Chemtrail Debunkers....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


There are pages of proof just in this thread alone! I have spent hours reading these and I am satisfied the burden of proof has been met, I see no benefit in debating the evidence that I see as so strong that I have to wonder how any rational person could dismiss that at the very least, "field testing is occuring.

I know the difference between a jet that flies by and leaves a contrail that dissipates quickly, and a sky full of several planes making bizzare tic tac toe patterns that turn the whole sky a milky color. Have watched the skies my whole life, and common sence tells me this is not normal.

Yes, we are discussing this here publically and openly.Many others are discussing and researching and doing their best to inform the public, Rosalind Peterson has done some great work in CA, and I don't believe what were all seeing is a mass dilusion. Open disscusion with our elected officials has not be adressed to my satisfaction. I wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein, our seneator here in CA, have not heard back yet. I will post her response once I recieve it.

Originally posted by MountainLaurelI know the difference between a jet that flies by and leaves a contrail that dissipates quickly, and a sky full of several planes making bizzare tic tac toe patterns that turn the whole sky a milky color.

Well, then what is this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dbd36b9124c0.jpg[/atsimg]

contrail or chemtrail?

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

There are pages of proof just in this thread alone! I have spent hours reading these and I am satisfied the burden of proof has been met, I see no benefit in debating the evidence that I see as so strong that I have to wonder how any rational person could dismiss that at the very least, "field testing is occuring.

I know the difference between a jet that flies by and leaves a contrail that dissipates quickly, and a sky full of several planes making bizzare tic tac toe patterns that turn the whole sky a milky color. Have watched the skies my whole life, and common sence tells me this is not normal.

Yes, we are discussing this here publically and openly.Many others are discussing and researching and doing their best to inform the public, Rosalind Peterson has done some great work in CA, and I don't believe what were all seeing is a mass dilusion. Open disscusion with our elected officials has not be adressed to my satisfaction. I wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein, our seneator here in CA, have not heard back yet. I will post her response once I recieve it.

Do not spread disinformation. Remember, when Will Thomas started the Chemtrail Hoax, it was all about low level trails that were below the typical altitudes for persistent aviation contrails.

chemtrailcentral.com...

Disinformation: Contrails don't last longer than 30 seconds.

Normal jet traffic can leave trails that persist for quite some time given atmospheric conditions that are favorable. In my studies, contrails from commercial and passenger jets have left contrails that persisted for as much as two minutes, on one occasion more than 20 minutes. Normal contrails can persist even more if they fly through a pre-existing persistent trail, cloud or other high mosture zone.

reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen


It would be impossible to answer that question based on this picture, I would have to see how long it lasts and what effect they have on the sky.

reply to post by MountainLaurel


So are you saying normal contrails cannot persist? can you explain how it is possible that they cannot?

reply to post by firepilot
[mor

So 5 days out of 7 there just happens to be the perfect conditions for normal contrails to pesist? Several planes flying in some sort of coordinated effort? Another member made the point that fuel is expensive, and most training is done with simulators, these are NOT commercial airplanes.

reply to post by Maximus187


Not this ridiculous argument again. How long is it that you say a "persistent contrail" can persist? What evidence do you have to support your theory of persistent contrails?

There are no valid studies that show a normal contrail persisting for more than 1 hour and I have already proven that the contrail in that study, that lasted that long, was created by using excessive fuel consumption settings and lower air speed to intentionally create the most persistent contrail they possibly could.

So please show me your data proving the length of time a normal persistent contrail lasts .

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by firepilot
[mor

So 5 days out of 7 there just happens to be the perfect conditions for normal contrails to pesist? Several planes flying in some sort of coordinated effort? Another member made the point that fuel is expensive, and most training is done with simulators, these are NOT commercial airplanes.

Somedays yes, are you saying ice crystals have a built in instabilty?

and yes, many airliners can fly down the same airway, especially in certain areas.

yes, training is done mostly in sims, but what does that have to do with any of this? Even when they did training in the airplanes, that was done at night

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by firepilot
[mor

So 5 days out of 7 there just happens to be the perfect conditions for normal contrails to pesist? Several planes flying in some sort of coordinated effort? Another member made the point that fuel is expensive, and most training is done with simulators, these are NOT commercial airplanes.

Somedays yes, are you saying ice crystals have a built in instabilty?

and yes, many airliners can fly down the same airway, especially in certain areas.

yes, training is done mostly in sims, but what does that have to do with any of this? Even when they did training in the airplanes, that was done at night

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


If you read back on several of these pages it has been stated to you countless times that contrails WILL persist if the conditions are right for them to persist. If you would like to read information on contrails and how they form please read this article www.wrh.noaa.gov...

Here is a picture of contrails over Europe in 1995:



As stated in the article the picture was taken by the NOAA-12 satellite, it also states that:

It is very obvious from this color enhanced satellite image that the atmosphere was very conducive to the development of contrails on this date (5 April 1995) and that these contrails were long-lived enough to accumulate with many criss-cross patterns over the same heavily travelled portion of air space.

Now unlike your 'sources' (youtube videos) my source is unbiased and mentions nothing of the likes of 'chemtrails'. It is simply a national weather service website where one would assume information here is recieved and updated by people who would actually have an idea of weather conditions etc. (unlike yourself)

reply to post by firepilot


I think we have reached a point where the only thing we will agree upon is to disagree........Good Luck to you and yours....

reply to post by Maximus187


I asked for you to show me proof. Like an actual study. Not the same old post a link to a description of contrail formation. That's BS ....you have no proof that persistent contrails even when made under abnormal flight conditions can last for more than 1 hour.

Yet these "NEW" kind of persistent contrails last for hours and even days now. You go ahead and show a study with real data and not just some link to a website.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Maximus187

 

I asked for you to show me proof. Like an actual study. Not the same old post a link to a description of contrail formation. That's BS ....you have no proof that persistent contrails even when made under abnormal flight conditions can last for more than 1 hour.

Yet these "NEW" kind of persistent contrails last for hours and even days now. You go ahead and show a study with real data and not just some link to a website.

Are you actually mentioning an actual study? Because there are ZERO actual studies that support your conspiracy. And arent you you the one, while asking for actual studies, that has posted a video of junked airplanes and posted a doctored photo of an aircraft interior, as "proof"?

How can you ask for "actual" studies, when you yourself have had zero hesitation about posting utter hoaxes to promote your chemtrail religion

reply to post by firepilot


You must be absolutely blind or maybe you haven't actually even tried read any of the studies I linked to previously.

Here again are just 3 of the many many studies and reports I provided

Belfort Group - CASE ORANGE REPORT
saive.com...

United States Government Accountability Office
www.gao.gov...

Geoengineering Cost Analysis Final Report Prepared Under Contract
people.ucalgary.ca...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot

 

You must be absolutely blind or maybe you haven't actually even tried read any of the studies I linked to previously.

Here again are just 3 of the many many studies and reports I provided

Belfort Group - CASE ORANGE REPORT
saive.com...

United States Government Accountability Office
www.gao.gov...

Geoengineering Cost Analysis Final Report Prepared Under Contract
people.ucalgary.ca...

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you just posted a long closed World War 2 airfield, as chemtrail proof. Sorry Mathias, your prank is done.

Here is a link for all the chemtrail believers who have actually believed Mathias and his misinformation. Go look at this link and see if you believe his WW2 Lemoore AAF is a chemtrail base.

toolserver.org...:airport

Again, Mathias, will you explain to your fellow chemtralers why you tried to prank them?

Here's another study for you. I'll be waiting for any studies you got. Don't worry though I won't be holding my breath.

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
www.ipcc.ch...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot

 

You must be absolutely blind or maybe you haven't actually even tried read any of the studies I linked to previously.

Here again are just 3 of the many many studies and reports I provided

Belfort Group - CASE ORANGE REPORT
saive.com...

Nice looking - but not a serious scientific paper - praises it's own assessment of the quality of it's information, no peer review, no-one puts their name to it.

The only verifiable conclusion is that the NATO AWACs fleet has old engines that should be replaced.

I'll come back and link to a post with more detail of why it is rubbish in a minute or 2.

United States Government Accountability Office
www.gao.gov...

Which is titled:

A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts

Note "...COULD focus..." - it is a report into geoengineering studies and research that the Govt is conducting, and it says that a decent strategy would provide better information.....no evidence of chemtrails here sorry (but hey - you knew that already...

Presumably you thought no-one would bother reading it and seeing what it actually said!

Geoengineering Cost Analysis Final Report Prepared Under Contract
people.ucalgary.ca...

And what is this about?

Oh that's right ........it's another "HOW MUCH WOULD IT TAKE?" study that you think has some evidence of contrails in it

This study INVESTIGATES means of transporting quantities geoengineering payload to altitude and
releasing it at specified release rates. A variety of systems including airplanes, airships, rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are examined with a GOAL of lifting 1 million tonnes to altitude per year; we also evaluate 3 and 5 MT/year for a few delivery systems.

How come you are bright enough to find these really good studies...but then so stupid as to think they contain evidence of chemtrails???

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Here's another study for you. I'll be waiting for any studies you got. Don't worry though I won't be holding my breath.

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
www.ipcc.ch...

And what is it that you think the IPCC actually says that supports there being any chemtrails? This is an index page - why don't you tell us which chapter to click on to see that Chemtrails exist?

I know pretty much what the report says about Aviation - I have actually read or read summaries of the whole thing.

So I'm quite interested in which bit I missed that supports your case.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I have provided more evidence that they do exist than all of you have provided that they don't exist. The preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof here. Unless you can come up with valid evidence that they don't exist then you just are being another typical debunker who's all talk.

Your opinions aren't proof.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


So now you've moved on to proving that "chemtrails" are actually just contrails after all and that, as we've been saying all along, they have been extensively studied, in particular with regards their potential climatic impact.

It is difficult keeping up with you these days!