It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 03:43 PM
a reply to: network dude

you are kind of digging into this farther than the conspiracy goes. Here is a brief recap of why we are all here. (the debunkers)

That's the whole point, and its how disinformation works. It happens across all topics. e.g.--

Example: There's no such thing as aliens....this is what believers think.... they all follow people like Sam Romanek, the guy who faked aliens outside his window and was later charged for child molestation. The entire argument for ET visitation is just people scamming gullible idiots.
---That's of course ignoring thousands of years of sightings, abductions, deaths, etc--not to mention all the religious texts that speak of 'fiery wheels' or gods coming down from the heavens.

Strawman By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument,it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Even still, you keep bringing up the first link I posted. I already admitted I hadn't researched the source as I should have, and most importantly. it wasn't the point I was making or anything related to it was even a substantial part of my argument. The point I was making, was that the topic is being heavily controlled, in that alone it suggests there is something to it, in some shape or form. On top of that, the very notion of "proving a conspiracy doesn't exist" is impossible in a scientific effort, but that's how the OP study was being picked up and disseminated in the media.

OP Article & argument: "the idea that organisations or governments are covertly pumping chemicals into the sky via aircraft. ---A sweeping generalization, that nothing is going on in the sky. Add this to a large body of literature & propaganda which is absolutely 100% manipulating peoples view, to the point that simply asking questions implies a negative connotation.

As for what is or aren't 'chemtrails'---I think I've clarified over the thread how the topic may have developed, the potentiality for multiple ways, variations in motivations or reasons behind the phenomena (as a social construct & in the sky). In other words there are many possible reasons for this topic to have been promulgated, claiming that a simple contrail is the basis of the entire topic is a strawman, attacking the weakest are of the subject.

If were being intellectually honest, we look at the subject and first ask 'why does it exist at all?'. The common attack on this is that it's simply a misinterpretation of normal contrails. Then someone posts a picture of a contrail, explains how controls work & considers it case closed. It even says in the article:

These patterns in the sky are actually known as contrails, or condensation trails, and scientists have shown they're the result of water vapour condensing and freezing around aerosols in aircraft exhaust.

What, all of them. Every single formation in the sky since the invention of jet aircraft? ~100,000 flights per day, they checked each and every one?

Sorry. No.

To address the topic and declare: "What people are seeing are just normal contrails." ---is a massive straw man, and misrepresentation of the argument.

The topic, or phenomena exists, because it exists as a construct. Anything that exists has an input. Action/reaction, duality, cause & effect, the laws of consequence. The notion it exists simply because there are contrails in the sky is a misrepresentation. That is certifiably false.

The argument for chemtrails represented honestly is: there is a widespread or wide impacting effort to spray chemicals in the sky for the purpose of ____________ (weather modification highest on the list), wholly intended & done deliberately (with foreknowledge of the consequences). Addendum to that is negative effects from the actions therein, whether intended or a by-product.

I've been on the other side, debunking, so Im very familiar with the means of attacking the subject. It's all intellectually dishonest. Admit 'geo-engineering exists' but 'chemtrails are nonsense' and equate every contrail in the sky ever as a contrail, then the circle spins.

I've already stated there could be multiple aspects behind the topic and explained each one. Even the fact it could exist as a preemptive effort to distract or sideline common concern, into airline industry & emissions.

Though there's a wealth of information to suggest military action is probably already actively operating under deep classification. Even you said in respect to me bring up the early abandonment of HAARP (after such a huge investment, and their own literature stating they need more systems of the same type, which I noted was odd):

On the HAARP angle, it's for communications. I believe the reason they scrapped it is they have a smaller, more efficient way of doing the same thing now. (likely classified)

As for "it's for communications"...Their own literature suggests otherwise.

David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering--when asked about dismantling the $300Million HAARP Project, stated: “We’re moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do,” he said. “To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed.”

So again, you cannot 'prove the conspiracy doesn't exist', you can prove you were unable to find one, that's about it. Repeal the security act and you can prove it doesn't exist within the security establishment. Bug the communications of the rich & powerful, (like the common persons) & you can prove it doesn't exist.

There are so many viable methods of application of this theory. All it really takes is foreknowledge that weather would change. Even just that alone, & manipulation of airline industry is enough to show a conspiracy occurred. The simplest means of disproving or contradicting the conspiracy theory would be to show the cloud cover average & show it hasn't risen. but of course they admit already the airline industry likely cause "accidental" geo-engineering.

Then you have other facets, is there a chemical component, within regular fuel or special deliveries of fuel? Because additives are trademarked and omitted from most of the literature, I still think something might be feasible along those lines.

Then you have military, who admit they want to control the weather. Who are classifying material in this topic. Who you admit yourself are likely classifying the next operations of HAARP-style operations (which is in the literature as well, they recommend more of). The reason for classification? Because it goes against what they already agreed not to do Im guessing.

The real red flags in this topic are the fact that people are so damn intellectually dishonest, constantly attacking via straw man's. Pretending there's no legitimate concern. Disappearing articles & papers, quotes, etc (I was honestly really taken back in the last couple days how much has been deleted).

Go ahead and prove a single contrail is a contrail. It does not prove everything in the sky formed naturally.
edit on 28-8-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 03:49 PM
a reply to: waynos

None of which proves, or even APPROACHES the topic at hand. Is your tinfoil hat on too tight petal?

Topic at hand is "proving a conspiracy doesn't exist" a logical fallacy. Just like the one you present:

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

The argument I presented is that this subject is heavily controlled by disinformation and subversion, and you basically proved it by avoiding all intellectual debate on it, instead jumping to personal attacks. In other words... No, my tinfoil hat is fitted just fine.

If you ignore the social manipulation and control over sensitive subjects you are just operating in the realm of willful ignorance. Pretending information control doesn't exist doesn't actually address the issue. It's like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalala".

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: waynos

Now who's using straw man arguments? That quote about manned flight not being possible was not a debunking. It was purely his opinion. An opinion that was wrongly founded, as is yours.

There are plenty of examples of qualified scientists and engineers as well as political personalities engaged in anti-flight research at the time, you are arguing a straw man again. You ignore the broad scope of my argument as I present it and attack minor, specific details. Ignoring the overall message.

It appears you don't know what debunking is. It means removing bunk, or untruths.

It appears you don't know where debunking originated...

The claim that cigarettes were safe was either ignorant or callous, but was again not a debunking.

Debunking is the same thing. It was made popular during the 'skecptical science' movement. Which came about when Gardner released his book which popularized the terms "crank", "crackpot" and "pseudoscience" and attacked anything that was threatening to the mainstream.

Shortly after that CSICOP was formed and the members fully popularized "debunking", although it would be years before people realized James Randi hired "plants" to "debunk" them. Uri Gellar interestingly enough would later be proven linked to Mossad/CIA, operating as an asset.

While CISCOP effectively denied and contended all links to the CIA inferred, I suppose its coincidence they were in arms reach of nearly every paranormal or supernatural venture the Military or CIA operated on, to sit on the sidelines and "debunk", while the military would fund projects for decades, declassifying just enough of the bunk reports for CSICOP's people to "debunk." Pure coincidence!

This movement of "skeptical science" suddenly made logical fallacies to not only be legitimate, but it stole the term "skepticism" from true skeptics. You see, skepticism, actually means to be skeptical of all information. To acknowledge that humans are quite fallible in their understanding, that all information should be challenged, accepted information firstly (meaning to challenge established thinking or commonly held beliefs aka:the establishment.)

What "skeptical science" did, is completely reverse this and basically approve dogma and present it as a 'logical'.

A perfect example of this is what happened with Carl Sagan, who was deeply interested in UFOs. As part of Blue Book (an official cover-up of the subject) he was later held back from the Cosmos Society by Condon who stated he was "too soft on UFOs" during Bluebook. (and also denied Harvard tenure but that is not directly related or at least isn't shown to be) He also witnessed two colleagues fired during the contrived hatchet job that was Bluebook, a proper "debunking" of UFOs which ignored empirical evidence and was itself "pseudoscience".

In CSICOP's analysis of Carl Sagan's devolution into "skepticism", they ironically attribute it to Gardner's work, and credit Sagan for basically dumping his personal intuition and ethics, morals, standards. Though in credit to him, when he realized he couldn't speak about ET/UFOs in direct contact, he took the acceptable approach and spoke about them in theory, a hypothetical species millions of miles away that doesn't affect the modern world, so its 'ok'.

Contact, the story by Sagan is likely an allegory, the entire world against the main character, that people would need faith or need to break down their predispositions to see what they did. In the end they were vindicated (of course they left that out of the Hollywood version).

LOL. You don't half think your special don't you. Could you write ANYTHING more condescending and arrogant, and yet at the same time stupid, if you tried?

You misinterpreted what I was saying. (Maybe on purpose?) Maybe because you can't see it?

Psychological warfare (PSYWAR), or the basic aspects of modern psychological operations (PSYOP), have been known by many other names or terms, including MISO, Psy Ops, Political Warfare, "Hearts and Minds," and propaganda.[1] The term is used "to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people."

You've literally been programmed to interpret this topic & every other topic the way you do. It's fact. Sorry. I wasn't attacking you. Calling me stupid is absolutely a personal attack. I didn't do that, you did.

Perhaps you are not aware but I've participated in this forum for years, I've dedicated thousands of posts to debunking, I was programmed just the same, but I deprogrammed myself. I've been involved in conspiracy research for 20 years. If you or anyone else pretends there is no psychological warfare being played to control peoples worldview you are straight up lying. LYING!

And the information I presented previously was highlighting the intellectual and scientific dishonesty that comes with that. That's the basis of my argument. The point I was making throughout this thread is people are approaching it right off the bat from the wrong angle. Purposely or ignorantly, take your pick.

You can prove a single contrail is a contrail, it only proves that single contrail is a contrail

At the end of my quest I found NO credible reason to believe in chemtrails due to every single piece of evidence being falsified in some way

Right, so you just proved a conspiracy to discredit the subject. Disinformation. Did you bother looking up who's funding bad information, did you investigate anything? Doubtful!

Here is a complete rundown of all the evidence that could not be debunked


Right. So I bet there's no evidence nothing has ever been sprayed ever....

The U.S. Military Once Tested Biological Warfare On The Whole Of San Francisco.

It sounds like a prime conspiracy theory, and indeed if you type it into Google that’s a lot of what you find, but for a period of at least 20 years, the U.S. army carried out simulated open-air biological warfare attacks – on their own cities.

Im sure you calculated the entire cloud cover worldwide, calculated the averages then compared them historically to show that absolutely no wide-scale weather modification was at play right? Seems an easy way....

You infiltrated military operations, got the highest security classification and checked every program to make sure there was no subversive commercial programs or military operations involved in wide-spread spraying or weather modification?

No, you haven't debunked ####.

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 04:39 PM

originally posted by: boncho

It appears you don't know where debunking originated...

In 1923, by William Woodward.

posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 10:07 PM

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: boncho

It appears you don't know where debunking originated...

In 1923, by William Woodward.

Well, I meant the modern era that proliferated with the establishment of the national security arm & military industrial complex. But you raise a good point because he coined the term...

But what did he write? "Bunk", a fantasy novel. - Link

...and certainly no harm in his character or the people he based it off of (real life influences), but those people are/were independent. The idea is to swat down get-rich-quick schemes or general non-sense and charlatanism.

But, the people Im speaking about are the same.

You see, once the 'debunker' is funded by outside interests, he then becomes the charlatan. Once the "scientist" takes money to influence his outcome, he then becomes the fraudster. Once the "rational" or "logical" person takes money, is influenced, forms bias or is programmed by millions of dollars to twist peoples' opinions, they then become the "crackpots".

Gardner and CSICOP are more relevant because their efforts directly compounded the information war the military had engaged at the time, on regular people---which ties in directly to the cognitive dissonance abound today.
edit on 28-8-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:52 AM
a reply to: boncho

Intellectual dishonesty and strawman? Yes, your post abounds with it. Are you doing it on purpose or do you genuinely believe what you write?

Examples that you may respond to if you wish;

You say that it is strawman that says the theory only exists because of contrails being misrepresented.

This is something one would expect to see from someone who has only fairly recently discovered this theory and all its various interwoven and contradictory strands. It may even be that this is exactly what you have been manipulated to think by those who profit from chemtrail theory. You seem completely unable to consider, however, that some of us may have been around this story longer than you. We HAD those arguments that persisting trails does not equal chemtrails and played a part in exposing what you yourself called the "weakest area" of chemtrail conspiracy for what it was at a time that was ALL it was.

We haven't merely read or decided that this conspiracy was founded entirely on a misunderstanding of aviation and clouds. We remember it because we were there at the start. Therefore, you calling our experiences a strawman in order to dismiss it makes YOU very much intellectually dishonest.

The introduction of geoengineering theory into chemtrails came very much later and very much as a crutch to shore up the income stream and also built on very intellectually dishonest interpretations of GE proposals and HAARP that you seemingly have no trouble believing.

Well, that is your prerogative and if, for example, you have no trouble seeing how HAARP activity in the ionosphere can be used to control the weather, which occurs in the troposphere, then that's your prerogative.

As someone who was fortunate enough to be able to examine each new facet of this theory as it was revealed, and able to view its veracity (or lack of) in context, maybe I and a few others here have an advantage you were denied. But a whole bunch of lies piled one on top of the other does not make a solid foundation for any theory.

It's like when you say that not every trail has been tested. Well of course not. But every one that has was a contrail, not a chemtrail. Unless you can show different? And what of those who test air quality in just about every city on earth and nobody has ever come forward to say their own city is being chemtrailed? ALL those people involved in the planning, execution and testing of chemtrails ALL staying silent? Why have no whistleblowers ever come forward? Why have all claimed whistleblowers clearly been making stuff up? Did someone pay them but fail to prepare them properly? Going by the evidence of WITWATS and its own half-baked evidence claims this may be exactly what they are, who knows?

The military admits to wanting to own the weather? So you still don't get that was a fictional student paper? Oh yes, it MIGHT not have been, lol.

Debunking has nothing to do with shouting down truth, as you seem to believe, but to do with exposing falseness to leave truth behind.

Chemtrail theory depends completely on what may, at a stretch, be theoretically possible. That makes it nothing but a fun story until that changes.

Chemtrail promoters far and wide have had three decades in which to present solid evidence that this is happening, evidence that isn't a fake or a misrepresentation or a flat out lie that relies on the listener not knowing any better.

Well after three decades of nothing but the above, you'll have to forgive us for being logical in saying the likelihood is that this is all a fake.

Proving a contrail is a contrail doesn't prove they all are, as you rightly said. But chemmies only have to find ONE chemtrail to win their case. Air sampling can be done for a fraction of the cost that WITWATS cost and yet we still don't have one, even after all this time. As for the argument that they wouldn't be allowed to find one, I have to say this all-encompassing TPTB control that chemmiesbelieve is paranoid crap. Sometimes people are so open minded their brains fall out.

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:02 AM
a reply to: boncho

No, I said that what you wrote was stupid, not that you were. I have come across these exact tactics before.

Feigned personal insult (which may be seen as inability to comprehend the written word if one is feeling unkind),wall of text about irrelevant subjects to attempt to overwhelm and subtly casting aspersions on the other persons intellect whilst pretending not to....and back to the beginning of the loop again.

I don't come here to engage in the debating game, I gave that up ten years ago when it became tedious and boring to me.

If I see you raise a specific point I may address that, but please spare us the pseudo-intellectual bollocks that you are trying to hid behind.

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:10 AM
a reply to: boncho

you miss the point. Every contrail that has been tested, turned out to be just what was expected. And what we see in the sky sure does look like the same contrails we expect to see when conditions allow. As I said before, there is no need for added chemicals, H2O does the job nicely. So why is there a need to suspect that some of those lines might be made of something else? Why does there need to be a conspiracy here?

As was said, this whole thing started by people not understanding what they were seeing. Trails can't persist. Contrails disappear within minutes, and chemtrails last for hours. THAT WAS THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT BEFORE GEO-ENGINEERING.
So now you are free to start to re-invent the square wheel all you like, but in the end, that's exactly what you are doing. Trying like hell to throw huge amounts of # against the wall, hoping something will stick. (seen it a few times)

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:51 AM
I'm skeptical on the importance of a paper being 'peer-reviewed' when it isn't very scientific anyway. This paper is just a couple of yes/no surveys given to the experts that felt compelled to answer them. Of all the people they asked only 15% and 29% filled the surveys in.

What is interesting is how much these experts seem to disagree on the nature of the pictures they were given. Additionally, they have selected respondents by how many citations their publications got, which means they could be located anywhere in the world, not to mention the typical criticism of surveys being that the responses may be sensitive to the wording of the questions.

The first paragraph is revealing - the belief that the government is releasing 'harmful' chemicals into the environment is different to the belief that there is a 'large scale atmospheric spraying programme'. There are many documents revealing the considerations of solar radiation management but whether or not this is harmful is another debate entirely.

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:13 PM
a reply to: twfau

Same old questions. Who makes the chemicals. Where are they stock piled. Why would airlines take on extra weight that is going to cost them more and limit aircraft range. Who loads the chemicals. Who pays for the chemicals. How does the pilot strat stop deployment of chemicals. How is the change in jet weight controlled and explained during flight. Wouldn't there have to be specific modifications to the jet to deploy chemicals. If the chemicals are in the fuel, limits what can be sprayed, again limits jet range, and shortenes engine life. Just happens established jet routes give maximum dispersal potential. Ect ect ect

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:30 PM
Let's put it this way. A 747 holds 60,000 gallons. If the fuel was 20 percent chemical, that's about 12,000 gallons. At take off, about 80,000 pounds extra dead wieght in water down fuel.

Give the benefit of doubt. Say the range is 7000 miles. Bottom line, the yield equals about 2 gallon deployed per mile. A 3000 mile trip is going to deploy 6000 gallons. To put it in perspective, farmers use 100 to 50 gallons of roundup per 100 acres.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in