11-08-2010, 02:17 PM
The Kent/Lewis tag-team assault on Jack White happening here mirrors the tactic evident on the EF.
They begin politely, invite civil exchange, and then quickly sink to the default "attack" mode.
The broader agenda is to assault all conspiracy hypotheses with the weapons of pseudoscience, evasion, and ridicule.
While some of their questions to Jack often may stand as valid scientific inquiry, K&L give away their shared game in many ways -- none more obvious than when they demonstrate feined ignorance.
Q. "Why don't they only spray at night?" [sic]
A. 1. Hide in plain (plane?) sight. 2. Operational necessity. 3. Support of "transparent conspiracy" strategy. 4. Some/all of the above.
Next, K&L treat us to a classic strawman fallacy:
Q. "A plane with a full load of passengers can’t carry the volume of liquid needed to spray these long paths you are seeing."
A. 1. There is no reason to believe that only commercial aircraft would be spraying. 2. The assumption that the "long paths" could be produced only by spraying large volumes of liquid is invalid due to the absence of information regarding the composition of the "paths."
I could go on and on ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "Matthew Lewis" character is one of the EF's primary debunkers.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the ether ...
Jack White is my friend. He is also a man full grown who must defend his own positions. No one on this forum is out to protect Jack from legitimate criticism.
Nonetheless, something stinks about the Kent/Lewis attacks. And I assure you, I'm not the only one who has their scent.
_______________________________________________
The following is reprinted from one of my previous posts (May 26, 2010):
Chemtrail debunkers are quick to note that long, lingering, widely spreading "contrails" occur due to various -- and presumably predictable and consistent -- combinations of altitude, temperature, relative humidity, other meteorological conditions, engine performance parameters, fuel mixtures, etc.
The familiar shorter, quickly dissipating, and therefore ostensibly benign phenomena too are dependent on similar factors.
It would stand to reason, then, that over the course of any 12-month span and absent contributing factors not present during the previous 12 months in which contrails of diverse appearance were observed and noted from a fixed location, we should see consistently diverse patterns in the skies.
Here's the problem: For the past year, daytime observations of classic "chemtrails" from my fixed observation point have all but ceased. In the previous year, the "chemtrails" were present on an almost daily basis.
To my knowledge, flight paths have not been altered (I'm under flights from Boston, Hartford, and Providence airports). I have no way of knowing if changes have been made in altitude, fuel composition, engine configuration and performance, etc.
Again to my knowledge, there has been zero meaningful fluctuation in weather patterns.
Further, my observations have not diminished in terms of quantity or quality.
So if "chemtrails" are in fact "contrails" ... Where the hell are they now?
They begin politely, invite civil exchange, and then quickly sink to the default "attack" mode.
The broader agenda is to assault all conspiracy hypotheses with the weapons of pseudoscience, evasion, and ridicule.
While some of their questions to Jack often may stand as valid scientific inquiry, K&L give away their shared game in many ways -- none more obvious than when they demonstrate feined ignorance.
Q. "Why don't they only spray at night?" [sic]
A. 1. Hide in plain (plane?) sight. 2. Operational necessity. 3. Support of "transparent conspiracy" strategy. 4. Some/all of the above.
Next, K&L treat us to a classic strawman fallacy:
Q. "A plane with a full load of passengers can’t carry the volume of liquid needed to spray these long paths you are seeing."
A. 1. There is no reason to believe that only commercial aircraft would be spraying. 2. The assumption that the "long paths" could be produced only by spraying large volumes of liquid is invalid due to the absence of information regarding the composition of the "paths."
I could go on and on ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "Matthew Lewis" character is one of the EF's primary debunkers.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the ether ...
Jack White is my friend. He is also a man full grown who must defend his own positions. No one on this forum is out to protect Jack from legitimate criticism.
Nonetheless, something stinks about the Kent/Lewis attacks. And I assure you, I'm not the only one who has their scent.
_______________________________________________
The following is reprinted from one of my previous posts (May 26, 2010):
Chemtrail debunkers are quick to note that long, lingering, widely spreading "contrails" occur due to various -- and presumably predictable and consistent -- combinations of altitude, temperature, relative humidity, other meteorological conditions, engine performance parameters, fuel mixtures, etc.
The familiar shorter, quickly dissipating, and therefore ostensibly benign phenomena too are dependent on similar factors.
It would stand to reason, then, that over the course of any 12-month span and absent contributing factors not present during the previous 12 months in which contrails of diverse appearance were observed and noted from a fixed location, we should see consistently diverse patterns in the skies.
Here's the problem: For the past year, daytime observations of classic "chemtrails" from my fixed observation point have all but ceased. In the previous year, the "chemtrails" were present on an almost daily basis.
To my knowledge, flight paths have not been altered (I'm under flights from Boston, Hartford, and Providence airports). I have no way of knowing if changes have been made in altitude, fuel composition, engine configuration and performance, etc.
Again to my knowledge, there has been zero meaningful fluctuation in weather patterns.
Further, my observations have not diminished in terms of quantity or quality.
So if "chemtrails" are in fact "contrails" ... Where the hell are they now?