Chemtrail Debunkers....

Originally posted by tommyjo

The Boeing 747 in question is registration N477EV

Here's the FAA registry entry for that plane: registry.faa.gov...

If you want to know the current configuration you can request it here: aircraft.faa.gov...

Looks like it might cost a bit of money tho.

reply to post by tommyjo

The video is just a collection of images. At 01:38 it also contains the photo shopped image from the centre of gravity water ballast test flight. You know the one that you won't talk about!

I already did talk about it. I think your image is the photo shopped image. It's a lot easier to remove the HAZARD sign than it would be to put it in the photo. Let's get a photography person and a computer image editing software person to examine both and see which one they think is photo shopped. I'd be curious to know What's more likely. Was the sign added or removed?

reply to post by tommyjo

Yes. Mathius, this is why you are so out of your depth when discussing matters in relation to aviation. It isn't exactly rocket science to work it out. You are the one presenting the facility as a chemtrail plane conversion plant, so shouldn't you know about the aircraft stored there?

This topic is not just about aviation and I know enough too not be fooled by your quick, simplistic answers that give no real explanation or valid evidence that proves your points. Why are you asking me to comment on helicopters when we were talking about planes? I believe you are the one out of your depth when discussing geoengineering and real science.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by tommyjo

 

The video is just a collection of images. At 01:38 it also contains the photo shopped image from the centre of gravity water ballast test flight. You know the one that you won't talk about!

I already did talk about it. I think your image is the photo shopped image. It's a lot easier to remove the HAZARD sign than it would be to put it in the photo.

Why don't you ask the original photographer?

You were told how to contact him....

Let's get a photography person and a computer image editing software person to examine both and see which one they think is photo shopped. I'd be curious to know What's more likely. Was the sign added or removed?

Go for it......

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Just because the airplane didn't have all the equipment needed for flight at the time it was photographed, doesn't mean it wasn't being modified and repaired. For all we know that plane might be in use right now.

Mat, you are being disingenuous here. You might as well post a picture of molten steel and posit that it might become the spraying apparatus to be attached to the decrepit aircraft in the video.

Those planes have been mothballed for years. They will never be restored, they never have been restored.
The mere fact that you can imagine some far-fetched scenario does nothing to establish your "chemtrail" hypotheses, whatever they are.

Are possibilities and speculation all you have?

All you've offered in response to my simple request for a theory is "geo-engineering." Yet there is absolutely no evidence of the results of any such mythical project.

Please try to formulate a hypothesis: X is using Y and Z by A to accomplish B. B can be measured by D, E and F.

Give me a test that can be replicated or refuted.

I know you won't. You know you can't. In the 20+ years of the "chemtrail" hysteria, NO ONE has yet posited a testable theory. Even "aircrap" cannot maintain a consistent train of thought on this.

If the believers can't state the basic tenets of their faith, how can you expect people with a basic understanding of science to follow?

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

I already did talk about it. I think your image is the photo shopped image. It's a lot easier to remove the HAZARD sign than it would be to put it in the photo. Let's get a photography person and a computer image editing software person to examine both and see which one they think is photo shopped. I'd be curious to know What's more likely. Was the sign added or removed?

Just as the image in your avatar makes clear, you are running in circles and going nowhere.

So what if the sign is present? It does nothing to support the "chemtrail" hysteria.

Your standard response to simple requests is to paste-up videos or cherry-picked quotes that indicate something or other might be possible, and that if it was possible then maybe it would contribute to some version of the "chemtrail" fear.

Please state a cogent hypothesis. It only takes a couple of lines.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Are possibilities and speculation all you have?

All you've offered in response to my simple request for a theory is "geo-engineering." Yet there is absolutely no evidence of the results of any such mythical project.

No Jdub, possibilities and speculation are not all I have. Obviously you haven't read one document or watched any of the documentaries I provided. Not one of you have proven your previous statements to be true. Not one of you, especially YOU Jdub, have shown any evidence that debunks the facts in these documentaries..

Here watch these videos

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

Rosalind Peterson of California Skywatch was a certified U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California. She now spearheads a watchdog group that monitors uncontrolled experimental weather modification programs, atmospheric heating and testing programs, and ocean and atmospheric experimental geoengineering programs Peterson is at the forefront of the chemtrail research field and how the unexplained patterns that scar our skies are "causing detrimental human health effects and environmental degradation."

www.youtube.com...

Aerosol Crimes 1st Edition
www.trueworldhistory.info... | This documentary produced by chemtrail researcher Clifford Carnicom is a must see and an excellent research tool. Five plus years into the operations has provided ample evidence in this 90min DVD that covers many topics. Over the years aerosol/chemtrail research has provided some leads but even more questions as to who and why the spraying occurs. It is clear jets are deliberately spraying the sky's and it will not stop until enough people are aware and willing to stand up for the operations exposure and termination.

Air Pollution: en.wikipedia.org...
Aerosol: en.wikipedia.org...
Aerosol spray: en.wikipedia.org...
Chemtrails: educate-yourself.org...

What in the World Are They Spraying - Full Length
www.youtube.com...

The Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed.

By now everyone has seen crisscrossing streaks of white clouds trailing behind jet aircraft, stretching from horizon to horizon, eventually turning the sky into a murky haze. Our innate intelligence tells us these are not mere vapor trails from jet engines, but no one yet has probed the questions: who is doing this and why. With the release of this video, all of that has changed. Here is the story of a rapidly developing industry called geo-engineering, driven by scientists, corporations, and governments intent on changing global climate, controlling the weather, and altering the chemical composition of soil and water — all supposedly for the betterment of mankind. Although officials insist that these programs are only in the discussion phase, evidence is abundant that they have been underway since about 1990 — and the effect has been devastating to crops, wildlife, and human health. We are being sprayed with toxic substances without our consent and, to add insult to injury, they are lying to us about it. Do not watch this documentary if you have high blood pressure.

• Expected ship date October 22, 2010
• Runtime 95 minutes
• Produced by G. Edward Griffin, Michael Murphy and Paul Wittenberger

www.trueworldhistory.info...
www.realityzone.com...

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

I already did talk about it. I think your image is the photo shopped image. It's a lot easier to remove the HAZARD sign than it would be to put it in the photo. Let's get a photography person and a computer image editing software person to examine both and see which one they think is photo shopped. I'd be curious to know What's more likely. Was the sign added or removed?

Just as the image in your avatar makes clear, you are running in circles and going nowhere.

So what if the sign is present? It does nothing to support the "chemtrail" hysteria.

Your standard response to simple requests is to paste-up videos or cherry-picked quotes that indicate something or other might be possible, and that if it was possible then maybe it would contribute to some version of the "chemtrail" fear.

Please state a cogent hypothesis. It only takes a couple of lines.

jw

edit on 26-3-2011 by jdub297 because: consistent tense

Actually it does. If the sign is present it proves that there is a cover up. It also proves that there is more than just water in those tanks. It also proves you all have either been fooled by the cover up or are part of it and have been lying. Which if that is the case it discredits all your statements.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

I already did talk about it. I think your image is the photo shopped image. It's a lot easier to remove the HAZARD sign than it would be to put it in the photo. Let's get a photography person and a computer image editing software person to examine both and see which one they think is photo shopped. I'd be curious to know What's more likely. Was the sign added or removed?

Just as the image in your avatar makes clear, you are running in circles and going nowhere.

So what if the sign is present? It does nothing to support the "chemtrail" hysteria.

Actually it does. If the sign is present it proves that there is a cover up. It also proves that there is more than just water in those tanks. It also proves you all have either been fooled by the cover up or are part of it and have been lying. Which if that is the case it discredits all your statements.

You are getting well ahead of yourself.

Given that the photo is posted to a public bulletin board by someone who says they took the photo, you should b able to confirm fairly easily whether or not the photo has been altered in any way.

Here's the photo, without the "Hazmat" sign, on Airliners.net - www.airliners.net...

And, come to think of it, since the text says "hazmat inside", and is on a cubicle or cupboard, it would be normal to think that it refers to the contents of that cupboard, and not whatever might be in the tanks.

But that's jsut me speculating......

Some other things yuo can do - check the first appearance of hte HAZMAT" sign - I looked up the HAZMAT image that appears on Contrail Science on Tineye, for example - it got 18 hits - www.tineye.com...

I don't know whether these are sources from Contrail Science, or whether CS used one of these, and I do not know whether the sites they are on are chemtrail sites or debunking sites - other than by whatever is in their names - perhaps you'd like to check dates - the one on Airliner.net was posted there June 10 2005 - did any of the hazmat images exist before then?

Edit - I had a quick look at the photos tineye linked to - only using the "properties" function - none of the "hazmat" ones have a date before the "original" Airliner.net ones - the earliest date I noticed for the "Hazmat" ones was February 2008.

Geoengineering/atmsopheric modification researchers:

Take the time to read the link below. It is very eye opening as regards some of the disinfo efforts now being used to try and keep these programs in the dark for as long as possible. It mentions good old Patrick Minnis of NASA which I'm sure some of you must be aware and his attempts over at chemtrail central to downplay and marginalize the efforts of those who have beome aware of A.M. Very eye opening, perhaps if you feel you have seen those very efforts here at ATS, this will give you a little more heads up as to the massive disinfo efforts out there to try and keep these programs under wraps for as long as possible.

allaircraftarenotinvolved.freeforums.org...

How often do people look up? Chemtrails are a reality, and often crisscross the sky over D.C./Montgomery County Maryland, since the late 90s, when I first noticed them. A friend always experiences severe sinus problems when they occur--that's common. My healthy, 5 yr old cat had a kind of seizure and almost died. We rushed him to the vet who said that 6 cats had been brought in the last week of so with the same symptoms. It was a week of heavy chemtrails.

They are up there. Recently there was a commercial picture in England about the story the "Boxcar children" set in the past. When the picture was circulated a couple decades ago, to advertise the film, the skys over rural England were clear. But the ones recently circulated show a sky filled with Chemtrails. A publicist was queried on this and admitted that this done deliberately so people would regard them as normal. But she did not indicate she knew anything more about them.

Chemtrail debunkers? More like Chemtrail disinfo.

I believe they are spaying chemical's ie 'Chemtrail's. I do not have to 'prove' to anyone anything. We are not in a court of law. The OP made a request to the de-bunker's (non believer's) to refrain from comment. Why is that so hard to do? Respect.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by pianopraze

 

It seems your suggesting the instrument they use does not make a continuous data record, it only takes it every so often and there could be layers of different air...
So you're throwing speculation into it, not refuting the data.

The objectiverecords themselves are the best evidence that gaps exist. No speculation required.

Show me the objective proof of "chemtrails."

That is NOT the simplest answer. The simplest answer is that they ARE contrails!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not speculation and possibilities.

What they are I don't know.

Given that admission, how can you even claim they are NOT contrails?

If these are your best efforts, they only add to the derision of "chemtrail science."

deny ignorance
jw

Ok I deny your ignorance. The video showed pictures of contrails on dates with low humidity.

Here is weather ballon data from a date where there was extensive persistent contrails. How could they form when the relative humidity was almost zero at the layers where the planes fly.
link
The full unabridged data is in the link. I will cut snippets for brevity per T&C against posting long quote.

At the lowest levels there is a high relative humidity RELH

74494 CHH Chatham Observations at 12Z 17 Jun 2009

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRES HGHT TEMP DWPT RELH MIXR DRCT SKNT THTA THTE THTV
hPa m C C % g/kg deg knot K K K
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1024.0 16 14.6 11.2 80 8.22 0 0 285.8 308.8 287.2
1014.0 97 15.0 4.0 48 5.05 346 2 287.0 301.6 287.9
1000.0 212 14.2 5.2 55 5.57 325 5 287.4 303.4 288.3

Once you get above ten thousand feet the humidity data is in the teens:

250.0 10620 -51.7 -69.7 10 0.01 325 65 329.1 329.1 329.1
248.2 10668 -52.0 -69.5 10 0.01 325 64 329.4 329.4 329.4
246.0 10724 -52.3 -69.3 11 0.01 325 66 329.7 329.8 329.7

Once you get to 20 thousand feet it stays in the low single digits:

53.0 20407 -54.5 -75.5 6 0.03 360 0 506.1 506.3 506.1
52.9 20422 -54.5 -75.5 6 0.03 0 0 506.4 506.6 506.4
50.0 20780 -54.5 -75.5 6 0.03 345 5 514.6 514.8 514.6

Working to almost 0 RELH at 30 thousand feet.

13.6 29254 -41.5 -77.5 1 0.07 77 22 790.9 791.7 790.9
11.3 30509 -41.9 -77.9 1 0.08 832.4 833.4 832.5
11.3 30480 -41.9 -77.9 1 0.08 75 25 831.4 832.4 831.5

Also this weather ballon data does not show any huge gaps as phage suggested. Nowhere is there a gap of more than a few hundred feet.

So I ask again, when the relative humidity (RELH) is so low contrails could not form much less persist. How could there be heavy persistent contrails observed all day when blanket the sky?

You are the one making extraordinary claims according to the data from multiple sources which are cross referencing the observed weather ballon data which show no contrails could form yet there is heavy "persistent contrails" which blanket the sky. So if they could not form... then the simplest answer is there must be something being sprayed.

Geoengineering is a well funded and well studied science. To try to shift to contrail science is a total disinfo tactic that you are perpetuating throughout your posts. Geoengineering is where to find scientific papers.
*********
To all supporters of this theory.
(disclaimer -Not talking about or suggesting my use of propagandists applies to anyone on ATS.)

All supporters of current geoengineering need to shift their language away from "chemtrail." "Chemtrail" is a dead end which propagandists are foisting to curtail the public from researching geoengineering. We need to shift the vernacular. Always use geoengineering, not "chemtrail" when addressing the subject. According to several videos posted there is a huge effort to keep geoengineering references out of textbooks and media so this is precisely where we need hammer. This is where the core science research, funding, and political maneuvering is taking place. Geoengineering.

Watch how they try to shift the discussion away from geoengineering. You can see how even the people denying this is going on are doing this throughout all the ATS threads. Again not suggesting they are propagandists, but those doing it are following the lead of the media and sources they are referencing, these sources which are in turn controlled by globalist agendas. Ted Turner, admitted globalist who wants to depopulate the planet controls many news sources... has his news sources sprout propaganda... many here accept it as real and repeat it.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

They had it carved in stone:
link.

We need to draw the line in the sand. They are drawing it in the air.

We must stop this.

Geoengineering.

For anybody frustrated by this thread and those like it, I completed a fairly comprehensive deconstruction of a shorter chemtrail thread and the disinfo tactics used within it. Many of the points will unfortunately seem very familiar to anybody that reads almost any chemtrail thread on the board:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems on that thread that even though the topic and purpose of the thread was clearly delineated (and no one was asked not to post) the "debunkers" still had a hard time sticking to the point and purpose of the thread or even addressing the OP in any meaningful way at all.

Will someone explain to me why if their spraying stuff in the air, that the "chemtrails" come from the Jat's engines and not side mounted nozzles? I'm sorry, but if you observe a jet with a telescope or binoculars you can clearly see that it's the Jet's engines that produce the cloud you are seeing. Now going by this fact I can safely say that chemtrails are contrails.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew
Mat, I've looked at your videos, read your articles and quotes and chased down your links.

Not one of them is or cites an objective peer-reviewed analysis of the"chemtrail" phenomenon.

While you seem to have narrowed down your basic premise to "geo-engineering," none of your "sources" or videos actually make that connection.

Given that the only geo-engineering program you return to is focused on "global warming " mitigation, none of your posts relate such a program to observed "chemtrails."

All of the proposals for stratospheric dispersal of SO2 make clear that such applications would not be visible as "chemtrails" from the ground, nor would they have direct effects upon ground-based observers. Such chemicals are intended to, and would only be efficacious if they remained aloft for extended periods of time. They cannot, by definition, fall to the ground as aluminum or barium or any other compound - they are meant to stay airborne.

Of course, you have also thrown in the random reference to "population control," but you've never shown how or why "chemtrails" would be or are the mechanism for accomplishing this.

This appears to be the track that your cohort, pianopraze has adopted as his/her theory, with her repeated reference to Ted Turner's population postulates and the Georgia Guidestones.

reply to post by pianopraze


So, let's assume you are correct and that this 20-year old program is an application of some de-population plan.

How do you explain the fact that the world population has increased by nearly 1,500,000,000 over the course of this "program?" What is the logic behind random elimination of producers and non-producers? Why wouldn't Ted Turner and TPTB just target the most defenseless, non-productive and least monitored people with more direct means than a drifting mist that may never touch its intended targets? Or strike down unintended ones?

What are the poisons? What are the symptoms? Where are the victims? Why isn't it working?

Of all the theories bandied about, I'll at least give Mat some credit for appearing to have settled on climate control as his most likely explanation of your beliefs. But even that theory has is riddled with holes, especially when you consider that there is a world-wide examination and virtually unlimited funding of the study of the possibility of anthropogenic global warming and the mitigation of its effects dating back to the late 1980s.

OK, Mat.
Your hypothesis seems to be:

"They are spraying aerosols in the stratosphere that appear to be contrails, but are geo-engineering projects to mitigate against the effects of global warming; and which are sickening the people of the Earth."

Is that close?
(I'm going to propose answers to each of the questions below, because I do not expect you to do so.)

If not, please restate it correctly for me.

If it is correct, please answer, or correct, the following:

Who are "they?" The governments of the US, the UK, and no one else. Certainly not China, Brazil, Russia or India and their immediate neighbors (the "BRIC" nations).

Where are they spraying? Over the continental US in limited areas at a time, and in places over the UK. No one else seems to be observing this phenomenon to the extent the afore-mentioned two are.

What are they spraying? Sulfur dioxide. No one has proposed using aluminum or barium compounds for this purpose.

How are they spraying it? Specially designed apparatus for military or private aircraft. Mat, you've already clearly stated that you do not believe commercial aircraft are doing this.

What are the expected results? Lowered global temperatures. That is the only thing that has been suggested in response to the AGW myth.

What are the observed results? Increasing global average temperatures. Every AGW advocate vociferously denies any plateau or drop in average global temperature since the mid-90's.

Which populations have been affected? None. There are no diagnoses of illnesses or injuries directly related to stratospheric SO2, or any other airborne substance released as a constituent of "chemtrails."

How have they been affected? They have not, stratospheric SO2 aerosols are invisible from the ground, and remain aloft in the stratosphere rather than settle directly over the places below where they were applied.
No other chemical have been suggested as appropriate for AGW mitigation. No one has shown any ill effects in widely dispersed populations from high leels of aluminum or barium. There are no published studies showing any ill effects from"chemtrails."

Who has documented any of these effects? No one, this is a fantasy. While it would be very simple to measure and report on widespread harm form 20+ years of exposure to "chemtrails," there is no such objective documentation.

Where are the studies that document these projects and their effects? There are none, because such a project has never been attempted. The proposals are widely-known, openly discussed, and even the subject of legislation and policy. But they have never been carried out.

THAT is your hypothesis.

Now it is debunked!

Show me where I'm wrong, if you can.
(I will accept your inability to do so as your admission that you cannot.)

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by jdub297


The simple fact that people like you argue so much gives reason for me to believe..
I have to ask myself a simple question..

Why are so many like you so hell bent on debunking??
Your style tells me it's not to be nice...So why ??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297

 

Why are so many like you so hell bent on debunking??

I posted my reasons earlier in this thread - haven't you read the whole thing?!!

reply to post by pianopraze

All supporters of current geoengineering need to shift their language away from "chemtrail." "Chemtrail" is a dead end which propagandists are foisting to curtail the public from researching geoengineering. We need to shift the vernacular. Always use geoengineering, not "chemtrail" when addressing the subject. According to several videos posted there is a huge effort to keep geoengineering references out of textbooks and media so this is precisely where we need hammer. This is where the core science research, funding, and political maneuvering is taking place. Geoengineering.

Thank you for that! Funny thing, one of my earlier posts was to direct someone to do a search on geoengineering in relation to "chemtrails" and I came under attack for suggesting it. Now, if you haven't already done so, why not redirect some of your frustrations and energy into contacting your senator or congressperson. There's a writeup dating back to 2001 with excellent suggestions on how to use this particular approach. FWIW, I do have very proactive reps. Good luck.