An Attempt to Debunk Chemtrails For Good

reply to post by TrueLight


Some people are making money out of it. And I would guess that websites that suggest contrails are caused by secret govt spraying for nefarious purposes will get more hits than sites saying increasing amounts are contrails are due to increased air travel, so would people please stop flying.

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by TrueLight

 

Some people are making money out of it. And I would guess that websites that suggest contrails are caused by secret govt spraying for nefarious purposes will get more hits than sites saying increasing amounts are contrails are due to increased air travel, so would people please stop flying.

Woah I never knew there were so many books on chemtrails. I don't think I will buy any but thanks for the link.

Just a quick something that came to mind. Most of the sites I've seen linked here, regarding contrails, are government/edu/nasa sites. And most of the sites promoting chemtrails are independantly run sites. I am wondering, are there any independant sites debunking chemtrails?

Best Wishes.

Originally posted by TrueLight
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.

OK.

Going to be blunt so bear with me - its not a personal thing, I'm just on limited time as I type this;

99% of people have not got a clue about what is in the sky above them. To most folks its a "jet", and most people have no idea whatsoever that the aircraft they see can be flying at anything from two to five miles high above them, operating in a flight line, on an airport stack etc.

99% of people have not got a clue about advanced aspects of meteorology - and lets be clear on this that contrail formation is not a simple subject to cover.

Now, take this into context.

"I saw two planes, flying along with each other, one was leaving a chemtrail and one wasn't - they both turned at the same time and followed the same course - thats proof for you!"

Sinister huh?

Lets look at it another way

"I saw two planes, flying along with each other. one was a Boeing 727 at 25,000ft, the other was a 747 at 30,000ft. The higher plane is flying above a thermal layer that means the air is supersaturated and it will leave a contrail, the lower plane is in less saturated air, and it won't. Because the 727 is smaller than the 747 the difference in altitude makes the planes look roughly the same size - they both turned at the same time and followed the same course because they were flying in a commercial airlane, separated by height and horizontal distance, following directions from the same air traffic control centre - thats proof for you no, thats a whole lot of ignorance

See the difference?

The old addage is that "sex sells", but fear and paranoia sell too (and ignorance), and - as shown above - one is a whole lot easier to claim than the other is to explain.

Good work everyone, for the most part. I've been following this thread off and on as time permits, and not contributing, as I didn't have anything beneficial to throw into the fray. Well, here's a notion that I think will help. First, let's just suspend the words "truth" and "proof" and "fact" from our little mini-dissertations. At best, these variables are "evidence". What has happened in some cases, is that using those two words create an artificial situation, in which a person expresses belief -- strong belief -- and then uses that expression as support or evidence. Then, all an opposing view has to do is find a chink or flaw in that belief system, and the entire theory gets jettisoned (pun intended). Better we express our ideas as opinions, and back those opinions with evidence, preferrably measurable data.

Now, I'm one of the fence-sitters that OZ was aiming this thread at, and I openly admit that my opinion and evidence is resting solely on subjective observations. Worse yet, they are observations for which I lack the credentials to validate.

A few observations:
1) "disinfo" is not equivalent to "disagreement"
2) battling websites: I've been saving to favorites information from both "sides" of the debate. What I wish for, most of all, is test data, indicating a presence of metals or other contaminants, and taken with a testing strategy that is outlined prior to the sampling, followed by analysis by an accredited analytical laboratory. That would be very persuasive evidence (to me).
3) to debate the personality, rather than the topic, is a sure way to defeat your own cause. Yes, we can get heated, yes, this is a normal part of a debate, but in my mind there is a person or two on this thread that injure their own credibility by resorting to this tactic.

I thank Weedwhacker, Essan, OZ for leaning primarily upon verifiable evidence. Understand, I don't want to believe in chemtrails. I'm still on the fence, leaning more, perhaps toward their nonexistance and hope this debate continues here, with a watchful eye towards verifiable, measurable data, even if the trail leads a person away from their primary hypothesis. Clearskies, MissingBlueSkies, others (sorry if I've forgotten some of the user names) are bringing some sites with credible info that I've not seen before, and I thank you as well.

I think we're getting somewhere here folks. Good thread.

Originally posted by neformore
99% of people have not got a clue about what is in the sky above them. To most folks its a "jet", and most people have no idea whatsoever that the aircraft they see can be flying at anything from two to five miles high above them, operating in a flight line, on an airport stack etc.

99% of people have not got a clue about advanced aspects of meteorology - and lets be clear on this that contrail formation is not a simple subject to cover.

99% of people knowing nothing about meteorology is a high percentage. Given that statistic I assume that it is mainly professionals, pilots and weather persons who are "in the know" so to speak.

You seem to know quite a bit about the subject, are you in the field or have personal experience yourself?

Best Wishes.

EDIT : Excuse me, *advanced meteorology*

[edit on 8-8-2008 by TrueLight]

Originally posted by TrueLight
99% of people knowing nothing about meteorology is a high percentage. Given that statistic I assume that it is mainly professionals, pilots and weather persons who are "in the know" so to speak.

It sounds high, doesn't it? But think about it - most peoples experience of the weather is that "its raining" or "its cloudy", or that "the sun is shining".

Ask them how the clouds are formed and how weather systems work and talk about pressure systems, temperature layers, variable windspeed at height and then they start to baulk. Its not easy stuff, and like everything else if you don't need to know it and aren't interested in it, then why bother learning it? Alot of people think they know things, when they don't. I'm not saying thats true of all people by the way, but the average Joe Schmoe on the street just wants to know if he can get a tan, or if his lawn will be watered.

You seem to know quite a bit about the subject, are you in the field or have personal experience yourself?

I have a qualification in hydrology, which covers some meteorological science but no where near as much as some of the professional meteorologists that post here. I've also been an aviation enthusiast since I could look at the sky properly, which is longer than I care to discuss these days

reply to post by neformore


neformore, it's a pleasure that you've chimed in.

Your suggestion of seeing two different sized airplanes, thusly appearing at the same altitude, was quite a good example of reasoning.

I can tell you, from actual experience, it is difficult to estimate altitude....even for me. And I have plenty of practice at it.

Even in flight, when we see traffic on the horizon, it could be 2000 feet above, or below us, it's hard to tell (this, of course, before the introduction of TCAS, now required equipment on all commercial jets) Before TCAS, we'd get info from the controller, if he/she pointed it out to us. Now, of course, we see targets on the little screen, out to a range of 40 miles.

Originally posted by TrueLight
I am wondering, are there any independant sites debunking chemtrails?

Gavin Pretor-Pinney does briefly debunk them in his book The Cloud Spotter's Guide - a book which in turn led to the creation of the Cloud Appreciation Society. It's website contains a great many pictures which the photographers concerned claim to be cirrus, contrails and related atmospheric phenomena, but which I'm sure might on other websites be descibed as proof of chemtrails

www.cloudappreciationsociety.org...

And these also appear to be wholly non govt / non scientific, independent websites:

www.borderlands.com...

users.erols.com...

Whilst this one takes a different approach to the subject of contrails

www.scienceagogo.com...

And this one is apparently run by scientists and engineers - so perhaps not as independent as some would like, but then wasn't Scott Stevens of Weatherwars also supposedly an 'expert'?

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Thank you for the links, I may investigate them in due course and report back if I see any biased close mindedness or unscientific debunking.

Best Wishes.

I have some possibilities and questions that were raised in he last chemtrail thread a couple days back. I have watched this thread, and decided not to post until now. The title of the thread suggested allot of unnecessary typing People who announce their authority on a subject often don't know the all facts. Example " four out five dentists surveyed suggest using this fluoride toothpaste." I don't believe fluoride toothpaste is of any benefit. Many would agree with me. Who is wrong? (we will obviously leave that for another thread ) Anyway here is what i came away with from the last thread.

1.Particulate could be added on the exhaust side, not in fuel.(I had a real problem with aluminum going through a jet engine) there are patents on this technology dating back to 1974. Please don't dismiss this as sky writing technology.

2 It is not clear to me just how long this particulate stays in the upper atmosphere. this is an important question to me. If it is more than a day you can see that there is a definite cumulative possibility.

3 The spraying of people and the spraying of the atmosphere I suspect is done separately.

4 I believe haarp type weapons are also complemented/strengthened by
spraying.


[edit on 8-8-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by neformore


But you still have to address a point I made earlier: there are plenty of unambiguos chemtrail sightings at lower altitudes that result in artificial cloud cover. So going into the complexities of weather imho is unecessary, because while there are obviously scared people who are reporting contrails as chemtrails, there are also people who indeed do know what they're seeing and watch long enough to report abnormal effects in detail.

And I personally have a low threshold, even if this is just mass spraying of alluminium and other chemicals to generate cloud cover because of global warming scaremongering I am against it.

Besides, this thread IS disinformation, because as has been linked in previous threads and other sites on the web there has been reports from various governments about them doing it. So you cannot side with the debunkers on this one as not only does it go against evidence but also against what has already been admitted in several countries. Edit: I'm not accusing anyone of being paid informers, but by being wrong you are actually producing the same effects a hypothetical paid informer would want to achieve.

While I respect the knowledge you guys have, this is clearly a case of people not seeing the forest for the trees.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Zepherian]

Originally posted by neformore

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.

So lets have a proper reasoned discussion, shall we?

(Bumped)

Thanks for the reminder. I hope the people that need to read this warning see it.

Yes, let's all discuss the facts and theories without the backnoise of contempt and ridicule.

reply to post by Swingarm


Swing....as to point number one....HOW is a particulate 'added' to the exhaust? Good theory, if can be proven.

Point 2....how long do particulates stay in the upper atmosphere? Well, let's ask a few volcano experts here. I've seen science shows, NG or the Science Channel, that discussed some volcanic eruptions of note, and how the particulates STAYED in the upper atmosphere, carried by the winds, the jetstreams, to places thousands and thousands of miles from the point of eruption. So, having seen these programs doesn't make ME an expert, but it does reinforce my understanding of science, and meteorology.

(I've forgotten points 3 and 4, but no matter...I've asked enough to ponder, for now)

reply to post by weedwhacker

Swing....as to point number one....HOW is a particulate 'added' to the exhaust? Good theory, if can be proven.

Weedster, you must be joking? You were present in the last thread when we talked about the technology. This is what I mean about useless typing. This is why people wonder about your true intentions in these threads. Or are you just not really interested in what others say and maybe its honest short term memory dumpage?

Point 2....how long do particulates stay in the upper atmosphere? Well, let's ask a few volcano experts here. I've seen science shows, NG or the Science Channel, that discussed some volcanic eruptions of note, and how the particulates STAYED in the upper atmosphere, carried by the winds, the jetstreams, to places thousands and thousands of miles from the point of eruption. So, having seen these programs doesn't make ME an expert, but it does reinforce my understanding of science, and meteorology.

This is why it's interesting . This particulate stays up there. The spraying doesn't need to be done constantly to be effective. Also the spraying could be focused in several "patches" to be useful with other technologies who knows?


Chsck out this link for an uncommon perspective

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Swingarm]

Originally posted by Essan
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

I would be interested. I am open minded about this subject and want to learn as much as possible. If you know of such a documentary please provide me a link to it and I will check it out.

reply to post by Swingarm


Swingster, YOU must be joking. Or, amybe I got it wrongly.

I don't remember another thread that discussed this....If I posted there, then I may have skipped over anything that I saw as ludicrous...my bad.

So, please help me....HOW is something introduced into a jet engine's exhaust?

AND don't tell me about hollowed-out static wicks, that is simply not true (ever seen a static wick?? Then, you'd know why it's ridiculous)

So, other way to indroduce someting into the exhaust, without using the fuel (and thusly destroying whatever you introduced during combustion) is to use the air....because, that's all that goes into a jet engine....fuel, and air.

Where is the give-away, the plumbing, the pipes that would be needed?? To add to the exhast gases, from the engines? Oh, and the holding tanks, the pumps....the switches to operate the pumps, where are they? WHO runs the pumps? WHO controls the switching, turning them on and off?? Pilots?

See how ridiculous this is....stick with Military 'dumping' of chemicals....they know how to keep things quiet.

Passenger jets....nope. Not there, a complete white elephant.

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Matrix1111

 

Why do chemtrail believers post here? You've already made up you minds and have no intention of changing them. You certainly show no intention of engaging in intelligent debate (such as offering supportive evidence or giving due consideration to evidence that refutes your assertions)

Shouldn't you all be posting on somewhere like Chemtrail Central?

Who's paying you to spread the hoax? Or it is more like a religious crusade.

Still, I know how Gallileo felt ....






Yet still the contrails move

Edit: I was going to call you contrail debunkers - but I guess that would be inaccurate because you've not actually made any attempt to debunk the assertion that what you're seeing is contrails

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Essan]

I'm debating for the sake of truth. How about you?

Talking about an intelligent debate, here are the facts offered so far in this thread:

1. Weather modification is an on-going practice. Original Link: www.rense.com...

2. This weather-forming region of the atmosphere lies between Earth's surface and the stratosphere, starting around 35,000 feet. Original Link: www.rense.com...

3. An active duty air force crew chief has described environmental combat missions already being flown by specially-outfitted C-130 Hercules transports. The same crew chief added that other spray missions spread (barium) chemtrails to facilitate 3D radar mapping of the entire continental United States. He also said that the air force has been spraying storm fronts "for a long time". The military's main interest, he added, is experimentation aimed at gaining control of the weather for military use. Original Link: www.rense.com...

4. TV news report states that “the military planes of the German Federal Army are manipulating our climate; this is what the weather researchers are presuming and their suspicions are confirmed… “We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals.” Original Link: www.chycho.com...

5. Airline companies in America have been participating in something called Project Cloverleaf for a few years now. The earliest date anyone remembers being briefed on it is 1998. I was briefed on it in 1999. The few airline employees who were briefed on Project Cloverleaf were all made to undergo background checks, and before we were briefed on it we were made to sign non-disclosure agreements, which basically state that if we tell anyone what we know we could be imprisoned. Original Link: www.carnicom.com...

6. The Evergreen Supertanker is not just limited to fighting fire. It will be a true utilitarian aircraft with the capability to configure to different applications on short notice. This multimission aircraft can support sensitive security and environmental missions. The aircraft’s exceptional drop capabilities, loiter time and size make it an ideal tool to perform challenging homeland security missions, able to neutralize chemical attacks on military installments or major population centers, and help control large, environmentally disastrous oil spills. Original Link: www.evergreenaviation.com...

7. US admits chemical weapons tests BBC 10/10/02 Original Link: news.bbc.co.uk...

8. US planes sprayed Wiltshire with Sarin London Times 10/10/02: Chris Ayres and Michael Evans Original Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...

9. Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations. Original Link: Bill Hr. 2977 thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.2977.IH: (sorry, this link isn't working now. Clearskies first post in this thread has a workable link)

10. U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995, a bill that would allow experimental weather modification by artificial methods and implement a national weather modification policy, does not include agriculture or public oversight, is on the “fast track” to be passed in 2006…. Trimethyl Aluminum (TMA) and barium are just two of the toxic chemicals used in recent atmospheric heating and testing programs according to NASA. The Alaska H.A.A.R.P. atmospheric heating program may have the capability of changing the Jet Stream which could also change our weather. Original Link: globalresearch.ca...

Based on the information provided by various above links in this thread, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that Chemtrails are real -- whether they are being used for weather modification, ozone repair, radar defense systems or alien repulsion (more about that later). Yet, the chemtrail debunkers ignore all these offered facts as simply the work of hoaxsters. What evidence do they have that it’s not real? I leave that up to them to summarize their “evidence,” just I have done for the pro-chemtrail theorists.

Okay?



[edit on 8/8/2008 by Matrix1111]

Weedster the affects of the aluminum is taking its toll on you Friend, and you don't even realize it.

Swingster, YOU must be joking. Or, amybe I got it wrongly.

I don't remember another thread that discussed this....If I posted there, then I may have skipped over anything that I saw as ludicrous...my bad.

So, please help me....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well, Swing....I see a patent idea, that may or may not have come to fruition. The second link, again, postulated the possibility, then went on to try to sell me something to flatten my stomach.

In any case, these are concepts......promoted by hopeful entrepeneurs....and if any of these concepts were viable, you can bet your arse the military would be all over them, and in control so fast it would make your head spin.

Ever heard of the 'Military Industrial Complex'???

This is something we [edit here....were] warned about, when Eisenhower was exiting the Presidency, back in 1960.

Too bad no one listend to him. It's had four decades to entrench itself, and will be very difficult to unravel.....now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
[edit on 8-8-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by Matrix1111


Matrix, I'm still reviewing some of your links....rense is BS, sorry. 'Carnicom' looks like another 'spoof', since it refers to the 'mechanic's' letter....already shown to be bunk.

Look....I have crawled around and under airplanes for 40 years....nearly 22 years at a major airline. Do you think I would not have heard of something???? Or seen something?

Pilots know their airplanes. Better than, I daresay, you know the car you drive every day. We know what, and what does not belong....and, as a Union member, I assure you, we, nor they, would stay silent if we saw something out of the ordinary.

I was once told to fly an airplane that was, frankly, unairworthy. Has nothing to do with 'chemtrails'...just an example. This airplane had a three-instance write-up of a slat problem. I was told to fly it just a few miles, to 'ferry' it for maintenance. No passengers, just we two pilots. I refused....because it would have entailed jeapordizing MY license, since I had seen the logbook. I KNEW what was involved. AND I said, get a waiver, a 'ferry permit' from the FAA, and then get some management pilots to do it. THEN it would have been legal....in fact, I would have flown it, with the 'ferry permit' authorization. BUT not as presented to me.

I was backed up 100% by the Union, and it caused quite a stir, behind the scenes.

Reason I bring this story up, is: This is how things actually work, behind the scenes, in an airline. WE do NOT keep our mouths shut, we stand up to wrong-doing, when we see it. AND we value SAFETY above all else.

Hope this explains a little....