Chem trails

Dirty Dave wrote: »

How come mainstream news is only acceptable as a source by CT'ers when its used to back up their claims but when its used against their claims its corporate cover ups?

concenient that, isn't it?

Dirty Dave wrote: »

Here's a question though - who is responsible for the supposed chemical spraying over Ireland? The Irish Government?

Considering the Irish government couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, and assuming that there really is chemical spraying happening, the two main suspects would be the US or the UK.

You'd also have to consider what is the purpose of the spraying. If, as was said earlier, that it's to make the population docile, then why would the US or UK do this to Ireland? Without knowing what is being sprayed and why, then it's difficult to think who would be behind it.

Jocksereire wrote: »

The clip is translated perfectly, can a "critic" can confirm that to you(i can but i doubt youll believe me).

No, its not.

Try, for example, from 1:15 to 1:30. Here, *no* translation is provided for the voice-over. Instead, a sentence is provided in English below which is then blended out as a German sentence from the report is blended in.

But ok....its hard to translate two things at once, so lets assume that the reporter isn't saying anything interesting and just look at the translation being done.

The German sentence which appears on screen is :

"Die Aufzeichnungen belegen, dass dabei sehr geringe Mengen von Düppeln ausgebracht werden"

The english sentence thats blended out at the same time reads :

"The registers report emissions of chemtrails at low altitudes"

(Note that you never see the full version of both sentences at the same time. One is wiped out as the other is filled in)

The actual translation should be more like :

"The reports show that very small quantities of chaff were used".

You can use a translation tool of your choice to verify this. If it has problems with the word Düppeln, its the plural form of Düppel, which is the german for chaff (dict.leo.org is one of the best tools for single-word translation, but feel free to find your own if you don't trust me)

You can also verify that the German word for Chemtrail is *nowhere* in the sentence being translated. (Read on to find out how.)

Oh...and no....what the reporter says during that entire 15-second period also doesn't match up to that nine-word translation....even if we ignore the whole blend-in-blend-out thing which suggests that its a translation of the excerpt from the document.

So a perfect translation it sure as **** ain't. Most of it is close...but there's just enough inaccuracy, omission of detail, and downright incorrectness to completely skew what is being said into something far more sinister.

What is the German for chemtrail? as i have never had to use this word in german before i do not know. Do tell us. i doubt there is a word for it.

Jeez guys...as I've already mentioned, its in the opening credits of the video you're arguing about. Its also in the name of the website that the opening credits lists.

A drunk post, at this hour?

Jocksereire wrote: »

oh most of it is "close" but still inaccurate incorrect and sinister. now is it?

Yes. Thats what I said. I also supplied an example of where its very inaccurate, turning the meaning of something completely on its head, from something which effectively said "there wasn't all that much chaff actually used" into "chemtrails were sprayed at low altitude"

fair enough.

do a bullet point summary of what the report says in german and we will compare it to the message translated in english and lets see how inaccurate and incorrect and "more sinister" it is!!

You maintained that the term Chemtrail may not exist in German (which I've shown to be incorrect), and that the translation is perfect (which I've shown to be incorrect).

So currently, we're at the point where we know the translation is not perfect. We know that your analysis of it is flawed. We know that you didn't even read the opening credits, because if you had, you'd have seen the term that you said you didn't know and doubted existed.

The onus is now on you to explain how you - as a self-professed German speaker - made these mistakes, and to explain why you still have credibility to be able to offer meaningful comment on the rest of the translation.

If you want to come back and say the rest is still perfect, I'll show you another mistake and put the ball back in your court again. I've no shortage of examples, but I'm not going to go through it sentence by sentence just because you asked me to. I'd suggest you take your own advice from earlier, and get a friend to translate it for you, or (re)learn German and do it yourself. I'm more than happy to critique your work, but I've absolutely no intention of doing it for you.

I've already supplied one glaring inconsistency, which we can't even charitably classify as being only slightly incorrect. I've pointed out that there's an entire 15 seconds of commentary untranslated at the same time. I've pointed out that a translation is supplied in the video that you professed to now knowing.

What have you done? You've made several claims about the absolute quality which I've already shown to be false.

If you want to insist that by "perfect" you meant "not actually perfect, but not terrible" or something....then maybe you should clear up what your understanding of the word "perfect" is before we go any further.

Or hey...I know...why don't you point out the errors that you noticed but didn't think made it anything less than "perfect", and I'll see if you got them all from what I noticed.

But seriously...perfect means "without error". I've shown that to be false. Until you redefine your opinion of the quality of the translation, I don't need to do anything more.

I will give one more example, though. Around 1:12 (no access to video in work, so I'm going from memory here), the commentator says something that is translated as something like "(several? many?) tons of chaff". Thats not what the commentator says though, is it, Jockseire? Why don't you tell us what he actually says - both the exact German, and the correct translation, then explain why there's nothing unreasonable about the on-screen translation?

No it doesn't work that way.
Just to recap...
1) You provided "proof"
2) Bonkey dismissed the "proof" as the BS it was. He did this to great effect shattering any attempt at credibility.

So now you are back to square one - you have no proof. So the ball is in your court.