An Attempt to Debunk Chemtrails For Good

Originally posted by Essan
[Who's paying you to spread the hoax? Or it is more like a religious crusade.

No one does crusades better than the paid government shills (especially the foreign ones who can bypass the official U.S. prohibition on government propaganda.)

It's the same story over and over. Don't believe your own eyes. Provide absolute proof of their negative, or else believe what the government meteorologists and debunkers tell you to believe.

But wait, we're not the "Retired U.S. Govt Disinfo Agent" (who seems to have come out of retirement.)

Originally posted by Erasurehead
On one end we have OzWeatherman, meteorologist in Australia that is so sure that chemtrails are nonsense that he had to attempt to "Debunk Chemtrails For Good". Then you have Scott Stevens, meteorologist in America that believes that there is something to chemtrails and it should be investigated. Who should be believe? Both are supposed experts in the field of the atmosphere and weather.

When you mention Scott Stevens well he doesn't know anything and he is just a wack job. The man has over 20 years experience in the field why is nuts because he believes chemtrails are not normal.
[edit on 7-8-2008 by Erasurehead]

Scott Stevens isnt a Meteorologist, this quote is from his website

My background was 20-years spent in the television newsroom, down in the studio over in the weather center. I figured that it is about time that I present this weather wars story with that television news storytelling treatment.

Hardly meteorological experience.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Scott Stevens isnt a Meteorologist, this quote is from his website

My background was 20-years spent in the television newsroom, down in the studio over in the weather center. I figured that it is about time that I present this weather wars story with that television news storytelling treatment.

Hardly meteorological experience.

You don't know that. According to the AMS, there's no legal definition of a meteorologist.

What is a Meteorologist?

A Professional Guideline

A question that has been raised for a long period of time is, "What is a meteorologist?" This question has been quite common in recent years with regard to individuals referring to themselves as a "meteorologist" on television and radio. After extended discussions, the Council of the American Meteorological Society adopted on 28 September 1990, the following guideline:

A meteorologist is an individual with specialized education who uses scientific principles to explain, understand, observe or forecast the earth's atmospheric phenomena and/or how the atmosphere affects the earth and life on the planet. This specialized education would be a bachelor's or higher degree in meteorology, or atmospheric science, consistent with the requirements set forth in "The Bachelor's Degree in Meteorology or Atmospheric Science," Bulletin American Meteorological Society, 1987, Vol. 68, No. 12, p. 1570.

There are some cases where an individual has not obtained a B.S. or higher degree in meteorology, but has met the educational requirements set forth in the American Meteorological Society's Interpretive Memorandum effective June 1990, Article III, Section 4 (C), and has at least three years professional experience in meteorology. Such an individual also can be referred to as a meteorologist.

Activities of a meteorologist often are classified into a number of specialized areas. A few examples are: air pollution meteorology, global climate modeling, hydrometeorology, and numerical analysis and forecasting. These activities often require additional specialized education in related subjects.

The designation meteorologist applies to individuals who have attained the professional knowledge outlined above. Individuals who have little formal education in the atmospheric sciences, or who have taken only industry survey courses, and who disseminate weather information and forecasts prepared by others, are properly designated "weathercasters."

© 1996 American Meteorological Society

At least he's not the most despicable creature of all, a government shill.

You know, these flame wars are really boring.

But at least they avoid the awkwardness of actually engaging in a rational discussion and presenting evidence and counter evidence.

Originally posted by Essan
You know, these flame wars are really boring.

But at least they avoid the awkwardness of actually engaging in a rational discussion and presenting evidence and counter evidence.

So when are you going to stop treating the other member with scorn and derision?

When are you going to stop dismissing out of hand any reports you receive - after you demand them?

Your obvious agenda is blocking us from having a discussion - we aren't all paid to be here...

Originally posted by TruthTellist

Originally posted by Essan
You know, these flame wars are really boring.

But at least they avoid the awkwardness of actually engaging in a rational discussion and presenting evidence and counter evidence.

So when are you going to stop treating the other member with scorn and derision?

When are you going to stop dismissing out of hand any reports you receive - after you demand them?

Your obvious agenda is blocking us from having a discussion - we aren't all paid to be here...

When are you going to actually get on topic and engage in the topic at hand. Before you reared your head, this thread had just over seventy posts, where both sides of the topic were being discussed and put forward. You have not contributed to the OP yet, all you said is that there are disinformationists at work here...I am reporting this to the Mods for off topic discussion

In saying that I would like to thank Vlearskies, Golden Fleece and other sthat have managed to stay on topic (regardless of differentiating view points) throughout this thread. I am glad some people are still capable of intelligent discusiion without reverting to immature name calling

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I have contributed far more useful information to this thread than you.

I have posted links to FOIA online reading rooms

I have provided links to patents pertaining directly to the chemtrail phenomenon.


You have responded to every member who has posted anything with persistent scorn and derision - you must stop this.

I have taken the liberty to report your activity on this thread to the moderator and have compiled a list of slanders and insults made by yourself and others.

Shall we get back to discussing the NATO Aerosolized Defense Grid?

I saw chemtrails earlier today at 9:00 am and no planes landed or took off at the airport beside my home (Except for this one fellow who flies people in circles for money), the tracks were heading north-south. This is strange as it was the same plane making about 11 lines before moving on. It didn't look like he was dumping fuel, or he was doing it in parallel lines. Funny pilots...

Just thought I'd Contribute something so you could dismiss it.


[edit on 7-8-2008 by TruthTellist]

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I'm tying to be included in the
'good' category....not trynig to grovel, just hopng I get noticed...

Anyway, it's a good thread, OZ. Like it lotz....

Best, WW

Originally posted by TruthTellist

I have taken the liberty to report your activity on this thread to the moderator and have compiled a list of slanders and insults made by yourself and others.

'

Send me a copy of the list.

You're the one with suspicious behaviour, tracking everyones activity and compililing lists

Maybe you work for Cliff Carnicom or Rense

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Oz...your're a good sort.

I love your thread.....we'll see how it plays out.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


In his defense, suspicion is the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist.

We're all dancing around the debate, and I am sorry if the impossibility of debunking chemtrails for good irritates you, but I see everyone, when you consider their respective positioning, as being on topic.

I for one am trying to be civil whilst simultaneously discarding totally your viewpoint, as my own personal experience allows me to. I can't give a chemtrail testimony and at the same time say the other side is right in their pretenses to "debunk chemtrails for good" now can I?

Let's agree to disagree? Or did you think people who have seen chemtrails in unambiguous circumstance would just bow down to someones meteorology?

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I am certainly not here to argue Scott Stevens credentials. The guy has over 20 years experience studying weather patterns and the atmosphere.
I met him in 2005 when chemtrails really peaked my interest. The man is no idiot. He has a documentary coming out later this year. You should watch it and maybe it will at least give you something to think about. I know you are quite convinced that it is all bogus but others are not so sure.

Here is the trailer for Scott's documentary www.youtube.com...
Anyone interested in this topic should check it out when it is released. I am not trying to convince anyone either way. Decide for yourself.

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

In his defense, suspicion is the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist.

We're all dancing around the debate, and I am sorry if the impossibility of debunking chemtrails for good irritates you, but I see everyone, when you consider their respective positioning, as being on topic.

I for one am trying to be civil whilst simultaneously discarding totally your viewpoint, as my own personal experience allows me to. I can't give a chemtrail testimony and at the same time say the other side is right in their pretenses to "debunk chemtrails for good" now can I?

Let's agree to disagree? Or did you think people who have seen chemtrails in unambiguous circumstance would just bow down to someones meteorology?

It doesnt irritate me. Like I said at the start of the thread, it was targeted at fence sitters mainly and those that wanted to disagree and discuss. Some good information on both sides has been put forward in my opinion, and there were over 70 posts that kept on topic until one member came on an started labelling myself, Essan and Weedwhacker as spreading disinfo.

I dont expect anyone to believe me because I am in meteorology but we cant have just one side of an argument posted on ATS all the time. It makes for biased information. I guess the title is misleading because the hardcore believers will always believe and the hardcore skeptics will never believe. I am skeptical about many things, but at the same time I believe in other things (UFO's is one, thats why I orignally came to ATS), provided the right kind of evidence is shown

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I just have one thing to add, this is not about a belief system. A few months ago I didn't even see myself taking part in chemtrail threads, I wasn't even interested. But then I saw and now I know. This is the core reason I post in these threads, it's to make it clear that this is not some wishy washy belief system that is to be debated in a philosophical or theological way. This is reality, we are being sprayed on.

And whether you like it or not, by denying this reality you are indeed spreading disinformation, although I am perfectly willing to accept that you're doing it out of your belief system and with good intentions, if that is the case. I'm just here to point out you're wrong and it's a big issue to be wrong in.

I think my participation in this thread, baring some point I just have to respond to, is sufficient, and if I offended anyone it was not intentionally and my apologies.

Zeph out.

reply to post by Essan


Yes, you are right, it is a crusade for me. A crusade to find clues, info, the more people I talk to about it, the more I can learn, and I do appreciate your input and the facts you give to the forum. I want to know as much about it as I can find.

I got involved with politics in my state this past year, directly related to this inquiry. I got involved, campaigned, ran for office and tried to affect change in this area. I post here because until we find the smoking gun (or smoking jet) I appreciate the open mindedness of the speculative forum.

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

I just have one thing to add, this is not about a belief system. A few months ago I didn't even see myself taking part in chemtrail threads, I wasn't even interested. But then I saw and now I know. This is the core reason I post in these threads, it's to make it clear that this is not some wishy washy belief system that is to be debated in a philosophical or theological way. This is reality, we are being sprayed on.

And whether you like it or not, by denying this reality you are indeed spreading disinformation, although I am perfectly willing to accept that you're doing it out of your belief system and with good intentions, if that is the case. I'm just here to point out you're wrong and it's a big issue to be wrong in.

I think my participation in this thread, baring some point I just have to respond to, is sufficient, and if I offended anyone it was not intentionally and my apologies.

Zeph out.

Its ok, you have responded efficiently and its good to see some people are still capable of doing this. I hold nothing against your argument at all. I still dont think I amspreading disinfo though, just an alternative point of view. Dont forget that disinfo can come from both sides, for one purpose or another

I to had never heard about chemtrails til not long ago, after I had completed my training for work. Being in the upper air/ aviation section and dealing with weather balloons (which travel to 90,000ft) and experiencing first hand atmopsheric conditions have led me to believe that the existence of chemtrails in unplausible, so its not like I have ruled them out automatically...I have done my own research

reply to post by Erasurehead


Out of interest, would you be as keen to watch a documentary produced by a meteorological organisation showing how and why contrails form, how they are becoming more and more common and the possible consequence for climate of such contrails?

Anyone else ever wonder if the chemtrail hoax was started and/or perpetuated by people who want to divert attention away from the real potentially serious consequences of increased air travel. After all, if we believe it's just the military or government we won't cut back on our own flying?

The obvious conspiracy is not always the real one

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky


I take it then you've read up on all the meteorological explanations for what you're seeing. Why do you so readily reject them? Do you have a reason? Do you find the science wanting? What are your thoughts on the wealth of evidence that shows exactly the same things happening many decades ago? What are your thoughts about the scientists who were studying what you now believe to be chemtrails back in the 1970s? Or do you think chemtrails simply mimic normal contrails, thus fooling meteorological observers around the world? And is there any way for the rest of us to tell the difference between normal contrails and chemtrails?

IMO if chemtrails are real, they might be identified because they do not persist like normal contrails do, since the substances being sprayed might not readily form ice crystals the way jet exhausts do. Any thoughts on that?

STOP

Right. Now that I have everyones attention, please listen up.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and is free to post it on ATS providing it is within the Terms and Conditions.

If you actually read the T&C it says this, very plainly

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

So, the name calling stops now please.

I hope thats clear.

If your only retort to people who provide information to a thread is to call them a "shill" or "disinfo agent" then your whole credibility is blown. It means that you have nothing to offer.

Likewise, speculating on peoples motives for posting just blows your whole credibility out of the water. Think about it this way

Maybe there are people who promote the chemtrail theory solely to make money off gullible people

It's exactly the same the other way round as well - but the simple fact is that not one single person posting in this thread knows anyones motives at all, and speculating about them is off topic.

Debate the post and NOT the poster

Provide actual facts to back up your claims. Provide proper, educated science if need be, but understand this;

Hot air, rhetoric and ad-hominem arguments prove nothing, and are off topic.

Some people do know what they are talking about when it comes to atmospheric sciences, flight sciences and other related subjects. ATS is about reasonable informed debate and that requires listening sometimes, as well as talking.

Finally

Courtesy is Mandatory

Thats Mandatory as in;

Mandatory
Adjective
1. obligatory; compulsory

So lets have a proper reasoned discussion, shall we?

reply to post by neformore

Originally posted by neformore
Maybe there are people who promote the chemtrail theory solely to make money off gullible people

I am wondering what this means? Is it possible, in your opinion, to make money from promoting information as regards the chemtrail issue? And if so, how? It would certainly put an angle on this subject that I hadn't considered until now.

Best Wishes.