it to be accurately laid. Doing it at altitudes over 10,000 or 20,000 feet like the photos of so-called chemtrail operations show would mean the trail would be dispersed widely according to the winds at various levels, making it almost impossible to predict the effected area... that would receive a highly diluted dose from the original spray.

If I am wrong, produce evidence. Pretty simple. For instance, produce a met report for the date / time at DFW, including altitude data. Produce some METARs, PIREPs, TTF, etc. Pretty simple - why don't you give actual evidence to support your position?

Those are not CIRRUS clouds. The are all chemtrails spread out by winds aloft. The chemplanes

were busy all day in an otherwise blue sky. At sunset there were many more parallel ones in the

west as the sun set.

Jack

You have not presented any proof of that at all. As usual you make the claim, and fail to provide independent evidence. You have no qualifications in meteorology nor aviation. You haven't given any details regarding which flight it was, the altitude they were at (or passing), what the dew point was at various layers, no indication of an altitude versus temperature graph for the period you claim the image was taken, etc.

As always, you have nothing.

I was sent this from Ed Fendell, one of the Apollo era mission controllers. I think it is worth posting and discussing.

Family Security Matter

March 7, 2011

Forfeiting U.S. Leadership in Space

William R. Hawkins

The space shuttle "Discovery" is scheduled to complete its 13 day supply mission to the International Space Station (ISS) on March 9. It is the 135th space shuttle mission since the "Columbia" first lifted off on April 12, 1981. There are only two missions left in the program, one in April for the "Endeavor" and one in June for "Atlantis." The shuttles will have flown for over 30 years, during which time it should have been expected that a replacement system would have been developed. But it has not been. Even the loss of "Challenger" in 1986 and "Columbia" in 2005 did not spark action. When the shuttles are retired this summer, there is nothing to replace them; indeed, there is not even anything close to being ready. Presidents George W. Bush (2003) and Barack Obama (2010) cancelled shuttle replacement programs. The great lead that the United States has enjoyed in space since the first Moon landing on July 20, 1969 has been thrown away due to a lack of imagination in Washington.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has put out its 2011 Strategic Plan. Its first goal is to "extend and sustain human activities across the solar system." As the lead civilization of the current era, it is America's duty to advance human achievement. Yet, there is very little in the NASA plan or budget to fulfill this noble goal. The NASA plan relies first and foremost on "expanding efforts to utilize the ISS as a National Laboratory for scientific, technological, diplomatic, and educational purposes and for supporting future objectives in human space exploration." But without the shuttle or a replacement space vehicle, the U.S. will be dependent on the Russians for access to the ISS.

Yes, the Russians, who lost both the Space Race and the Cold War in the last century, are now poised to control the ISS. The Russians, it should be remembered, were invited into the ISS because the U.S., even though it was the richest nation on the planet and the world's most advanced scientific state, was looking for other countries to put up money for the ISS to lighten its own "burden." It would be hard to find a better example of the old adage "penny wise, but pound foolish."

NASA notes the danger. Its strategic plan has as a goal "reducing the risk of relying exclusively on foreign crew transport capabilities." But the road to that goal will be a long one. The report talks about creating"architectures" that will then lead to a "roadmap for affordable and sustainable human space exploration." So after 30 years of relying on shuttles that were designed in the 1970s, NASA is back to square one.

NASA knows, "The core elements to a successful implementation are a space launch system and a multipurpose crew vehicle to serve as our national capability to conduct advanced missions beyond low Earth orbit. Developing this combined system will enable us to reach cislunar space, near-Earth asteroids, Mars, and other celestial bodies." Tragically, no one higher up in Washington, either at the White House or in Congress, has cared enough about the nation's future in space to do anything about funding such a project. As long as there are still satellites that can beam down episodes of "American Idol" to a nation of couch potatoes, who cares about achieving anything more?

NASA is one of the few government programs than actually deserves to be called an investment. Its 2012 request of $18 billion is only 0.4 percent of a $3.7 trillion Federal budget. The bailout money given to the AIG insurance company would have funded NASA for a decade. Yet, the technology the space program has generated for society has rewarded taxpayers many times over. And developing new generations of scientific breakthroughs will continue to be a major strategic goal of the program.

NASA's role extends beyond the agency's own work. It has served as a stimulus for education and industry. It's 2011 report states, "One of NASA's top strategic goals is to Inspire students to be our future scientists, engineers, explorers, and educators through interactions with NASA's people, missions, research, and facilities." At a time when the performance of American students in math and science has fallen behind that of most of the world, there needs to be a new push to stimulate the public imagination and to provide rewarding careers for a new generation of innovative thinkers. But with NASA doing less in space, from where is the inspiration to come? Designing more video games?

The NASA report raises concerns about how to keep even its current high-skilled workforce employed, noting. "The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011 is ushering in a tran­sition period for the Nation's human space flight workforce." New programs, such as "development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule to carry explorers beyond Earth's orbit, including a mission to an asteroid next decade" are supposed to provide some jobs, but not enough. Shifting work to "green technology" and the study of "global warming" will not lead to new adventures in manned space exploration

Meanwhile, China is positioning itself to lead humankind' further into space. The state news agency Xinhua reported Friday, "The world's largest design, production and testing base for rockets is being built in Tianjin" as part of China's expanding space program. Twenty of the 22 plants have been completed, and some of are ready for operation. The base is designed to meet China's growing demand for space technology for the next thirty years. By integrating the industrial chain, the base will be able to produce the whole spectrum of rockets for China's lunar missions, its own space station and other ambitious projects according to Liang Xiaohong, deputy head of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology.

China is still behind the United States, having only sent its first multi-man orbital mission aloft in 2008, but it has big ideas. Beijing plans 20 space missions this year, and wants to land an unmanned vehicle on the Moon in 2013. China sent a spacecraft to orbit the Moon last October.

The stirring vision of giant space stations, commercial shuttle flights and extensive moon bases given to the public in the classic 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey has become a sad testimony to three decades of lost American opportunities. I have seen this once great American spirit of adventure reborn in China. I have been amazed (and alarmed) by displays of Chinese plans to build bases on the Moon, then move farther into the solar system. I grew up in a confident America animated by futuristic thinking, but that drive has faded. Beijing is now the home of energy and ambition.

What happens in space is not divorced from what happens on Earth. Though clearly helpful to military space projects, NASA is charted as a civilian organization in line with idealist notions about the heavens being a clean slate free of power politics. There are no such illusions in China. Beijing's manned-space program is placed under the General Armament Department within the Ministry of Defense. The Long March rockets used for space launches are similar in design to China's nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. More important, is the spirit demonstrated in the space effort. History has not been kind to nations that stagnate in the face of a rising competitor. The desire to succeed is the most important element in any strategy.

The NASA strategic plan claims, "Humanity's interest in the heavens has been universal and enduring. Humans are driven to explore the unknown, discover new worlds, push the boundaries of our scientific and technical limits, and then push further. NASA is tasked with developing the capabilities that will support our country's long-term human space flight and exploration efforts." But where is the higher national leadership with the vision to back these efforts? The frontier spirit that built America has waned. Both political parties are too busy looking at the mud around their feet to look up at the sky.

So much for the "giant leap for mankind" so bravely stated over 40 years ago. But what can be expected in a country where Buzz Aldrin, who with Neil Armstrong were the first men to walk on the Moon, ends up on "Dancing with the Stars" performing for an audience most of whom had never heard of him. Nothing could better portray the decline of American civilization.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member.

COPYRIGHT 2011 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.

I was quite serious that it could have been me, though. I was scheduled to fly out of DFW with a 1650 departure, but my inbound flight got delayed so I didn't get there until a little after 1700. As an aside, two people who attended the same conference as me - and who are both highly experienced aircrew members - remarked about just how busy the skies were around DFW.

That was me, Jack, on American 2459 to LAX and then back home. I made a special request that the crew dump airborne toxins over your house, and to ensure it was visible so that you could photograph it. Hope you appreciate the trouble I went to.

TIC!

7/7 topics (part 1 and 2) merged.

It's 2012. Iranians are just looking for something to complain about.

It's called confirmation bias.

I'm sure that western-allied military are hoping Gaddafi will fall, but you are quite correct - Bahrain is of strategic importance and has been stable in the past.

I've been waiting for something like that. Those types of people just love to attack others, because they cannot address the arguments. In fact, it is a type of back-handed compliment: you threaten their beliefs, so you must be doing a good job.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care who people are, for the most part. If they make statements and give references, and those references are correct & verified, then their arguments are valid. If it comes to a matter of opinion, then you might ask who the person is, how reliable are they, what experience do they have regarding the particular topic, etc.

Jack should go see a film called Gawd Bless America. There is a section in it where the film-makers get expert opinion on a crop circle. The expert proclaim it could not have been man-made, showed magnetic residue, and were absolutely convinced that it was the real deal.

Thing was, the film-makers found a guy who makes crop circles through Craigslist, and got him to make it up overnight for the film. They even film themselves making it. The reaction of the "expert" when he flies over the crop circle is priceless.

Regardless, I am certain that there will be people who will still claim it as real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuersBn6jYc

I was very surprised that some 50% of the people were more in favour of becoming an "Islamic" state. It seems they want to be a moderate state like Jordan, but I was ignorant of the popular feeling.

The board setting is to allow five, but for some reason it only allows two. I believe it is a bug with this version of the board but am unsure.

Jim, you should get your facts right. No engines?

That part above is from the engine:

Try "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon" and pay special attention to the smooth, green, and unblemished lawn as the civilian lime-green firetrucks are extinguishing the modest fires that remained.

Wrong again Jim, and a slight correction. The lime green fire trucks are the standard colour for aviation fire trucks. most often referred to as Oshkosh (from the truck brand name). They are not always green, but most are.

Now, the "unblemished lawn?

Note the vehicle tracks

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with his wife receiving the donation but it MUST be disclosed. Whether or not it was an innocent mistake (unlikely) and whether or not there is a sinister motive for not disclosing it, that judge is now tarred with the brush of uncertainty. He has become suspect regardless of whether he is completely innocent or not.

"Rescue crews were able to pull Calley's body from Flight 77's wreckage."

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=73724

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

"Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people."

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1276.pdf

That's a good point, David. I don't know. If Jim believes it was not of a passenger, then he could make a FOI request and ask if the image showed a passenger or a Pentagon employee. As we can see, it is not in it's original location; perhaps it was removed from an airline seat?

Craig,

What do you think would happen in the following scenario:

- All new gun sales subject suitability check (e.g. criminal record, history of psychological instability, etc) and demonstrated need (e.g. sports shooter / hunting, farmer, etc). Waiting period of about 30 days would apply. All holders required to be licenced with photograph and fingerprints.

- All weapons holders to undergo weapons proficiency test (safety handling).

- Sports / hunting / rifle sales only - no handguns. Rifles and shotguns limited - no automatic weapons, reasonable calibre weapons, etc.

- Sport (i.e. target) shooter weapons to be kept at range and use only permitted on authorised ranges.

- Hunters must have designated hunting areas and secure (approved) gun stowage. Outside of approved hunting seasons, weapons must be kept in an approved armoury (e.g. range).

- Existing weapons holders to conform with stowage requirements. Five year sunset period when they will be required to conform with aforementioned rules. Licence requirement with immediate effect.

- No concealed weapons permits except for certain designated state and federal personnel (e.g. sky marshal).

Working here. Send me your e-mail and I'll send you a copy.

Nice going Jim - if evidence appears that refutes your claims, just ignore it or claim it is faked. That's what you have done in the past, so why change?

Those images and reports were part of the Moussaoui trial and from people who were at the scene... which you and others were not. The onus is on you to prove that these images and accounts are not true.

Len,

The font size or publishing method has nothing to do with the premises or claims Dean makes. Other authors might be able to reduce publishing costs by volume, but again that has nothing to do with the claims.

The only times publishing method is relevant is when things are claimed to be in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, when in fact they are simply 'pay-to-publish' magazines.