A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

reply to post by coyotepoet


There is too much flawed thinking in your suggestion to answer as you request we do.

Are you willing to admit that at least some of the trails across the sky are indeed “chemtrails” whatever their purpose may be?

No I don't. I would require proof that they are somehow different than what I know to be clouds and contrails. That proof has not ever been presented.

If the answer is no and you still persist in the belief and the argument that all of the lines are simply “persistent contrails” .....

It's not a belief with me. It's been what is proven by good science, from decades of research. It's not an "argument" either. It's empirical; it's either chemical or not. All real evidence says "not".

Then you get all strange.

Then your stand places you in the same small and closed minded space that you accuse “chemmies” of occupying.

Wrong. My standing is that the science has proven by actual testing and mathematical modeling that the trails seen in the sky is exhaust from a jet plane. Nothing unexpected has been found nor has any quantity of anything found been more than expected. It's not being closed-minded to the possibilities. It's accepting the facts. And comparing those facts with the complete lack of findings from the "chemtrail" proponents, I choose the hard facts. I choose what has been proven, not just dealing in possibilities. It is possible that the trails are alien flatulence, but until it's proven, I'm not going to believe it. And there is just as much good evidence in "chemtrail" theory as there is in alien gas theory.

Or, No, none of the contrails are chemtrails and you are as small and closed minded as you accuse us of being?

No one can answer that in the positive. To expect us, and class us as you describe shows you are being both small and close-minded.
Being close-minded does not mean believing in the possibilities of everything. It means you are open to learn. I learned the science behind what I see. I learned what good science method is compared to bad. I learned to discern actual fact over theory and reality over conspiracy. I learned that the whole "chemtrail" theory has not "grown" in the time it has been bandied about on the internet. Science advances; "chemtrail" theory does not. Most importantly, I learned what being open-minded meant.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

The weather at 35000 ft(where contrails can form)is drastically different than what it is at ground level, so unless you were at that altitude you cannot say the weather and temperature is not conducive for contrails, because you have no way to tell the weather that high while on the ground. And I think you already knew that.

I am aware of that. I am also aware that:

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics. All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs

www.skepticalscience.com...

So logicially, if the troposphere is getting warmer, we should have fewer days of trails not more.

reply to post by network dude

But I don't buy into the theory that every line in the sky that lasts for "x" number of hours, is a chemtrail.

Neither do I. I also don't buy into the idea that every trail is a contrail.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

got any such evidence? 'cos so far all I've seen all over the 'net on chemtrails is supposition, assertion, bad science, etc., and that tells me, or at least strongly suggests to me, that there is no such evidence.

What evidence did Einstein have for the theory of relativity? And yet most people still consider his theories to be true.

Einstein's theory immediately explained some of the major problems in the physics and astronomy of his day, and it has continued to explain new developments that were not even hinted at 90 years ago, including the existence of black holes and recent observations in cosmology. Yet, accepting the theory of relativity requires us to throw out almost all of our previous notions about the universe, as well as most of what we would call "common sense."

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Of course I'm not comparing myself to Einstein, just that to understand some things require you to think outside of the box rather than just in our still growing understanding of science.

I wanted to post a link to a statement made by another concerned citizen. Here is the first and last parts of his staement found here..... .www.disclose.tv...

Concerned Citizens Demand Answers about Global Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering Programs

What would you say if you were told that airplanes were regularly spraying toxic aerosols in the skies above every major region of the world? That is exactly what a group of protestors were claiming outside of the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting that was held in San Diego from February 18-22. However, inside the convention center was a different story. The scientists gathered to discuss the “plausibility” of implementing various Geo-engineering campaigns throughout the world, all under the guise that the Earth has a man-made global warming problem that can be solved in-part by spraying aerosol aluminum and other particles into the sky to block the sun. When these scientists were asked about the possibility of existing aerosol programs; they stated that no aerosol spraying programs have been implemented to date. A little confused? Why would protestors gather outside of a meeting making claims that world-wide aerosol programs were under way if scientist were only now discussing the possibility of implementing these programs? Could it be that one of these groups is being deceived?

Mauro Oliveira, the Webmaster of Global Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering Program, was one of the protestors. He claimed that the program for Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering (SAG), AKA chemtrails, has been well under way around the world. As a matter of fact, Oliveira stated that witnesses from around the globe claim that heavy aerosol spraying is occurring almost every day over just about every city. He went on to explain the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. He stated that when a jet airplane flies at a certain altitude, a visible trail of streaks of condensed water vapor sometimes form in the wake of the aircraft. This is called a contrail. Contrails are normal and usually dissipate in a few seconds. They are very similar to when we breathe in cold weather. According to Oliveira, what occurs behind a SAG plane spraying aerosols is quite different. What can be seen is a thick white line also called a chemtrail that lingers in the sky for several hours. The SAG lines are sprayed into the upper atmosphere and then spread out forming what then appear to be clouds. The particles from these aerosols then fall to the ground where they enter our soil and water and can also be inhaled.

As the skies around our world continue to change, there is strong evidence that points toward current deployment of massive aerosol operations. Could it be that scientific data and studies are being used to implement pre-mature full-scale SAG programs with-out the knowledge of the top scientists who are involved with the research? If so, what kind of ethical considerations can we expect from the geo-engineering community in the future? It is hard to believe that the strange white lines in the skies witnessed around the world and the toxic elements found in the soil, water and air are from an unrelated source. We the people, in partnership with the scientific community need to challenge not only the environmental and health risks associated with SAG but also the numerous world-wide allegations about current deployment. It is imperative that we become educated and involved in uncovering the truth of this alleged crime against both nature and humanity. The future of our planet depends on it. As concerns continue to grow around the world about this issue, additional information including meet-up groups can be found on various chemtrail and geo-engineering websites.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

got any such evidence? 'cos so far all I've seen all over the 'net on chemtrails is supposition, assertion, bad science, etc., and that tells me, or at least strongly suggests to me, that there is no such evidence.

What evidence did Einstein have for the theory of relativity? And yet most people still consider his theories to be true.

He had good math and logic that showed that it _should_ be true, and then proved it with observations that were good science. Until he had made his observations of a solar eclipse in 1919.

Chemtrails have none of this.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by network dude

 

But I don't buy into the theory that every line in the sky that lasts for "x" number of hours, is a chemtrail.

Neither do I. I also don't buy into the idea that every trail is a contrail.

So how do you tell the difference?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

So how do you tell the difference?

I don't, not always anyway. How do you tell the difference? (and don't tell me that you look up all of the factors every single time you see a trail in the sky). Or do you just assume that every trail is a contrail and leave it at that?

reply to post by Toots


Sorry, Toots. There is nothing in the report about "chemtrails". Not even close. They do mention 'cloud-brightening", and "aerosols". Both might be considered to a "chemtrailer" to be an admission, they do not seem to understand that both of those words do not in fact require anything to be sprayed from an airplane. Especially the word "aerosol"........most "chemtrailers" believe it means sprayed. It does not. Learn what they are talking about when you reread the report again.
Heck, even in your same report (page 23, point 42 under "Urgency"):

What it considered as urgent was “reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country, of legislating to that effect, and of participating in the international discussions about trying to arrive at a global deal”. Indeed, she saw a danger in adopting Plan B (that is, research (Italics mine) into geoengineering), “if that were even feasible, which I would question, but the danger in adopting a Plan B is that you do not apply yourself to Plan A, and the point of Plan A is it is all entirely do-able.”

Plan B is "research". It's not a study about something being done actively, it's a study about what needs to be legislated on a global basis. And even their expert says '...if that were even feasible, which I would question', shows they don't think that some of the plans out there would work.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Funny, as far as I can google, there is no webpage called "The Global Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering Program," so how can Oliveira be its webmaster? I also trusted you noticed that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the plausibility of geo-engineering. The basic science of the concepts are very simple, the actual implementation would be staggering in its scale. You could not do it cheaply... or secretly.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So how do you tell the difference?

I don't, not always anyway.

What about those other times when you do?

How do you tell the difference? (and don't tell me that you look up all of the factors every single time you see a trail in the sky).

I don't tell the difference - there is a great deal of information about "normal" contrails, and I have some personal experience of them spanning the sky from horizon to horizon from aircraft that I personally was a mechanic on.

So I have a "default" position - to me there is an overwhelming probability that if it looks like a "normal" contrail then it is a "normal" contrail.

That is why I keep asking what is the evidence for any contrails being other than "normal".

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Yet another example where a "chemtrail" proponent doesn't know the language of the report they are citing.
Stratospheric Aerosols are overwhelmingly natural. Those anthropogenic examples are burning the rainforest and industry. Very little stratospheric aerosols are produced by or from planes.
Want to know the source of many of the "bad stuff" found in atmospheric samples comes from? Even instances of flu virus? Half of the mercury found in air samples?
Read this:
Bad Stuff origin is found!!!

All mentioned ingredients are found as aerosol, because the word means only non-gaseous things found in the atmosphere. It's all it ever means in any of the research papers and articles presented as "evidence" of "chemtrails". If you don't know that, you will never learn what all of these reports are really talking about.

reply to post by coyotepoet


It is not hard to tell weather conditions at altitude. At least not for pilots and weather buffs.

One piece of weather puzzle.

Comprehensive Route Map

Humidity, temperature, and temperature contrasts are all pieces in predicting conditions for contrails. In reality, at 30,000 msl, the conditions are almost always good for contrails to some extent. They may come and go, they may linger for minutes or hours, but if you get familiar with aviation weather and aviation routes, you will also get familiar where contrails are going to be seen. I can guarantee that commercial pilots are laughing at the chemtrail phenomenon.

Animated Map just into NYC

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Funny, as far as I can google, there is no webpage called "The Global Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering Program," so how can Oliveira be its webmaster? I also trusted you noticed that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the plausibility of geo-engineering. The basic science of the concepts are very simple, the actual implementation would be staggering in its scale. You could not do it cheaply... or secretly.

Here is the website
www.geoengineeringwatch.org...,

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

What about those other times when you do?

Checking flight and weather information and observation mostly.

My bottom line is this:

There is no proof (at least not that I have access to) that the people I work with don't have a bloodborne pathogen (HIV, Hepatitis, etc) and yet I wear gloves every time I may come into contact with blood or body fluids, it's called Universal Precautions.

There is no proof (in fact there was falsified "proof") that Iraq had WMD's beyond what we supplied them with and yet we are still at war in that country how many years later? And how many soldiers and civilians have died or been seriously injured? How many families destroyed?

There is no proof (because they actively fight against a full audit) that the Federal Reserve isn't screwing the American population, yet there are many people out of work, homeless, and hungry because of the economy, which Wall Street and the Fed helped destroy.

There may be no proof (at least in the way the hardline debunkers want) that "chemtrails" exist and yet if there is even a chance that they may damage my health, the health of my child, or the health of people I love, I want to keep questioning, keep looking, keep speaking out and making people aware of the possibility rather than just sticking my head in the sand and saying that because there is no "proof" they don't exist.

I may be wrong about chemtrails, but if I am right and proof is forthcoming either from a yet unknown scientific discovery or from an after the fact admission and apology from TPTB, at least I know that I did everything I could with the resources I have available to me to address the issue and keep the people I love as safe as I can.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Here is the website
www.geoengineeringwatch.org...,

I see. So the article got the name of the website wrong. I wonder what else they got wrong?

reply to post by coyotepoet


I am happy to accept the precautinoary principle...in principle.

But for example I believe Hepatitis & HIV exist in the first place - hence precuations are against a real threat. I know the Feds exist, etc. (I never believed in Iraq's WMD's tho)

I also do not take precautions against having a reptilian overlord as a boss - although I have no proof he isn't one, nor do I take any precautions against the anti-christ, or any number of other "possible" threats that I do not consider credible.

And that's where chemtrails fit - they are simply not credible to me - for all sorts of reasons - "no proof" is just the failure of the chemtrail crowd to persuade me otherwise.

For the record, the reasons I consider chemtrials not-credible include

personal experience - I worked on jets that I also saw create persistant horixzon-spanning contrails
weight of science - ther's a lot of evidence about contrails.
history - there's a lot of history to contrails that predates any suggestion of chemtrails
logic - spraying something at 30,000+ feet seems alike a silly way to do anything.

all of that is obviously my own personal evaluation of the "evidence".

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

all of that is obviously my own personal evaluation of the "evidence".

Exactly, but that's a line everybody has to draw for themselves.

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Yet another example where a "chemtrail" proponent doesn't know the language of the report they are citing.
Stratospheric Aerosols are overwhelmingly natural. Those anthropogenic examples are burning the rainforest and industry. Very little stratospheric aerosols are produced by or from planes.
Want to know the source of many of the "bad stuff" found in atmospheric samples comes from? Even instances of flu virus? Half of the mercury found in air samples?
Read this:
Bad Stuff origin is found!!!

All mentioned ingredients are found as aerosol, because the word means only non-gaseous things found in the atmosphere. It's all it ever means in any of the research papers and articles presented as "evidence" of "chemtrails". If you don't know that, you will never learn what all of these reports are really talking about.

This is one of the favorite techniques and excuses of debunkers. You all try to apply one meaning to all things when they actually apply to many things. They would use that same term if they were describing what I said they say. Just because you imply they mean something doesn't mean I don't know what i'm reading. If you put it into the context of what is being discussed in the papers you can obviously see that they are not talking about what you just tried to imply.Your narrow minded viewpoint is getting ridiculous. Even if your debunker friends gave you a few stars. Your comment is a completely bogus one.

Let me tell you something, you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about ok. Just because you want to play your little game of denial doesn't mean I'm not correct in what i'm saying. Aerosols are being injected into the atmosphere intentionally. Yet another example of a debunker not reading the evidence and then commenting on it as if they had read it.

reply to post by stars15k

No I don't. I would require proof that they are somehow different than what I know to be clouds and contrails. That proof has not ever been presented. It's not a belief with me. It's been what is proven by good science, from decades of research. It's not an "argument" either. It's empirical; it's either chemical or not. All real evidence says "not".

I appreciate your reliance on empirical information for your beliefs, but the fact remains that empirical or not it is still a belief. How many people I wonder who believed that the earth was flat were sure they had empirical evidence to support their belief. Strides don't happen because people limit their ideas to what can be proven. They happen because people are willing to step outside of the box and think about things in different ways from the mainstream at the time. Sometimes in radically different ways. That was my point in quoting the information about scientists intuition in my OP.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." Albert Einstein

"Truth is first ridiculed,then violently opposed and finally accepted as being self evident"

A belief in science is still a belief as much as a belief in God regardless of if you've tricked yourself into believing that you have all the answers because the answers you do have are "empirical." Having an open mind is as much about being open to possibilities that you may not at first agree with as it is about comparing it to science.

No one can answer that in the positive.

Why not? Despite the science behind the formation of contrails, if you are not open to other possibilities and the possibility that not all trails are contrails then by definition you are being closed. That was sort of the point of the question though. Because that is exactly the position debunkers expect from "chemmies": agree that all trails are contrails or be subject to trolling and ridicule. "Either agree with us because we have proof that contrails can form in certain situations or be considered ignorant." It's the same position, just from a different side. That was the point of my OP.