Angioni-patter (UPD 08102010 3:00) The music of molecules I am back and ready to tell from Cesena or details of the long awaited confrontation between me and George Pattera. Unfortunately, time is running out and then update this post as I find time to add details.
First of all I thank the organizers: Sarpieri Antonio, Minister of Culture of the Municipality of Savignano sul Rubicon, Mr Sandro Brandolini and the Mayor of San Mauro Pascoli: Miro Gori.
We start with a bit 'late, the room is full, I would say at least a hundred people. Only then you will understand that most of these are blatantly in favor of the theory of chemtrails.
After a brief introduction made by Marrucci Giuliano, moderator of the evening, George Pattera begins with his presentation explaining what they are contrails.
Now we start with the famous
3 parameters for the formation of contrails: 8000 meters above sea level, 70% RH and -40 ° C. To show that the quotes are fictional shows rapidaente original
NASA, but do not say what he says. Look at the image side and you will notice that 70% of moisture is not present and the now famous 'usually' the first of 8000 m. In short, it denies Pattera alone, unfortunately, I doubt if the public has noticed. Seconds later
Pattera reads another highly questionable assertion:
"Therefore, a contrail may not be very long and, especially, may not be very larga.Una persistent contrail is a contrail that lasts for a maximum a couple of minutes, not a trail takes about 30-50 seconds persistent " could not believe my eyes: a sentence like this, thrown at random and not supported by any source or reference. This has not escaped Marrucci that when he has had the opportunity stemmed asked where the conditions and duration of contrails. Pattera answers arising from the graph of Appleman and shows him innocently to the public. I am stunned, I can not believe this is projecting the graph that says the exact opposite of what he just said, so naturally and tranquility.
few seconds later I have the burden / honor to explain what really Appleman directly supported by the graph shown by Pattera.
Pattera The report goes on to parliamentary questions, but omits the various responses
Government for example the following sentence:
"
examination of the international scientific literature and websites. Specialist can not confirm the existence of contrails chemical . Sites specialist observers of contrails chemical , in particular, are lacking from the scientific point of view. " also forgets to say that in '
question presented by Di Pietro is clear that it does not know what he's talking about:
"
chemtrails are combustion residues left in high altitude aircraft. "
There is no doubt that it is easy to show page after page full of writing, the public would never have time to read it and must necessarily trust what he says the rapporteur. We have already seen that trust of Pattera word is very unfortunate, luckily there is a video and everyone can personally check the material presented.
follows a bizarre letter that should come from Di Pietro himself, but there is no indication of whether the writing is genuine or not. There are no references of any kind and even censored the name of the recipient of the message. The tone of the alleged mail Di Pietro is very different from interrogation and this sounds very strange. In addition, the mail, sent Sept. 19, 2008, makes no reference to the parliamentary presented for only two days before, but instead ends with a curioso:
"[...]cercherò di indirizzare l'attenzione dei parlamentari sul problema delle "chemtrails""
Peccato che l'abbia appena fatto 2 giorni prima con un'interrogazione a risposta scritta.
Insomma siamo di nuovo davanti ad una carenza di rigore nel presentare le prove e inoltre, anche ammettendo che la mail sia originale, cosa dimostra? Che Di Pietro crede alle scie chimiche? E quindi? Se queste sono le prove migliori direi che possiamo dormire sonni tranquilli.
In generale tutta la relazione di Pattera si basa sul principio di autorità, ovvero che le scie esistono non perchè ci sono prove oggettive, ma perchè il tizio X che ricopre un ruolo importante ne è convinto.
Segue un documento che non c'entra nulla e che mostra un accordo per vietare la modificazione del tempo meteorologico sul territorio nemico. Il documento è del 1977 e fu approvato poco dopo la fine della guerra del Vietnam. Il motivo è facilmente immaginabile, durante la guerra gli Stati Uniti avevano fatto esperimenti di modificazione del tempo atmosferico sul Vietnam, il progetto era chiamato
Popeye ed è ovvio che, se avesse avuto successo, avrebbe potuto diventare una potente arma di distruzione di massa. Ancora una volta la "prova" è inconcludente: vietare l'uso di armi per provocare alluvioni artificiali non dimostra che tali armi esistano, serve only to establish a principle.
is then usually brought on Owning the Weather document which has been widely discussed here
. The document is a work of fiction and still provides, by 2025, the amendment of the weather on a scale of less than 200 km2. On the side you will find a map that shows how much is 200 km2, and these estimates are compiled in a document of fiction. As they say, "between saying and doing ..."
The same can be said for the 'US-Italy agreement
presented shortly after, with the difference that in this case does not even speak for a change of time, but some cultures to refer to environmental stresses.
Pattera concludes arguing that weather modification technology exists but has only posted documents that say otherwise. Even in those who reported upbeat travel fantasy is evident when it is absurd to think of a global climate change. Again, to make a statement true, it just pages and pages of documents showing that no one ever read.
UPD 3:00 on some of the questions I do not dwell too much, the answers that I was unable to write can be found in the FAQ
Cicap .
Very funny moment in which Pattera presents analysis of rainwater (9:05 minutes
) exchanging with microgram i milligrammi. Da notare che pochi minuti prima avevo sottolineato la continua presenza di questi errori nelle varie analisi. Sarebbe sufficiente leggere le etichette dell'acqua minerale in bottiglia per rendersi conto che quell'acquaè praticamente distillata.
Al
minuto 7.50 invece si dice che dei filamenti cadono direttamente dall'aereo e viene mostrato un filamento volante con una scia sullo sfondo. Carina l'idea che in 5 secondi un filamento svolazzante arrivi quasi a livello del terreno ad una velocità di qualche migliaia di km/h.
Anche in questo caso sarebbe bastato ragionare per capire che quel filmato non provava assolutamente nulla.
A proposito dei filamenti vi faccio presente che, anche se non è was recorded by the camera, Pattera admitted the existence of migratory spiders although he certainly did not make clear that these filaments.
Another note of color: with the video for
Masdeca (11:55 minutes) you can feel the warmth of some people in the audience. A spectator decides to ask me: "I must say by whom it is paid, by whom it is paid? The Illuminati?".
I think it is important to note that at the end of the comparison has been approached by doubters and believers. The doubters have complimented me and said they will go home relaxed, confident that nothing dangerous happens in our skies, while the believers were quite critical. Of course there was
be expected, but what I would have expected is the object of critical statements he had given the Committee Tanker Enemy. Those no longer represent the movement of the chemtrails, they said. Bring their material has been taken as an insult, how to ruin the good reputation and the right information of "serious conspiracy."
Too bad none of them went to move the same criticism that he used almost exclusively Pattera material Tanker Enemy.
conclusion seems to me it was a good night, too bad the tone is not always cordial in public.
For those wishing to follow the conference in streaming, can be found on the channel and what
VIBRAVAR of
Masdeca .
anyway thank George for Pattera and courtesy shown during the debate, at least one of the speakers the tone is kept low and respectful. This is what should happen when it interacts albeit from opposing ideas.
Monday, December 13 in Pare (CO) will hold a conference in three voices on urban legends, those who come to see you there: 
