Here's an appeal from one of the major chemtrail believers -
Here is what I am asking you to do. If this project interests you, please go on the Internet and become familiar with a program called Plane
Finder: planefinder.net... Play with it a while to see how you can track aircraft anywhere in the world, provided there are receiving stations
in that area. When you see on your screen that a plane is moving over your location, you should be able to go outdoors and watch it in the sky. Every
time you see a plane, get its identity from Plane Finder and note if it has very long trails (lingering over more than half the sky and feathering out
into a lingering milky haze), short trails (moving along with the aircraft and dissipating as they go), or no trails (usually low altitude flights).
Record all the data about the flight including the time.
-
chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...
so there's the challenge from one of your own - get some actual, real, verifiable evidence.
Personaly I think it's a crock - I already think chemmie believers will falsify the evidence rather than admit that there are any commercial
airliners on normal operations that leave peristent contrails.
but I'm willing to at least allow the possibility that I will be wrong.
And Mr Griffin is at least nominally open to the possiblity that the data may show the hteory wrong -
This project is a two-edged sword. What if we find that all those trails really are coming from the same scheduled planes that carry passengers?
That would mean we have been on the wrong track, and we would have to re-examine our evidence and re-consider our position. There are some who are
convinced that spraying is done by planes performing routine commercial services, but I have not considered that to be likely in view of the huge
amount of chemicals needed for such missions and the difficulty in concealing the mixing of chemicals with jet fuel, to say nothing of the effect it
would have on fuel performance and damage to the engines. Furthermore, Planes that fly in the crazy patterns we have seen would hardly go unnoticed
and unreported by passengers. In any event, the results of a field test such as I am proposing will clear up many of these questions.
which is a major admission from any chemtrailer IMO, and to be applauded.
however there are plenty of hooks in his appeal for objective evidence -
To be sure, the debunkers will always be able to find some semi-plausible explanation for everything, even this. For example, not all parts of the
world or even of the United States are serviced by this technology at the present time, although the most populated areas are. So the debunkers will
likely claim that the coverage is not complete and, therefore, not reliable.
so he is already claiming that known limitations of hte system are actually just claims by debunkers.
Also, there is some question about whether all commercial planes are equipped with these transmitters or merely most of them, so the debunkers
will claim that a plane that does not show up in the system is probably just one of those commercial planes without transmitters.
ditto - if you are using a system that relies upon a/c being fitted with ADS-B then you simply get no indication of any a/c that is not fitted with
it.
en.wikipedia.org... - a/c are not REQUIRED to be fitted with this in the USA until 2020!!
Around here for example I can see al lthe A320's and B737-800's in the air - but no 737-300's or ATR-72's at all that I also know are flying
because I checked the departure times for the last 45 minutes....
However in the USA you can use flight aware -
flightaware.com... - which relies upon IFR flight plan information rathe than ADSB - although
in some cases positions are "predicted" based on the flight plan rather than being actual and known.
One blogger who is not happy with the technology claims that his iPhone does not work if the plane is closer than 50 miles, supposedly because
of some interference by Homeland Security to protect planes from terrorists. (I do not have an iPhone so I cannot verify his claim, but I had no
trouble tracking aircraft directly overhead when using the full computer version of Plane Tracker.)
Or perhaps the fiarly well known delay of a few minutes comes into play - 5 minutes at 600mph = 30 miles....
In any event, debunkers will claim that the system is filled with quirks and errors and is not reliable. You get the picture.
Yes indeed I do - making excuses already........and hence the reason for my skepticism that the recording will actually be honest and accurate in the
first place.
Another chemmie cop-out. 
