A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

Originally posted by backinblack
Are you saying chemtrails may not be geo-engineering?

Technically they are, albeit in the form of inadvertant geoengineering, assuming you accept the idea that persistent contrails contribute to global warming.

But I don't think that is what is being suggested here.

There is no evidence that anything visible in the skies in anything else.

reply to post by Essan

Both sides need to be willing to listen to and respect the other sides arguments. Neither side does. On both sides it is either "my way or the highway." Reread the bit about zero sum games and social traps. THAT is the point of this thread.

Big, big, FAIL!

Yes, apparently it was.

This really is becoming ridiculous. Obviously any of the debunkers who have said geoengineering has nothing to do with chemtrails is not aware of any of the real facts and actual arguments behind the "chemmies" positions.

You all would love to focus on the extremist "chemmies" point of view, but those are not the only points of view out there. Watch the documentary " What in the World are they spraying". Then tell me chemtrails don't have anything to do with Geoengineering. The entire documentary is based on that premise.

The Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Coverup: 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. Produced by G. Edward Griffin, Michael Murphy and Paul Wittenberger.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
This really is becoming ridiculous. Obviously any of the debunkers who have said geoengineering has nothing to do with chemtrails is not aware of any of the real facts and actual arguments behind the "chemmies" positions.

I am pretty sure "we" are all perfectly aware of those - you and others have been bombarding us with them, and "we" have been continually poiting out the errors you make.

You all would love to focus on the extremist "chemmies" point of view,

IMO "we" have ben showing YOU the errors in your "evidence".

So that would make you the extremist??!! If not then who are these others you think are "extremist chemmies"??

but those are not the only points of view out there. Watch the documentary " What in the World are they spraying". Then tell me chemtrails don't have anything to do with Geoengineering. The entire documentary is based on that premise.

Yes it is - it starts by assuming it is true, then fits the "evidence" it presents to that conclusion.

But the evidence is almost entirely hearsay.

The one piece of actual, verifiable evidence it gives is analysis of the content of pond sludge - which has less aluminium in it than you would expect on average.

But this is presented as if it is higher than expected because it is compared to teh level of aluminium allowed in WATER. So they ompare the level of aluminium in DIRT to the allowable level in WATER.

Anyone who thinks that is valid has a real problem with comprehension of science and evidence IMO!

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by backinblack
Are you saying chemtrails may not be geo-engineering?

Technically they are, albeit in the form of inadvertant geoengineering, assuming you accept the idea that persistent contrails contribute to global warming.

But I don't think that is what is being suggested here.

There is no evidence that anything visible in the skies in anything else.

Did you even read the documents provided?

people.ucalgary.ca... CH 4 pages 21 -26

Shows the system design for injecting sulfate aerosol into the exhaust stream of an aircraft.


www.cgd.ucar.edu...

1) insertion of a primary aerosol, such as fine sulfate particles, using an injector mounted aboard an aircraft platform cruising in the lower stratosphere; and

2) sulfur enhanced fuel additives employed to emit aerosol precursors in a jet engine exhaust stream. In each case, injection is assumed to occur uniformly between 15 and 25 km, with the initial plumes distributed throughout this region to avoid hot spots. Attempts to concentrate the particles at lower altitudes, within thinner layers, or regionally

reply to post by coyotepoet


I can appreciate that you are attempting to provide for an open, calm, debate about "chemtrails". What I do not understand is why you insist that debate is warranted over a topic which science and rationality tells us is is erroneous.

An example: I am defending my point that grass is green. Someone else is defending their point grass is blue. When I offer all sorts of testimony and science to back my claim the other person offers only anecdotal evidence and refuses to acknowledge my evidence and my analysis of their evidence simultaneously. Now lets say I go out and grab a handful of green grass and say "here is the proof the grass is green" and the other side immediately implements the ignoring tactic and starts to insist grass isn't green. How would this make you feel about continuing to debate a topic when all evidence, rationality, and common sense says that your point of view is the correct one? To take that one step further what if they accused you of painting the grass green to support your viewpoint?

All debates have a point in which one side is declared to be the most defendable and logical argument while the other side is recognized as invalid. Do you see any point to continuing a debate once both sides have presented their argument and one side clearly has standing as the valid opinion?

I asked you a question in an earlier post. I am curious to hear if you answer with option A or B. Remember they are your choices so I respectfully ask you to pick A or B (as you have asked others here to do)

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Did you even read the documents provided?

people.ucalgary.ca... CH 4 pages 21 -26

Shows the system design for injecting sulfate aerosol into the exhaust stream of an aircraft.

No it doesn't - it shows CONCEPTS for various systems!

The whole study is a FEASABILITY exercise -

The goal of this study is to use engineering design and cost analysis to determine the feasibility and cost of a delivering material to the stratosphere for solar radiation management (SRM). This study does not examine effectiveness or risks of injecting material into the stratosphere for SRM. Its goal is simply to compare a range of delivery systems on a single cost basis.

I was hoping by now you would have figured out that studies of how things might be done are not actually evidence that they are being done!

www.cgd.ucar.edu...

1) insertion of a primary aerosol, such as fine sulfate particles, using an injector mounted aboard an aircraft platform cruising in the lower stratosphere; and

2) sulfur enhanced fuel additives employed to emit aerosol precursors in a jet engine exhaust stream. In each case, injection is assumed to occur uniformly between 15 and 25 km, with the initial plumes distributed throughout this region to avoid hot spots. Attempts to concentrate the particles at lower altitudes, within thinner layers, or regionally

Another STUDY of HOW IT MIGHT BE DONE

From the preceeding paragraph to points 1 & 2 above:

In this section we
consider transient effects associated with possible injection schemes that utilise aircraft platforms, and estimate the microphysical and dynamical processes that are likely to occur close to the injection point in the highly concentrated
injection stream.

As usual you totally ignore the actual context!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You have to consider that anyone hell bent on making the members of ATS look like a bunch of tin foil hat wearing lunatics is going to behave exactly as you have pointed out. We all know the government has "agents" (virtual or real) on sites just like this and it is my opinion these agents are here to behave exactly as Mathias, the alien human hybrid (you know who i mean), or the guy who likes Plums and the letter D do in a direct attempt by our government to form a false association between their agent's postings and our own. This would cause the population in general to see all of us as being of the same mindset and mental stability as portrayed by their own agents.

Now that I have made this proclamation twice within this thread I predict someone will come on with a SN that is relatively new with very few postings and that this person will try to promote the "chemtrail" hoax with new videos and other illogical ideas.

i like this video. this is a woman that seems to be smart..........but then again her credentials seem poor.

www.youtube.com...[/yvid]]

Originally posted by Painfulhead

Embedded for you.....

PS - you embed a YT vid by just using the alphanumeric code that comes after the "=" sign in eth video's URL - not the whole URL. In this case it is "hh4iS_P5aBw" - that is all you put into the dialogue box.




A quote from teh video:

I think they’re also a carrier for all kinds of biological and chemical warfare. I don’t think they’re dropping them on us right now, but they seem to be preparing. I think they’re getting people used to seeing these things and they’re getting the military used to doing it.

I doubt it anyone is "preparing" us for anything......but as she says - it ain't happening yet, and she doesn't actually give any verifiable evidene as to what & how "it" is either - again it's all "could" would" might, I think...".

Fair enough that she has an opinion, but that is all it is.

PPS - her CV is at iicph.org... - it's quite impressive, but she hasn't actually been doing anything or held any positions for 10 years. Her PhD is in Biometrics with "minors" in biology & biochemistry, which is relevant & she was co-president of the International Medical Commission on Bhopal among many other noteworthy accomplishments.

but all that means nothing if she doesn't have ..or doesn't present...any actual evidence. and she doesn't.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You're really showing how gullible you are if you think that they are going to make al these studies and never test it in real World application.

When ALL the evidence is viewed together it is obvious that these programs are in full scale testing. If you or any of the 3 debunkers who gave you a star say different you're only showing your ignorance.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


so because im a new member my post means nothing. that is welcoming. maybe it would help to know what kind of "evidance" is going to be worthy of debate. photo evidance is out, testing samples are out, witnesses testamony out, documents are out, independant research is out. documantary films are out... so whats left? it seems that if all the info is out then the topic has gone mute...
also how many post do i need so people dont think i work for the goverment.?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You're really showing how gullible you are if you think that they are going to make al these studies and never test it in real World application.

Perhaps you are showing how gullible you are by blindly swallowing any piece of information which seems to confirm your view without first even reading it all the way through?

When ALL the evidence is viewed together it is obvious that these programs are in full scale testing. If you or any of the 3 debunkers who gave you a star say different you're only showing your ignorance.

I'm sorry but just because you say if he answers you then he's ignorant doesn't mean he's ignorant when he answers you. His answer will undoubtedly reflect that your own sources show beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no implementation of a GeoEngineering program whatsoever. Perhaps it is ignorant of you to continually ignore scientific information (and parts of your sources which contradict your definition of what they are describing) and instead give blind allegiance to any article of information that remotely sounds as if it could possibly be twisted into relevancy to your "chemtrail" beliefs. Well, its either ignorant or its what you are paid to do.

Which is it Mathias? Are you just plain ignorant or a government employee?

Originally posted by Painfulhead
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

so because im a new member my post means nothing. that is welcoming. maybe it would help to know what kind of "evidance" is going to be worthy of debate. photo evidance is out, testing samples are out, witnesses testamony out, documents are out, independant research is out. documantary films are out... so whats left? it seems that if all the info is out then the topic has gone mute...
also how many post do i need so people dont think i work for the goverment.?

I never said anything that would negate your post. As a "new member" I encourage you to post often. Just remember to keep an open mind. Your seeing a fine example of people that are closed minded in MathiasAndrew. His steadfast refusal to accept anything other than information which confirms his opinion is indicative of a closed mind and thats not a direction I would want to see your posts take.

Sampling isn't out. Sampling of the ground is out. If you can produce a sample taken directly form a contrail then that would be valid. Photo evidence could not be of any assistance unless it somehow allowed for a spectrographic analysis of the contrail being taped. Documents that say "this is a feasibility study" do not indicate anything other than feasibility being studied; they are not proof of anything other than a feasibility study. Documentary films are usually made by those with a bias and start out to prove their own bias. Eye witness testimony is the weakest sort of testimony in a court of law why should it be different in this debate?

Its not the number of posts that make people think you work for the government. It is the way in which one posts that is most indicative of that. For instance read this post and you'll see why I'm of the opinion that MathiasAndrew is a government employee.

Did you get started on the video yet? I'm telling you that it could be a smoking gun so I don't understand why you don't already have it uploaded!

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Here I think you left a little out of your post.... Here is some more

2.3 Aerosol Injection Scenarios
An issue that has been largely neglected in geoengineering proposals to modify the stratospheric aerosol is the methodology for injecting aerosols or their precursors to create the desired reflective shield. As exemplified in Section 2.4, climate simulations to date have employed specified aerosol parameters, including size, composition and distribution often with these parameters static in space and time. In this section we consider transient effects associated with possible injection schemes that utilise aircraft platforms, and estimate the microphysical and dynamical processes that are likely to occur close to the injection point in the highly concentrated injection stream. There are many interesting physical limitations to such injection schemes for vapours and aerosols, including a very high sensitivity to the induced nucleation rates (e.g. homogeneous nucleation) that would be very difficult to quantify within injection plumes. Two rather conservative injection scenarios are evaluated, both assume baseline emission equivalent to »2.5 Tg S/yr (which ultimately forms about 10 Tg of particles):

1) insertion of a primary aerosol, such as fine sulfate particles, using an injector mounted aboard an aircraft platform cruising in the lower stratosphere; and

2) sulfurenhanced fuel additives employed to emit aerosol precursors in a jet engine exhaust stream. In each case, injection is assumed to occur uniformly between 15 and 25 km, with the initial plumes distributed throughout this region to avoid hot spots.

Attempts to concentrate the particles at lower altitudes, within thinner layers, or regionally — at high latitudes, for example — would tend to exacerbate problems in maintaining the engineered layer, by increasing the particle number density and thus increasing coagulation. Our generic platform is a jet-fighter-sized aircraft carrying a payload of 10 metric tons of finely divided aerosol, or an equivalent precursor mass, to be distributed evenly over a 2500 kmflight path during an four-hour flight (while few aircraft are currently capable of sustained flight at stratospheric heights, platform design issues are neglected at this point). The initial plume cross-section is taken to be 1 m2, which is consistent with the dimensions of the platform. Note that, with these specifications, a total aerosol mass injection of 10 Tg of particles per year would call for one million flights, and would require several thousand aircraft operating continuously into the foreseeable future. To evaluate other scenarios or specifications, the results described below may be scaled to a proposed fleet or system

www.cgd.ucar.edu...

This is interesting.. so is geoengineering a concept or is it being used today?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

When ALL the evidence is viewed together it is obvious that these programs are in full scale testing. If you or any of the 3 debunkers who gave you a star say different you're only showing your ignorance.

Where is the proof of this full scale testing?

Where is this happening?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You're really showing how gullible you are if you think that they are going to make al these studies and never test it in real World application.

Perhaps it will be tested one day.

But a theoretical paper does not require testing othe than theoretically.

And if/when any testing IS carried out of these very public papers, I expect it to be similarly very public.

When ALL the evidence is viewed together it is obvious that these programs are in full scale testing. If you or any of the 3 debunkers who gave you a star say different you're only showing your ignorance.

When ALL the evidence is viewed together it is obvious that there is no at all evidence that chemtrails exist.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You have to consider that anyone hell bent on making the members of ATS look like a bunch of tin foil hat wearing lunatics is going to behave exactly as you have pointed out. We all know the government has "agents" (virtual or real) on sites just like this and it is my opinion these agents are here to behave exactly as Mathias, the alien human hybrid (you know who i mean), or the guy who likes Plums and the letter D do in a direct attempt by our government to form a false association between their agent's postings and our own. This would cause the population in general to see all of us as being of the same mindset and mental stability as portrayed by their own agents.

Now that I have made this proclamation twice within this thread I predict someone will come on with a SN that is relatively new with very few postings and that this person will try to promote the "chemtrail" hoax with new videos and other illogical ideas.

edit on 30-3-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)

If I am a government disinfo agent then why do I have links to my U-tube account in my signature?

Why is my photo posted on U-tube?

Why does my U-tube account have the link to my facebook account posted?

Where do you come up with these ideas?

It's quite easy to verify who I am. I don't see any info on you though, maybe you're the real government agent.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You have to consider that anyone hell bent on making the members of ATS look like a bunch of tin foil hat wearing lunatics is going to behave exactly as you have pointed out.

Yep - Matty's true motivations for being such a plonker have been called into question before - his consistant posting of YT spam, irrelevant studies, blatant misinterpretation of evidence, lack of aviation experince or understanding, mistaking the troposphere for the stratosphere, manufacturing evidence, not caring whether evidence he posts is actually correct or not.

there's certainly a pattern there!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You have to consider that anyone hell bent on making the members of ATS look like a bunch of tin foil hat wearing lunatics is going to behave exactly as you have pointed out.

Yep - Matty's true motivations for being such a plonker have been called into question before - his consistant posting of YT spam, irrelevant studies, blatant misinterpretation of evidence, lack of aviation experince or understanding, mistaking the troposphere for the stratosphere, manufacturing evidence, not caring whether evidence he posts is actually correct or not.

there's certainly a pattern there!!

Not one of your disgraceful accusations are true. They are merely your opinions.

Opinions are like A__holes everybody has one and most of them stink.