It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First peer reviewed published study on 'chemtrails' finds no evidence of a cover-up

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: cuckooold



It's doubtful, but when did evidence ever get in the way of a good scary conspiracy theory?

First off i have never been a person who has engaged in the chem trail topics but i will say there is tangible evidence that chem trails are real and that they also have a technical name which was admitted very recently by a director of the CIA.

The technical name is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.
Maybe this slipped under your radar but if it's admitted as FACT by the heads of the intelligence services then the so called conspiracy theorists have been proven to be vindicated in their beliefs.
Take a look here for Stratopheric Aerosol Injection admitted by CIA director.


OK here we go again. The thing is: no matter how many times this kind of stuff is debunked, it keeps making the rounds in chemtrail circles and is taken as 'proof' of something.

Nowhere in his speech is there an "admission" that a SAI program is already taking place. The part where Brennan mentions geoengineering is just one example out of several, not-often-mentioned issues that CIA monitors for potential (future) elements of instability in the world. A SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It's CIA's job to consider all types of concepts for potential future problems and threats, including science oriented concepts.


Reading the whole transcript, and the relevant parts, it becomes clear that when Brennan brings up geoengineering, he is talking about future concepts, that may never be put into practice.

Why does this fly over the heads of chemtrails believers, one may wonder? Are believbers so eager to grasp for any kind of straw that they ignore the context of the speech? I mean it should be so obvious that he's not talking about a current program, but about proposals, that you'd have to be suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias to see any kind of 'proof' for 'chemtrails' in this.




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: cuckooold

A group of researchers got together and answered interview questions giving their professional opinion on chemtrails. That's it. They simply drew from their own past clinical experience and their own past research and that of other researchers, and gave their professional opinion on the matter based on things that have already been published. That's what a peer review study is. No new research or clinical studies. Just rehashing the data they already have and publishing their opinion.

Evidence does not equal proof. So until it's proven either way, which it has not been, then it is perfectly appropriate to continue looking for answers. Just because some researchers say that they don't personally believe it to be true doesn't mean it is suddenly cold hard fact. And they say as much, right there in your source article.


What kind of proof do you need?

You could look into the physics regarding the formation of contrails, and once you do, all your questions regarding those white lines in the sky will be answered.

But the problem is: I've never met a chemtrail believer who is familiar with the disciplines involved. Instead I'm seeing quite the opposite. They just don't know their stuff when it comes to aviation and meteorology.

There is a working theory that perfectly explains what we see in the skies, so I'm wondering if you've looked into that and understand it. If you did, I'm wondering with what part of contrail theory you disagree, and what alternative science you have to offer that improves on the current theory.

Something has to give.. if the basic statement of faith in chemtrail theory which states that 'contrails can't persist' is true, then something is wrong with out current understanding of contrail formation. But what is it? Any chance of enlightening us?



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: boncho

SRM or SAI are intended to be sprayed in the Stratosphere. Since the Stratosphere is higher than commercial planes usually fly, it's not as conducive for trail formation, and the ideas proposed for what SAI is supposed to do would look more like a hazy sky than lines in the sky. But I'd love to hear your take on this subject.


That's where it's most effective, it doesn't mean it couldn't be done in the troposphere.




This study describes an approach to cooling the planet, which goes back to the mid-1970s, when Budyko (1974) suggested that, if global warming ever became a serious threat, we could counter it with airplane flights in the stratosphere, burning sulphur to make aerosols that would reflect sunlight away. The aerosols would increase the planetary albedo and cool the planet, ameliorating some (but as discussed below, not all) of the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations. The aerosols are chosen/designed to reside in the stratosphere because it is remote, and they will have a much longer residence time than tropospheric aerosols that are rapidly scavenged. The longer lifetime means that a few aerosols need be delivered per unit time to achieve a given aerosol burden, and that the aerosols will disperse and act to force the climate system over a larger area.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...


Id also point out that the tropopause/stratosphere border different heigh around the world and in different seasons.


Near the equator, the stratosphere starts at 18 km (59,000 ft; 11 mi); at mid latitudes, it starts at 10–13 km (33,000–43,000 ft; 6.2–8.1 mi) and ends at 50 km (160,000 ft; 31 mi); at the poles, it starts at about 8 km (26,000 ft; 5.0 mi)


So the information you've presented is pretty much irrelevant. Just to be clear here because I don't want to be taken out of context, Im not meaning to imply anything more than these basic facts. The same effects can be achieved but with far less lifespan of aerosols sprayed, and that commercial craft do reach or come close to the stratosphere.


Commercial airliners typically cruise at altitudes of 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) which is in the lower reaches of the stratosphere in temperate latitudes.[6] This optimizes fuel efficiency, mostly due to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. Stated another way, it allows the airliner to fly faster for the same amount of drag. It also allows them to stay above the turbulent weather of the troposphere.


How can people take the claims against this seriously when its being misrepresented so badly?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...




would look more like a hazy sky than lines in the sky.


Do you have photographic evidence of various mixtures and possible clandestine delivery systems in fuel mixtures to make a comparative analysis? Im looking at it from the standpoint if they hired my company and I had my best chemists on the job, how we could come up with a delivery system, it definitely wouldn't be something I'd turn a blind eye to. Now, by saying this Im not implying it exists in every commercial flight or that it would be feasible in commercial flights, but I can guarantee if someone was contracted for it they'd be more than happy to flesh out the logistics and viability.
edit on 15-8-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   
It's nice to be able to relax and know that chemtrails are nothing but misguided fantasy. I don't mean the OP specifically, though it's interesting to read. I've found for years that as soon as you engage in discussion with a chemtrail believer it becomes rapidly apparent that they have not the slightest understanding of meteorology or aviation and are simply parroting memes they've learned from a website. You ask a specific question about a point they've proposed and you are met with utter bafflement, silence, then a ramble about something else entirely. Such people can be seen for what they are.

I don't post on here nearly as much as I used to, because the sheer wilful stupidity on display used to make me angry, just reading posts making idiot claims regarding videos and pictures that could be plainly seen to be something other than what was claimed. I salute you guys who continue to battle the wall of ignorance these guys are throwing up.

Likewise a more recent trend that's apparent is where people "don't believe in chemtrails" but then argue like hell in favour of them, clutching straws as fervently as any tin foil hat wearer, lol.

I'm happy to engage anybody in a genuine discussion, but these seem completely alien to this forum these days.


edit on 16-8-2016 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Dane Wigington knows less about this subject than most on ATS.

He has been caught lying more times than Hillary Clinton.

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

So I would probably think twice before using them as anything credible...especially a source for the truth.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Since the entire idea of SAI is meant to mimic a volcanic eruption, you kind of have to use a little imagination. When the last few volcanoes blew, did they make white lines in the sky, or did they make the sky look hazy?

Then you have the problem of what chemical can be used to respond just like water in the clouds and is light enough to be carried on a plane then spread from horizon to horizon. Since you have exceptional research skills (I mean that) it would be cool to see what you come up with. (it's called Ice budget)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Do you have photographic evidence of various mixtures and possible clandestine delivery systems in fuel mixtures to make a comparative analysis? Im looking at it from the standpoint if they hired my company and I had my best chemists on the job, how we could come up with a delivery system, it definitely wouldn't be something I'd turn a blind eye to. Now, by saying this Im not implying it exists in every commercial flight or that it would be feasible in commercial flights, but I can guarantee if someone was contracted for it they'd be more than happy to flesh out the logistics and viability.


Well there's this footage of an aircraft spraying zinc cadmium sulphide in an experiment to see how an agent might spread.

The irony is that despite this being what one could call an actual chemtrail, it displays none of the properties accredited to 'chemtrails'. The trail is sprayed at low altitude, and can be seen to dissipate almost immediately. This is in direct contrast to chemtrail lore, which upholds the notion that chemtrails have the ability to persist and spread into layers of clouds.

Anyway here's the clip:



The thing is: the only chemical that's capable of displaying the properties of those white lines in the sky is the chemical that's already present in the air in abundance. No need to spray anything, just fly through the right meteorological conditions and there you have your artificial clouds (cirrus aviaticus).

This phenomenon is well known among meteorologists. It's been described in meteorological books, media and many papers through the years. In fact the only ones who DON'T know about it are chemtrail believers, who vehemently deny that such a phenomenon (persistent contrails) exists.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
An elementary school level understanding of meteorology is all that is needed to understand what people call chemtrails are really contrails. Vapor. Ice crystals. It is so cold that far up in the atmosphere that any liquid will turn to ice. See: Cirrus Clouds. This is basic stuff.
To "spray" a population with anything, you would have to be much, much lower. See: Crop Dusting, Agent Orange, etc.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: boncho

Dane Wigington knows less about this subject than most on ATS.

He has been caught lying more times than Hillary Clinton.

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

So I would probably think twice before using them as anything credible...especially a source for the truth.


Is that the new gauge we are using to determine if all current and future disseminations are to be trusted? Well, in that case we may as well seppuku the human race, as no truth will ever be found for the rest of human existence. I just posted one site that referred to it in the right terms, of course it could be no different than another purposely stretching the subject for a parody of serious inquiry.

I only meant to drop a nugget of perspective into the topic. That's it. But seen as there's a half dozen posts looking to nitpick a niggle each aspect or detail of everything I've said Im simply going to bow out of the subject.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft



Why kill all the taxpaying slaves?

Unless the chemtrails are designed to make us live longer............


That may actually be a possiblity. Who knows what the nanomaterials, that are sprayed through combustion, are being used for, other than proposed fuel efficiency. Transhumanism may already be in process...so better prepare to live and work for another 100 years



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Sorry, you did post in the thread, so I assumed you were interested in conversation. I'll refrain from bothering you in the future.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Your conversation would be engaging, any single person's would be in fact, it's not a dig at you. It's a dig at all of us. Myself included.



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: boncho

Dane Wigington knows less about this subject than most on ATS.

He has been caught lying more times than Hillary Clinton.

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

So I would probably think twice before using them as anything credible...especially a source for the truth.


Is that the new gauge we are using to determine if all current and future disseminations are to be trusted? Well, in that case we may as well seppuku the human race, as no truth will ever be found for the rest of human existence. I just posted one site that referred to it in the right terms, of course it could be no different than another purposely stretching the subject for a parody of serious inquiry.

I only meant to drop a nugget of perspective into the topic. That's it. But seen as there's a half dozen posts looking to nitpick a niggle each aspect or detail of everything I've said Im simply going to bow out of the subject.


The problem is that Dane Wigington has been caught in so many lies, that no-one except the staunchest chemtrail believer takes him seriously anymore.

Seriously, have a look at all of these videos, and then come back and see if you still think he's a credible source:

www.youtube.com...

The problem with the chemtrail debacle is: the believers seem to simply 'forget' the lies that have been exposed, or instead of trying to point out where those who expose the lies are wrong they simply choose the ad hominem route (you know the routine: skeptics are all paid agents, shills, trolls etc), and apparently thats' enough closure for them to continue believing and defending the likes of Wigington.

Anyway, if you want a serious discussion on geoengineering, it's best to leave Wigington out of it. If that leaves you kindof empty-handed, then I'm afraid you've been had.


edit on 8201616 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: payt69


Seriously, have a look at all of these videos, and then come back and see if you still think he's a credible source


I looked at one but realized Id have to break out the calculator and start pulling up various hard to find documents, then establish the reliability (since many are corporate) and it's not where I plan to go (as previously mentioned.)



...simply choose the ad hominem route (you know the routine: skeptics are all paid agents, shills, trolls etc)


Well, it's not quite that bad but even you use 'believer', I think 'proponent' is a better term, and I'd argue that ad hominem is something we are all susceptible to. It affects anyone involved in debate. The further you can move away from it the better. Myself included. When we lose logically or are overwhelmed even by large data dumps, we may resort to ad hominem. There are some manoeuvres which are skillfully crafted, like drowning out your opponent with sheer volume of text which can ignite peoples' temper, etc (I type fast, promise Im not meaning to do that here.)

As for Wigington, I don't know who that is. If he's the face of geo-egineering watch and every argument has been 'debunked', properly (as mentioned I wasn't able to confirm the 'debunks') I will explain why I came into this thread. The OP claims to have basically proven a negative. That's not possible, so there's a problem there...

So lets say I agree, (Ive had enough time to go over all of geoegineeringwatch's stuff, and indeed far too much is bunk---slap me sideways for posting it earlier)

So we have a problem. That problem is that this topic is an issue first off, and regardless if it's "a bunch of crazy loons" there is plethora of information on this subject, and a few concerned [less or non-loony] people, more than a few--also claimed whistleblowers & they got an official name now--Indigo Skyfold (Im not lending credibility to any, just representing the case).

Then you have: Smithsonian Institute - Airplane Contrails may be causing Accidental Geo-Engineering

So if Wigington is as bad as we agree (for the sake of argument) than the first inclination I'd have is that he's controlled opposition. To be frank, you cannot create something from nothing and I mean this in a sociological sense, you can, but it's terribly short lived. (think memes-Kony 2012-do we remember what happened to Kony?)

The very fact the establishment has come to "debunk" the "conspiracy" is bothersome [to me, I assumed it was always a planted issue to distract from others] while also agreeing to "hey we might've caused some geo-engineering but totally accident."

The problem with debunking a phenomena is it's somewhat like debunking a person, you can't debunk a person. You can discredit and attack and cause people to lose faith or question anything they say, which in turn destroys their confidence, and will leave them susceptible to outside influence (and here is a hallmark of how to rid yourself of problematic personalities...) the point being, is when one person leaves, another pops up. If it's a legitimate phenomena, more will come. This is why controlled opposition works so well, because you can keep the Red Herring in place as the face of the movement--this is how 9.11 was sidelined.

Try making up a random meme/conspiracy. Start a "they're injecting rust in our apples"-it just won't last that long or be that successful. So what we have these days is the age of applied psychology, the age of mind control, and we should all be cognizant of that. It's all documented, it's on paper, we can all research and see how these things are done, but soon it will be so forgotten and lost most won't even realize where it begins/ends. You can spot trends.

One trend easy to spot is tabloids posting absolute terrible stories with 500,000 hits, of misrepresented legitimate stories. Videos on Youtube of the stupidest themes w/500,000 views or they are in every 'recommended video' any time you go anti-establishment. (Makes me wonder what they are covering up, distracting from w/Flat Earth[no one actually pays as much attention as the FL are getting])

So, point being that I recognized the hallmarks of problematic claims in the OP, you can't debunk 'chemtrails'. 1st off, a geo-egineering operation could be in play using multiple delivery methods and/or techniques & operations. There's so many plausible means of delivery and really in our day and age, with information control, they start becoming limitless.

I went looking for cloud cover histories to see if there was something I could find to find something tangible, something that could say pretty clearly whether or not theres data which could at least limit this to a small area. Just to give some personal insight. They don't seem to structure data that way, not widespread anyway (unless someone has these, I'd appreciate it)

To properly debunk it (as a phenomena), is nearly insurmountable. Cloud cover stats before/after planes in the air. Rates of increase compared to planes in the air. And probably a dozen other things. It's not even that realistic. The fact that people are is scary, because it's a tell-tale sign of information control.

So the point being is that my intuition is saying [the chemtrail movement] is not entirely manufactured. It's very unlikely. Though I have more pressing concerns to look into.
edit on 16-8-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho


No, that's not what the OP was about at all. The study in the OP was surveying a group of scientists to ask if they had come across any evidence in the course of their work and what their opinion was on the evidence regularly presented by chemtrail proponents. (better?)
edit on 17-8-2016 by mrthumpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

In the information game (war) the winner is he who pushes his opinion without needing further context beyond the headlines (at least in this day and age). But more than that, I can see people flipping back this linked article, every time chemtrail threads come up.

So whether you agree or not, there's more to it than a simple headline, or a simple paper for that matter. Did you bother looking up the scientists involved in the study, who they work for, who they have worked for in the past, the connections they have?

It's a very "infotainment" ehm, "double-speak" -type headline. I don't think it was a mistake.











Dig it in a bit...



They finish it off with a truly stunning closer:



"Look how crazy these nut jobs are, and if you believe one conspiracy, they believe all of them, obviously"

(....please don't bring up how CIA coined "conspiracy theorist" to launch attacks at those who question JFK assassination...)


-----------------------------



PS I thought I was pretty eloquent by my last & final position I asserted. Basically, Im not saying any of you are wrong for injecting information and experience or truths as you know it into the topic, it's well worth it for all opinions to address a topic. Though, from my understanding of applied psychology, cover-ups and distractions (disinformation), just the sheer volume of work or effort associated with "chemtrails" or geoengineering, suggest to me there really is a story in there somewhere. I don't know the scope, I don't know the purpose, not sure they players, can't even say if for sure it's not an entirely made up meme, but it exists (if made up and persistent as it is, would suggest backing). And if it was totally bunk, it'd have evaporated by know. But someone keeps picking up the torch.

So it remains that there are a few options: they are indeed spraying, done in ways outside of everyone's perceived possibilities. Whether it's military only, specially modified commercial which do not run consistently, widespread modifications to engine efficiency/operation-additives in the gas (I think just about any of the posts here can debunk this one)----out of all of these---the chemtrail phenomenon, as a meme, would be government created, to control and limit the dissemination of it. In which case, proponents may very well be spinning junk purpose to throw people off. and the other possibility, that it's done to distract or cover-up something else, that which remains unseen.

I think anyone with an open-mind and a bit of critical thinking can understand this. Maybe you might need some histories in applied psychology & disinformation campaigns, etc-but anyone can take a second look at something and say, "ok, they just put my in charge, how would I do it?" There you can find an answer/non answer. Is it worth your time? Let me guess that you've approached the subject as "its totally bunk" and worked from there, if you have, try, "it's totally legit, lets start now." and see what you come up with. Consider it a thought exercise.
edit on 17-8-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 05:43 AM
link   
OK. this escapes me daily, Perhaps I am just that dim. All planes leave contrails? Can we agree on that?

Chemtrais mean that the "contrails" the planes leave that we see everyday, MAY mean that there is a purposeful component or components in the CONTRAILS left behind all jets, right?

This doesn't seem so hard, really, but perhaps I'm mistaken, somehow.
IF all planes flying in the air leave a natural CONTAIL, it doesn't seem such a stretch that there may be accidental or purposeful components in said contrail to make a CHEMTRAIL, with or without an airline or plane's knowledge or acquiescence......

Of course, every plane flying above us leaves a trail.....just like our cars leave a talisman of chemical dispute, right>
Why is this such an issue?
Why is it so hard to believe that something coming out of jet fuel contrails is probably not so good for the rest of us, when we already realize that car and bus exhaust isn't good for us, either?

This shiznit gets really silly every day, doesn't it?
tetra



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

the main argument has to do with the visible trail. What you see, looks an awful lot like a cirrus cloud. It acts an awful lot like a cirrus cloud. And when they have been tested, they contained,......wait for it......the same thing cirrus clouds contained. Water ice with minute traces of aerosols that helped the water ice to nucleate in the first place. (aerosols like dust from the desert)

Nobody can look at a line in the sky and determine it's made up of anything, we don't have spectrum analyzers in our eyes, though some seem to think they do. All we know is that contrails are made by the process of flying in the right conditions. We know they can act just like cirrus clouds since they are in fact, man made cirrus clouds. They can last all day and spread out just like clouds given the right conditions. So knowing all that is undisputed science fact, where exactly does that leave the chemtrail theory?

They could be doing something bad up there, but then again, nothing out of the ordinary or unexpected is happening, so with no evidence, the only driving factor in a thought like that is paranoia. I don't mean that as an ad hom attack, I mean that as a medical fact.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   

I looked at one but realized Id have to break out the calculator and start pulling up various hard to find documents, then establish the reliability (since many are corporate) and it's not where I plan to go (as previously mentioned.)


I'm short on time, as I have to go to work in a minute, but do yourself a favour and settle this matter for once and for all for yourself. If it turns out that you can debunk the debunker, so to speak, well so be it.

I know it's a bit of effort, but in my opinion, it's really worth it. It could be like dropping a bag of stones and not having to worry about something that really doesn't exist.. A bit like having a look under the bed when you think there's a monster there, only to find out that there's nothing there.

I hope to come back and respond to the rest of what you write, but for now I have to run!
edit on 8201617 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: tetra50

the main argument has to do with the visible trail. What you see, looks an awful lot like a cirrus cloud. It acts an awful lot like a cirrus cloud. And when they have been tested, they contained,......wait for it......the same thing cirrus clouds contained. Water ice with minute traces of aerosols that helped the water ice to nucleate in the first place. (aerosols like dust from the desert)

Nobody can look at a line in the sky and determine it's made up of anything, we don't have spectrum analyzers in our eyes, though some seem to think they do. All we know is that contrails are made by the process of flying in the right conditions. We know they can act just like cirrus clouds since they are in fact, man made cirrus clouds. They can last all day and spread out just like clouds given the right conditions. So knowing all that is undisputed science fact, where exactly does that leave the chemtrail theory?

They could be doing something bad up there, but then again, nothing out of the ordinary or unexpected is happening, so with no evidence, the only driving factor in a thought like that is paranoia. I don't mean that as an ad hom attack, I mean that as a medical fact.



I understand what you are saying. But frankly, we will never know. The folks that can contain, test, and judge that would never be able to tell us the truth about it. That's the point. There won't ever be the evidence you speak of. We can speculate all day long, and perhaps we should.....after all, we live in times where it seems obvious to many of us that problems are introduced in order to introduce and make money off solutions, no? We are barraged daily by advertising that encourages us toward unhealthy habits of eating, addiction, and immediate satisfaction and over consumption, and then insurance and medical lawsuits for drugs to cure these introduced and manufactured issues to the human being, while people still can't work a 40 hr. wk. job and pay their rent.

Is it only me who doesn't see that this all fits together nicely in a paradigmatic situational thingie we all gotta live through?

Chemtrails/contrails and cirrus clouds? Yeah, prolly. But anyone is going to waste their time debating that we will ever have proof or not, in that current paradigm? come on.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join