Chemtrail Debunkers....

Originally posted by Phage

It’s also worth noting-in-passing that the resonant transitions chosen to be intercalation-broadened – or those glassed-in dyes chosen to absorb-&-fluoresce – likely could be selected to lie exclusively in the near-UV or -IR portions of the solar spectral radiance on the Earth’s atmosphere, so that the resulting ‘spectral notching’ of sunlight as seen at or near the Earth’s surface would be invisible to people, just as the near-IR solar spectral notchings due to absorption by atmospheric H2O already are. The as -perceived ‘‘environmental impact’’ of such spectrally-notched insolation subtraction would thereby be essentially zero.

The effects would be invisible. Not perceptible.

edit on 3/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Look again now, it's not saying the particulates would be invisible. It saying the spectral notching would be invisible. So do you know what spectral notching is ?

www.tsc.com...
It refers to radio, and light wave frequencies. The spectral notching would be invisible. CORRECT ?

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

" if " the aluminum particles are in the persistent contrails that form, the they should appear similar to chaff when viewed using infra red satellite and "Dopplar" radar images.

The point is that aluminum "particles" do not exist in contrails of any type; and, if they are "particulate" in size (i.e. millimeters and smaller), they will NOT show up in infrared or Doppler images.

jw

They absolutely exist as a known FACT in Space Shuttle exhaust and rockets and ICBM's

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Did you miss the part about "thicker". "Chemtrails" are supposed to get thicker, not dissipate.

No. It is not referring to radio frequencies. It says the effect can be limited to ultraviolet or infrared frequencies which are invisible but much higher than radio frequencies. But that does get us back to something we talked about before in a different context. The size of the particles. We were talking about chaff and why it is visible on radar. The same thing applies to aerosols. But they have to be very small if they are going to accomplish the goals of geoengineering. Smaller, in fact than the wavelengths of visible light. That means that there would not be any visible cloud. Clouds; cumulus clouds, cirrus clouds, and contrails are white because the water droplets and ice crystals of which they are composed are a good deal larger than the wavelengths of visible light and bounce the full visible spectrum around. Aerosols of the required size would not.

The larger geoengineering particles, the faster they settle out of the atmosphere. If they are too small, they do not effectively scatter incoming solar flux. The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns (Mie theory).

people.ucalgary.ca...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Just hypothetically if chemtrails were real, who do you think would be the ones doing it and trying to cover it up?

That is impossible. Given that the advocates have asserted various and inconsistent reasons (e.g.: to kill mankind - as per aircrap, or to save mankind - AGW mitigation) one would have to start from different presumptions, none of which are factually supported.

Since you believe "chemtrails" ARE real, please state YOUR hypothesis.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

That is impossible.

I doubt that..
There's many threads showing proof of past spraying of dangerous chemicals on unsuspecting civilians....

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Did you miss the part about "thicker". "Chemtrails" are supposed to get thicker, not dissipate.

No. It is not referring to radio frequencies. It says the effect can be limited to ultraviolet or infrared frequencies which are invisible but much higher than radio frequencies. But that does get us back to something we talked about before in a different context. The size of the particles. We were talking about chaff and why it is visible on radar. The same thing applies to aerosols. But they have to be very small if the are going to accomplish the goals of geoengineering. Smaller, in fact than the wavelengths of visible light. That means that there would not be any visible cloud. Clouds; cumulus clouds, cirrus clouds, and contrails are white because the water droplets and ice crystals of which they are composed are a good deal larger than the wavelengths of visible light and bounce the full visible spectrum around. Aerosols of the required size would not.

The larger geoengineering particles, the faster they settle out of the atmosphere. If they are too small, they do not effectively scatter incoming solar flux. The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns (Mie theory).

people.ucalgary.ca...

edit on 3/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I'm sure you're familiar with this picture by now. I don't believe you are correct in your line of thinking. But we're really talking semantics. Which gets a bit frustrating. You're talking about when the particulates have dispersed into the atmosphere. I'm talking about as they come out of the dispersal system. What ever that might be. They are designed to create a reflective cloud that still had absorbing and reflective qualities after that cloud has dispersed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0012ec508e8.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

No. We are not talking semantics. We are talking about the concepts involved. You don't seem to understand them.

Geoengineering is not about creating a "reflective cloud". If it were, it would not do what it is supposed to do. Have you ever noticed that on cloudy nights it doesn't get as cold as it does on clear nights?

Now think twice before you say "They only spray in the daytime."

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

No. We are not talking semantics. We are talking about the concepts involved. You don't seem to understand them.

Geoengineering is not about creating a "reflective cloud". If it were, it would not do what it is supposed to do. Have you ever noticed that on cloudy nights it doesn't get as cold as it does on clear nights?

Now think twice before you say "They only spray in the daytime."

I am absolutely positive they spray at night and in the day. Don't ask me for proof ..this is getting quite old. I do understand seems to me you're the one who doesn't understand. There are many many many ways that involve Geo engineering. You're being very closed minded and stubborn about something you know very little about obviously.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Ok. Help me to understand.
Please explain how a "reflective cloud" at night would help mitigate global warming. Does starlight and moon light heat the Earth? Are they trying to prevent that?

You do understand that the problem is heat being trapped, right (greenhouse gases)? You do understand that a "reflective cloud" reflects heat right back to the surface at night, right? That's why it gets colder on clear nights than cloudy nights.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
EXAMPLES of chemtrails

1 ) Space Shuttle exhaust

2 ) Chemical dumping for extinguishing fires

3 ) Fuel dumping for emergency and other required scenarios

4 ) ICBM exhaust other military rockets

5 ) Cloud seeding by plane and other cloud seeding methods (rockets)

6 ) Other methods used for aerosol Geo engineering (ex. balloons)

7 ) Jet exhaust with anomalous persistent contrails

Wrong!
Mat, you're either being facetious, or you've resorted to your "grab bag" theory, again.
You know that you did not create all of your threads because of fire retardant or space shuttles.

None of these are secret, worldwide, or causing lasting effects on people. Just a few posts ago you stated that your version of "chemtrails" is very important and affects people everywhere.

You've resorted to playing games becasue you have no coherent theory, do you?

The Shuttle burns liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The product is H2O.

Fire retardant is not dumped in the stratosphere, but from an altitude height of under 500' and does not persist in the air.

Fuel dumping fits none of the descriptors you've used to this point. Even aircrap.org would laugh you off the internet for such pathetic desperation.

ICBMs are not used to inject chemical into the stratosphere, they inject warheads into sub-orbital ballistic trajectories. Their exhaust is 99% water vapor.

Cloud seeding takes place well below stratospheric levels, does not persist and is local in nature and effect. Again your example fails to meet your own criteria.

"Other methods?" For "aerosol geo-engineering?" Aside from proposals, this is not happening. It also does not fit your stated criteria for airplane "chemtrails." Face it, you're grasping at straws again.

"Anomalous" contrails? That means nothing. It is circular logic, as all of the "chemtrail" faithful believe that they are "anomalous persistent contrails."

PURPOSES in order of my hypothesized reasons and speculations.

1 ) Geo engineering (albedo temp. reduction, solar radiative force reflectivity/absorbing)

2 ) Weather modification (cloud seeding, atmospheric control)

3 ) Satellite image enhancement for understanding weather, ionosphere, magnetosphere)

4 ) Weather warfare (rain forcing and rain prevention, HAARP, satellite/radar image enhancement/reduction)

5 ) Atmospheric alteration into plasma state for secret black aviation projects

6 ) Reduction of the harmful qualities of toxic waste and toxic industrial by products.
(cheap disposal by ignition and dispersal methods)

7 ) Bio and chemical research projects (disease, depopulation)

What is the means of altering albedo or solar radiation? What chemical are used and what are they doing to people?Who is performing the geo-engineering and how do the chemicals used affect people on the ground if their purpose is to remain aloft? What are the observed results of the 20-year effort?

You already know that cloud seeding is NOT related to "chemtrails." As for "atmospheric control," how could this affect people on the ground? What are the observable effects?
What is being sprayed to control the atmosphere?

What is being sprayed to illuminate the ionosphere that could possibly affect people on the ground? How would these even be visible from the ground or confused with contrails? Show me some pictures.
What are the effects and who diagnosed them? Of course, you know that you can't spray anything to illuminate the magnetosphere - it is not a part of the atmosphere. You really do not have a theory, do you?

Again, you know that HAARP does not leave "chemtrails" in the sky, don't you? You really are getting desperate.

"Plasma state for secret black aviation?" How old are you? How do "chemtrails" even apply? What chemical create plasma states and how do they affect people on the ground? Now, you're just making things up. You realize what this does to your credibility?

Mat, instead of just throwing out wild and outlandish statements, you should craft a single, strong well-supported theory. I'm trying to help you here, but I can't put words in your mouth - it is YOUR theory after all.

"Reduction" of toxins? I thought "chemtrails" were supposed to be dangerous!

"Bio and chemical research projects (disease, depopulation)?" Now we're getting somewhere! So what's the death toll by country so far? What poisons are they using? Who has made the analysis and diagnoses? Who is trying to kill everyone? Or is it targeted? When will it stop? Who's doing the testing to verify that it is working? How are they delivering the poisons/biologicals? Why not just go to a third-world country and poison their water or food or air directly? (Remember the African lakes that expelled CO2, killing thousands? No need for "chemtrails," and immediate results.)

Mat, try to offer a consistent theory. This was just more of your standard word salad - no coherence, no consistency, no logic.

Try harder.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


OK jdub here......Geo engineering is the main basis of my hypothesis

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Mat I asked you specifically about the TARFOX measurement techniques, and you post a reference to a proposal about how to inject aerosols.

These techniques
www.nasa.gov... how to

Measuring the presence of something is not related to how you create the presence of the something being measured.

Complete BS diversion and gibberish that results from cutting and pasting without understanding or reading.

reply to post by jdub297


Your comments are gibberish to me. Your comments are not factual and are only biased opinions.

reply to post by jdub297


Like I said before unless you have read through all the important reports and papers and other info I supplied. You really have no place making such remarks. If you had read them you wouldn't be making those remarks.
You're again just showing your ignorance.

Read this....

www.ipcc.ch...

Here read some of these .....

coto2.files.wordpress.com...

www.globalchange.gov...

www.ipcc.ch...

news.aaas.org...

www.aaas.org...

gacp.giss.nasa.gov...

c3.ndc.nasa.gov...

Read this....www.123helpme.com...

In September 1950 the military staged six biological warfare attacks on the San Francisco Bay area. Releasing a combination of bacillus globigil, serratia marcescens and zinc cadmium sulfide for periods of thirty minutes each from an offshore vessel, the military exposed the entire San Francisco Bay area to toxic stimulants.

Watch these videos....
What in the World are they spraying
www.youtube.com...

Aerosol crimes chemtrail crimes clifford carnicom
www.youtube.com...

Rosalind Peterson: The Chemtrail Cover-Up
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

OK jdub here......Geo engineering is the main basis of my hypothesis

Ok. So now we're not geoengineering anymore. We're doing bioattacks.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

OK jdub here......Geo engineering is the main basis of my hypothesis

Ok. So now we're not geoengineering anymore. We're doing bioattacks.

edit on 3/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No Phage, that was the most extreme speculative theory I have. Not enough supporting evidence for # 5, 6 or 7
I stated that already but I wouldn't expect you to actually read and interpret my posts correctly. It's ok.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Please concentrate on your best evidence for your best hypothesis. Otherwise it does get troublesome.

reply to post by Phage


That article on bio warfare testing is relevant to me because it happened in my area. I was not alive during that time. But it does set a precedent. That proves that things like that do actually take place. As do the UK bio experiments.