Chemtrail Debunkers....

Originally posted by Gazrok

I would like this thread to be for people who truly want to investigate the subject of chemtrails. I would also like to respectfully request that the chemtrail debunkers refrain from interfering with this thread and post their usual anti-chemmie comments elsewhere.

You face a daunting task. If you really want to make a case for it, you'd have to:

1. Identify the companies/airlines involved.
2. Prove the capability of spraying by said aircraft. (includes how accused jetliners can carry passengers, their luggage, contracted luggage, AND large tanks of chemicals)
3. Show how this effort is kept quiet when it would involve numerous ground personnel and company officers.
4. Show how any substance would remain potent enough when exposed to the vast volume of the atmosphere, to affect anyone on the ground, from standard flight altitudes.
5. Identify differences between contrails and chemtrails.
6. Provide a motive for such an all-targeting method (i.e. you can't pick and choose WHO is affected and who is not).
7. Identify unexplained shortages of the chemicals involved in the process or unexplained amounts that weren't used for their stated purposes.
8. Provide documentation, air manifests, orders, etc. helping to prove any of it.
9. Identify how constantly changing air currents are predicted to spray on any specific target (or if just an all-encompassing target of population centers).
10. Explain why no credible whistleblower has ever come forward with compelling evidence.

I'd say you're in for quite the task.

1) NASA, USAF, Evergreen International Aviation, Battelle, Raytheon, Applied Signals Technologies, GM and many many more

2) No commercial passenger airlines are suspected of leaving "chemtrails" by me.
This patent is evidence of capability
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/17d3f51482a1.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/13e2f5d1e9ef.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8a798a44fae1.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf84ee846b91.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by MathiasAndrew
Given that the design is for a device to simulate a contrail for missile tracking tests, and is only expected to last for a matter of minutes at altitudes up to 20,000 feet, you'll need to explain a few things that initially come to mind.

Here's a couple initial observations.

I can name many large corporations that contract with the federal government. Which ones are generating "chemtrails" today?

You've eliminated commercial aircraft, that leaves private planes and the military. Please elaborate.

As described, a 5lb canister (designed as a target device for missile tracking tests) will disburse its contents in 3 minutes at the specified operating rate of 1-1/2lb/min. in the application. Not really enough to get from horizon to horizon even if a battery of canisters were employed. How have they been modified, and what powder replaces titanium oxide?

How many pounds of powder are required to generate a persistent cloud that resists drift, spreads to obscure a large percentage of the sky, and lasts from horizon to horizon? How fine would the powder have to be to resist dispersion by air currents and gravity? How long would it stay aloft?

Nice start, if a little sketchy, but go on down the list, please.

jw

Originally posted by Gazrok

 

3. Show how this effort is kept quiet when it would involve numerous ground personnel and company officers.

4. Show how any substance would remain potent enough when exposed to the vast volume of the atmosphere, to affect anyone on the ground, from standard flight altitudes.

5. Identify differences between contrails and chemtrails.

3) It really hasn't been kept very quiet or we wouldn't be here talking about it.

4) Here is one example www.youtube.com...

5) differences between contrails and chemtrails www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Given that the design is for a device to simulate a contrail for missile tracking tests, and is only expected to last for a matter of minutes at altitudes up to 20,000 feet, you'll need to explain a few things that initially come to mind.

Here's a couple initial observations.

I can name many large corporations that contract with the federal government. Which ones are generating "chemtrails" today?

You've eliminated commercial aircraft, that leaves private planes and the military. Please elaborate.

As described, a 5lb canister (designed as a target device for missile tracking tests) will disburse its contents in 3 minutes at the specified operating rate of 1-1/2lb/min. in the application. Not really enough to get from horizon to horizon even if a battery of canisters were employed. How have they been modified, and what powder replaces titanium oxide?

How many pounds of powder are required to generate a persistent cloud that resists drift, spreads to obscure a large percentage of the sky, and lasts from horizon to horizon? How fine would the powder have to be to resist dispersion by air currents and gravity? How long would it stay aloft?

Nice start, if a little sketchy, but go on down the list, please.

jw

Theres no use asking Mathias to elaborate on any of his claims, either he will ignore it or spam a bunch of youtube video's to bury your questions and claim the video's as absolute fact.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Really? That's what you offer, YouTube videos?
What part of proof and evidence don't you understand?

Sorry should have finished. Please excuse my momentary disdain.
The first video is about geo-engineering. It is NOT about "chemtrails". You have already attempted to combine the two in this thread, but they are not interchangable. He is talking about depositing things into the mesosphere, not the stratosphere. Big difference. "Chemtrails" as usually defined are stratospheric and (incorrectly) lower. Not above.
Second video: Okay, I'm bringing my disdain back full force. CARNICOM? Really? He is the biggest "chemtrail" shill out there. He talks about them for a living, sells tapes and personal appearances. I've researched some of his "research" before and he is not credible. He uses his own work for a reference. He doesn't use a control. He uses ground-based testing without excluding ground-based sources. His choice of reference on just one page was 3 works by himself, the directions for a middle-school level science water test, two or three sources a tiny step about "Chemistry for Dummies", And that was just one page. He also uses other "chemtrail" websites for reference, which then use him. He says he is a research engineer, but doesn't tell you what topic (I believe it's computer science). He has been spoofed by a lab report about the finding of dihydrogen mono-oxide. Any two or three of those would be enough to discredit him, but he's done all of these and more.
YouTube videos.........what a let down. Please. Research. Try "contrail studies -chemtrails (that's minus chemtrails). There are 93,100 hits, most of them scholarly. Compare and contrasts what a real science research paper looks like with Carnicom's. There is a big difference.

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Really? That's what you offer, YouTube videos?
What part of proof and evidence don't you understand?

What part of "Prima facie case" and "discovery" don't you understand

Prima facie case - www.id.uscourts.gov... A case that is sufficient and has the minimum amount of evidence necessary to allow it to continue in the judicial process

Discovery en.wikipedia.org...(law)
In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the opposing party by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When discovery requests are objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

Under the law of the United States, civil discovery is wide-ranging and can involve any material which is "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence." This is a much broader standard than relevance, because it contemplates the exploration of evidence which might be relevant, rather than evidence which is actually relevant. (Issues of the scope of relevance are taken care of before trial in motions in limine and during trial with objections.) Certain types of information are generally protected from discovery; these include information which is privileged and the work product of the opposing party.

Did you even watch the videos? No of course not, we've already established that as your typical Modus Operandi

u could add smell my feet i have seen little evidence but some is kinda catchy.

just is a big stretch global airplane government civilian public airport conspiracy that s a lota i s and t's to cross and dot u know what i mean?

reply to post by jdub297

You've eliminated commercial aircraft, that leaves private planes and the military. Please elaborate.

What specifically do you want me to elaborate upon ? Again, I am not stating anything as facts. I'm trying to conduct the process of "discvovery" to share evidence and reach certain "stipulations"

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


thats what i say when im cornered in my own way to easy try again

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Really? That's what you offer, YouTube videos?
What part of proof and evidence don't you understand?

Sorry should have finished. Please excuse my momentary disdain.
The first video is about geo-engineering. It is NOT about "chemtrails". You have already attempted to combine the two in this thread, but they are not interchangable. He is talking about depositing things into the mesosphere, not the stratosphere. Big difference. "Chemtrails" as usually defined are stratospheric and (incorrectly) lower. Not above.
Second video: Okay, I'm bringing my disdain back full force. CARNICOM? Really? He is the biggest "chemtrail" shill out there. He talks about them for a living, sells tapes and personal appearances. I've researched some of his "research" before and he is not credible. He uses his own work for a reference. He doesn't use a control. He uses ground-based testing without excluding ground-based sources. His choice of reference on just one page was 3 works by himself, the directions for a middle-school level science water test, two or three sources a tiny step about "Chemistry for Dummies", And that was just one page. He also uses other "chemtrail" websites for reference, which then use him. He says he is a research engineer, but doesn't tell you what topic (I believe it's computer science). He has been spoofed by a lab report about the finding of dihydrogen mono-oxide. Any two or three of those would be enough to discredit him, but he's done all of these and more.
YouTube videos.........what a let down. Please. Research. Try "contrail studies -chemtrails (that's minus chemtrails). There are 93,100 hits, most of them scholarly. Compare and contrasts what a real science research paper looks like with Carnicom's. There is a big difference.

edit on 17-3-2011 by stars15k because: (no reason given)

Tell me what you disagree with especially in the context of the question I was answering by submitting those videos.
The first one answers how the particulate matter can remain in the atmosphere and effect people.

The second video describes in excellent detail the differences between normal contrails and suspected chemtrails.

Please keep the context of the post in mind and also the concept of "discovery". Please share your sources in your rebuttal.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Wrong. I did watch the first one. The second I have seen already. And laughed at.
Did you? The first is about the very broad heading of geo-engineering. He is not talking about spreading things from a plane, nor is he even hinting at something currently being done. He is talking about ideas. Just ideas. Which he concludes need more study and thought. Not a plan in operation, near to being in operation, or even completely feasible for many reasons. Not "chemtrails". You might combine the two, but you do so on your own. The use of "chemtrails" being for a tool of "geo-engineering" is very recent....within the last year or two. It was openly discussed as being a way to gloss over the use of "chemtrails" , which carries with it a "tin-foil hat" connotation.
Carnicom? hehehehehehe. I've researched him. And laugh. He claims he is a scientist, but he doesn't use good science method. His work alone should be enough to discredit him.

Just because you believe something is proof doesn't mean anyone else will see it that way. You still have to prove there is something somehow "chem-" to give your claim any credence. You haven't done that yet. These two videos show you probably won't. I would object to both being called into evidence, one as irrelevent and the other as being a questionable source.
You Tube videos..........

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
admin title edit We don't allow the exclusion of ANYONE on ATS.

Chemtrail Debunkers

There are plenty of threads here on ATS that attempt to expose and investigate the subject of chemtrails.

Hopefully ..we can have a 'CHEMTRAILS FORUM' on ATS?

The 'Odious' and 'banal' comments from the 'dead-head debunkers'

actually deflect research information,

and the 'one-line one video/ comment/ idiots' are a retarded 'kill switch' to the real truth

and I hope you get 'riddled from head to toe' with the Chemtrail agenda

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by miconATSrender

Hi
I see both kinds one after the other, some make clouds and some look regular.
It starts as a nice clear day then bam 20 come by to make clouds.
I need to see the skies and this intentional clouding sucks.

why do you say it is intentional?

I think every one can agree that we don't like it.

Some people find contrails attractive.

Hey Gaul
I say it's intentional because airplanes aren’t accidentally flying places.

I also find some plane clouds cool looking, but I prefer the clear open skies.
I took this shot today.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b6fdd1e8d07e.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Wrong. I did watch the first one. The second I have seen already. And laughed at.
Did you? The first is about the very broad heading of geo-engineering. He is not talking about spreading things from a plane, nor is he even hinting at something currently being done. He is talking about ideas. Just ideas. Which he concludes need more study and thought. Not a plan in operation, near to being in operation, or even completely feasible for many reasons. Not "chemtrails". You might combine the two, but you do so on your own. The use of "chemtrails" being for a tool of "geo-engineering" is very recent....within the last year or two. It was openly discussed as being a way to gloss over the use of "chemtrails" , which carries with it a "tin-foil hat" connotation.
Carnicom? hehehehehehe. I've researched him. And laugh. He claims he is a scientist, but he doesn't use good science method. His work alone should be enough to discredit him.

Just because you believe something is proof doesn't mean anyone else will see it that way. You still have to prove there is something somehow "chem-" to give your claim any credence. You haven't done that yet. These two videos show you probably won't. I would object to both being called into evidence, one as irrelevent and the other as being a questionable source.
You Tube videos..........

You're wrong again. Show me where I state that what I presented was "proof". I presented it as evidence in the process of discovery. You can object all you want. You're not the judge of what is admissible evidence. Go ahead and laugh with little smiley's..I can do it too look..........not very tough. Only makes you appear more benign and irrelevant yourself. I object to your whole statement being admissible on the grounds that you yourself are questionable and have a U-tube account where you make videos rivaling the worst "chemmie" videos I've ever seen when it comes to being unbiased and open minded. I watched your videos......EVERYONE GO WATCH starz15k videos on U-tube. Do they seem objective and accurate to you ?...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Stipulations require agreement. We aren't going to agree to what you are asking for. You are way out of line with your requests.
I would like you to read the materials I have read before you continue. That way we are on common ground. First, you'll need the text "Weather Studies, Introduction to Atmospheric Science", by Joseph M. Moran. It's put out as a college level course by the American Meteorlogical Society. It's $$, but worth it.
Then you'll have to go online and search for "contrail studies -chemtrails". I usually limit my search by current topic, then look for the most recent and the most near conditions of location, climate, and physical attributes. For example, persistence. I would use "contrail persistence studies -chemtrails", then take it from there.
I seldom use contrail sites, except as a stepping stone to further research.
Reading through the entire website Contrailscience.com is a good start. It's an open forum so you can ask questions and leave opinions. They are tough there. They also provide links to support their stand.
You will find videos there. Some from YouTube. But they are used as visual aids, not as sources of proof.
And you'll have to talk with pilots (military, civilian, and private), air traffic controllers, aviation photographers, meteorologists, aviation engineers, aviation mechanics, and more than one science teacher. You'd need to have a basic grasp of chemistry, physics, meteorology (especially cloud forms), and geology. You need at least a little aviation navigation. You will need a basic understanding of visualization, such as art. Much of "chemtrail" lore is based on lack of understanding of basic perspective, something you learn in art.
Most important, you need to know what you don't know. Yep, I don't know a lot. I do know that well. It means I'm always researching, trying to understand should the same argument be presented again. It also means I defer to those with more expertise. And do it gladly.
So videos from YouTube as proof and evidence? No. Unless you are trying to prove that you don't have to be very smart to use a video camera and a computer.

Originally posted by Argyll

Originally posted by miconATSrender

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by miconATSrender

 

What don't you like?.......the condensation in the atmosphere that is formed from the aircraft exhausts?

Yes. I don't like the way they are clouding the skies. Do you like it? Does anyone like it?
It's more than condensation, its pollution. It has to be worse than car exhaust. I guess we should feel lucky our cars don't leave trails.

Why does it "have" to be worse than car exhaust?.....it's ice crystals in the sky for gods sake!
Unless your driving an electric or hybrid car, then I've got news for you!........your car is polluting the environment a hell of a lot more than a plane travelling 7 miles above the earth's surface!

Hey Argyll aka Montezuma
Dude, you ok? I mean what's the dealyOh?
I am not going to try to convince you of anything. Settle down, it's ok. EZ

If you want to believe that only ice crystals come out of plane exhaust, hey ok ok. I've heard stranger theories.
The cars pollute, planes pollute. Would you feel better if I toss in boats. Even if there is not a trail the pollutants are still there. Hell I have to breath it at least I would rather not see it too.

Oh and thanks for the news.

Dear op

do you realize that just because there is science involved in the making of airplane dispersions that create what ever there particular desired effect means absolutely nothing as far as a conspiracy goes i get shot down a lot and am not interested in tricky lingo or conversation debunking you have only proved that science works when applied properly.

global conspiracy’s are what makes good science fiction any more reading in a person with your understanding of science ad facts should see how silly this really is.

not a hit at your soul but you cant prove that you are half very intelligent and half totally ignorant that said this is a fun thread very reminiscing of the old days but this is a very old idea and a very well i hoe you get kinda what im saying most is a compliment a global conspiracy is what made the 2012 movie completely lose steam for me sall closed conspiracys are the only ones that could last Ya Know???

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


It is for sure that the chem trails do exist, one of the best websites to visit is aircrap.org. They are doing a tremendous amount of research on the subject. You can not look at the amount of the particulates found in the air in Arizona and still say that these chem trails do not exist. The increase in respritory illness alone is enough to question just exactly what is it that they are continually spraying. Sometimes you look into the sky and it looks as though they are trying to create a gigantic tic tac toe pattern. Between the chem trails and the possible radiation from the reactors in Japan, things could sure get very ugly, very quickly.


Shadowkat

reply to post by stars15k


First you will have to wait your turn. I don't need to go read your papers right now. I was already involved in answering someone else's questions and asking for their response not yours. If you want to go pick out the relevant parts of the reading material you suggested and submit it go ahead be my guest.

But don't try to take some higher than though, my knowledge is better than your knowledge. why because I said so position you're trying to take with me. I've already supplied at least three sources one of them being NASA that proves the knowledge of contrail science is faulty, limited and inaccurate..

reply to post by stars15k

The first video is about geo-engineering. It is NOT about "chemtrails". You have already attempted to combine the two in this thread, but they are not interchangable. He is talking about depositing things into the mesosphere, not the stratosphere. Big difference. "Chemtrails" as usually defined are stratospheric and (incorrectly) lower. Not above.

The Geo-engineering concept is a huge premise behind the chemtrail theories. How on Earth can you say they are not interchangeable? OK let's never use the word chemtrail again. Let's call it Geo engineering. We're still talking about the same thing aren't we? I'm sure you have seen "What in the World Are They Spraying." right ? Are you telling me they don't connect the Geo engineering plans and the chemtrails ? Here is Part 1 just for you..


David Keith AAAS Geo engineering meeting.note what he says at 0.59 of the video.

So there is a top Geo engineering scientist admitting that aluminum is in the space shuttle exhaust. We have now established the existance of aluminum chemtrails in the space shuttle exhaust. Not trying to prove them in Jet air plane engines yet....have we established that "chemtrails" exist at all ?