China admits to dumping chemtrails for weather modification. What do they look like??

reply to post by renegadeloser


problem is that you cant prove a negative. You have to show me evidence of an actual chemtrail before i can say it does or does not look like a contrail. to date there is no such picture.

so there is no way do distinguish a contrail from an imaginary thing that is the problem that we are bumping into here.

I agree thee are many plausible hypothesis out there regarding chemical spreading by air for nefarious reasons. however if ANY of them had found solid evidence i think ATS is the first place that would be seen. it hasn't happened. so until it does how can you prove a hypothetical thing does or does not look like something as innocuous as a contrail. answer is you cant so it falls to the OP to provide a picture of a chemtrail to continue the discussion since the very posting of his question suggests that there are in fact real chemtrails.
that thus has to be dealt with before anything else to have any substance at all.

Originally posted by Uncinus
If you can't tell the difference, then the real question here is why is Poster "B" saying "chemtrails"

Occam's razor dictates they are almost certainly contrails. Planes leave contrails. There is no evidence they are not contrails. So why not contrails?

It's like pointing at your wife and saying "doppleganger".

The question is not why poster "B" is saying "chemtrails." The question is how you can tell one type of high-altitude white cloud from another high-altitude white cloud when no planes are visible.

I realize this must be extremely difficult for you but you really are avoiding a straight answer time after time. Either you can just look at a white cloud and automatically have a chemical knowledge of it, or you can't. So far all your responses point to the fact that you can't, but you're going to whine and moan about it anyway.

Originally posted by adeclerk
This whole thread is a failure in critical thinking.

Seriously, the communication breakdown here is downright awkward to watch.

Let me be blunt, i dont believe in chemtrails, as proposed by some as an aspect of some type of poisoning/world domination/etc. However, that is only because of scale, and purpose. i have no doubt, at all, the will to do something like that is there by those who would have access to the needed resources (and that is entirely irrelevant to the point, believe it or not). Now, i do subscribe to the idea that there are chemical trails used in cloud seeding and that cloud seeding is, generally, benign. i also feel that during continued experimentation, different altitudes and weather conditions are used for data acquisition. If that is not happening, they are not doing their jobs. i also feel that atmospheric conditions can alter any and all trails, regardless of "substance," to incredible and intricate lengths. Including everything from immediate dispersal to defined edges, to shapes and patterns, up to and including everything from a single contrail "S" to multiple contrails crossing. How would these things affect cloud seeding trails? i really dont know.

When it comes down to it, i havent the faintest idea how i would tell the difference between even a fuel dump and a contrail at great distance, especially if i couldnt see the plane. The amount of variations even within contrails themselves is a testament to the atmospheric forces at play.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
problem is that you cant prove a negative. You have to show me evidence of an actual chemtrail before i can say it does or does not look like a contrail. to date there is no such picture.

Do you not realize that this goes both ways?

If you don't know what a chemtrail looks like then you can't say some random white cloud trail across the sky is definitely a contrail. We've already seen that fuel dumps also leave white cloud trails in the sky. A lot of things probably leave white cloud trails behind planes.

so there is no way do distinguish a contrail from an imaginary thing that is the problem that we are bumping into here.

The other problem we keep bumping into is that dumping chemicals to modify the weather is not imaginary, nor can anyone assume to have complete knowledge of what the government dumps into the skies. That's the reason there is even such a conspiracy theory in the first place! You can't make it go away by insulting and mocking it to death!

Originally posted by sinohptik
When it comes down to it, i havent the faintest idea how i would tell the difference between even a fuel dump and a contrail at great distance, especially if i couldnt see the plane. The amount of variations even within contrails themselves is a testament to the atmospheric forces at play.

Look guys... This poster is not saying that all contrails are chemtrails. He is just saying that he can't just look at a white trail of a cloud in the sky and tell what its chemical make-up is.

So who can, and how do you do it?

That's all I'm asking. Everything else is off-topic, insulting, etc.

Originally posted by adeclerk
Since the beginning of aviation there have been contrails. Your suggestion that anything but contrails are coming out from behind airplanes at contrail altitude is absurd, where is the fantastic proof for your fantastic claim?

Again I am not making a claim. I am asking a question. If your extreme bias is preventing you from even being able to tell the difference between a claim and a question then we can go no further than this.

reply to post by renegadeloser

There is various evidence to support such beliefs

No, there is not. Not really. There are claims, and even you put a twist on your list by saying "alleged". There have been no claims that have withstood further study and critical thinking.

What evidence do you have, that this clandestine atmospheric chemical seeding is not taking place

Sorry, if the claim is made then the person making the claim has to prove it. You cannot logically prove a negative. If there is evidence to back up the claims, show them.

cloud seeding and normal contrails

Cloud seeding is much different than anything I would call a contrail. It's completely different. For many reasons. You just came into this discussion without reading the entire thread, didn't you? When "chemtrail" believers start using cloud-seeding as evidence, it usually means they do not understand what cloud-seeding is. And not all cloud seeding is done from planes. The fact that it can be accomplished without airplanes should be a big clue that cloud seeding is not "chemtrails", it's not even contrails.
And before someone pulls out the geo-engineering angle, yes cloud-seeding is being researched. But it would be done on the ocean, with boats, not airplanes. Spraying sea water, hoping to use the salt content as nucleating particles.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And the photo of chemicals in the air looks exactly like cirrus clouds:

So again, how do you actually tell the difference just by looking at them?

Those are cirrus clouds. People can't get nice photos of cloud seeding, so they just use stock photos of clouds, or random stock photos of planes leaving a trail.



That's:

Jet turbine powered Air Tractor in a steep climb dropping water.

Not chinese cloud seeding at all.


www.istockphoto.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
In practice fuel dumping does not happen very often, it would NEVER result in induced clouds forming, it will never be hundreds of kilometers long (even a 10 minute contrail is 160km at jet cruising speed!) - the kerosene will atomise & disperse in the atmosphere.

You're doing a great job at avoiding the question presented in the OP,

I answered the question my post was in reply to explicitly - I said "you probably don't" - why dont' you comment on that??

but you still haven't explained how you would just be able to look at some random white cloud left by a plane and tell that it's water vapor, fuel or anything else being dumped just by looking at it.

And save all the crap about where it comes from on the planes, because, for the third time...

Like I said in the answer - if all you have is clouds, then you probably can't tell the difference when the originin isn't visible, but you can make an educated guess - .

1/ cloud seeding and kerosene do not form clouds - they form trails that disperse pretty quickly
2/ they look different - contrails ARE clouds - they look like CLOUDS because they are water vapour - they are fluffy or wispy in the same way clouds are fluffy or wispy - the other 2 simply do not look the same at all and it doens't matter how often you posit that they might - they just don't.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So who can, and how do you do it?

No one can, that is why debunkers get offended when chemtrailers claim that some contrails are chemtrails. The fact of the matter is that all contrails behave as contrails should, so making any claim that the contrails are anything but is a blatant disregard for basic science and meteorology.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look guys... This poster is not saying that all contrails are chemtrails. He is just saying that he can't just look at a white trail of a cloud in the sky and tell what its chemical make-up is.

So why isn't anyone complaining about clouds in the sky - we dont' know what is in them after all....

So who can, and how do you do it?

By experience perhaps? We know what clouds are made of, these look like clouods, behave like clouds, there's no evidence they are anything except clouds - so we conclude they are clouds.

Same with contrails - they look like contrails, they behave like contrails, and there's no evidence that they are anything other than contrails, so it is reasonableto conclude that they ARE contrails.

Now present some evidence that they are anything else and I'll re-evaluate.

But until then I'm calling bunk on the miscellaneous assertions, sophistry, argumens from ignorance, bad science, misleading analysis and downright lies that are all that has been offered to date.

Originally posted by stars15k
Sorry, if the claim is made then the person making the claim has to prove it. You cannot logically prove a negative. If there is evidence to back up the claims, show them.

Actually you can logically prove certain negatives. For example, there is a famous Euclid proof that there can be no limit to prime numbers, and there must be an infinite number of them. But I digress.

The fact that negatives are hard to prove doesn't mean that the opposite is automatically true.

All I'm asking in this thread is how you think you can chemically analyze a white cloud way up in the atmosphere just by looking at a picture of it.

That question is apparently so disturbing that you can't even answer it directly. I'm not talking about when you see flares or any of that other crap. I'm talking about when all you see are white clouds that were obviously made by airplanes. But then again I've repeated this numerous times and you always find some way to attack it from a tangent instead of head-on with real logic.

Originally posted by Uncinus
Those are cirrus clouds. People can't get nice photos of cloud seeding, so they just use stock photos of clouds, or random stock photos of planes leaving a trail.

Exactly!

You have just proven my point.

The poster who originally posted that image claimed it was a photo of cloud seeding. He couldn't tell the difference!

I didn't assume to know as much because my question is still, how in the hell can you even tell the difference?!

The only people who pretend they can are only fooling themselves at best, or purposefully spreading disinformation at worst.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
If you can't tell the difference, then the real question here is why is Poster "B" saying "chemtrails"

Occam's razor dictates they are almost certainly contrails. Planes leave contrails. There is no evidence they are not contrails. So why not contrails?

It's like pointing at your wife and saying "doppleganger".

The question is not why poster "B" is saying "chemtrails." The question is how you can tell one type of high-altitude white cloud from another high-altitude white cloud when no planes are visible.

I realize this must be extremely difficult for you but you really are avoiding a straight answer time after time. Either you can just look at a white cloud and automatically have a chemical knowledge of it, or you can't. So far all your responses point to the fact that you can't, but you're going to whine and moan about it anyway.

No, I know exactly what you are asking. Generally different type of cloud have different visual appearance.

However it's possible that someone is making clouds that are not contrails, but just look exactly like them. I don't think anyone denies that that would be technically possible.

What people are saying is the there is no evidence that is actually happening

It's like when you see a cat. There's no way of knowing it's not a robot cat. So you assume it's a real cat.

And another reason why people might be bemused by by tack: the vast majority of the chemtrail proponents seem to be suggesting that the trails DO look different. So saying that trails all look exactly like contrails is just what debunkers have been saying all along.

After a little bit of research on cloud seeding I have come to the conclusion that cloud seeding is not meant to harm or geo engineer 'people' but that they are using it to make more reflective clouds to reflect the sunlight away from the earth to combat 'climate change' or whatever you wish to call it. I did not look REALLY hard but I doubt you would be easily able to tell the difference between seeded clouds and regular clouds, because they are essentially both clouds. I personally don't think that 'they' mean to poison us at all, but that if silver iodide is harmful to us in high quantities it is merely a side effect of cloud seeding or whether modification and not the GOAL of the cloud seeders themselves. Sort of how mercury fillings were introduced to the population without taking care to inform the public of the dangers. A seemingly easy solution, with bad consequences. Perhaps it's a naive opinion to chemtrail believers, but it is my opinion until I find anything further to suggest otherwise. Here is a little bit of what I found about cloud seeding on my little quest for answers.

Explains Don Griffith of North American Weather Consultants and John Marwitz of the University of Wyoming on cloud seeding.

It's difficult to prove whether cloud seeding actually has any effect. Weather phenomena are so variable that slight changes in the probability of rain are difficult to measure, and not many careful, controlled studies have been done. The U.S. federal government was at one time very optimistic about weather manipulation; by the late 1970s, annual funding for cloud-seeding projects hit $20 million. But after years without definitive results, interest in Washington has evaporated (except, perhaps, among the people who introduced this bill in the Senate in early March). Some studies have suggested that cloud seeding actually reduces rainfall, or merely redistributes it. A 2003 report from the National Research Council concluded that while cloud seeding may hold promise, we still don't know very much about it.

Also a recent report (2010) from the National Academy of Sciences...

“The Committee concludes that there still is no convincing scientific proof of the efficacy of intentional weather modification efforts,” the study says. “In some instances there are strong indications of induced changes, but this evidence has not been subjected to tests of significance and reproducibility.”

However the State of Utah claims cloud seeding has increased precipitation 14-20 percent.

The departments website at www.water.utah.gov/cloudseeding/Default.asp contains studies that appear to support this contention.
www.mtshastanews.com...

How many countries and how much money is spent on cloud seeding?

Twenty or 30 countries run cloud-seeding operations of some sort; China has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on weather manipulation over the last decade. The bureau in charge of cloud seeding in Thailand reportedly has 600 staff-members and a $25 million budget. No federal funds go toward cloud seeding in America, but a handful of states finance projects locally. Utah just kicked in for $400,000 worth of weather control projects.

On why the seeding is being done without the scientific proof of it's efficacy:

“Despite this lack of scientific proof, operational weather modification programs to increase rain and snowfall and to suppress hail formation continue worldwide based on cost versus probabilistic benefit analysis,” the NAS study states.

And in case anybody is not aware of exactly how cloud seeding is performed...

To induce rain with dry ice, you would fly a plane over a small cloud and sprinkle down a few cups' worth of dry ice pellets. To seed with silver iodide, you'd vaporize a solution at high temperatures and disperse it in the cloud. This can be done using silver iodide flares, which are dropped 8 or 10 at a time from above the cloud, or with silver-iodide-filled rockets or anti-aircraft shells. If you're seeding clouds over a mountain, you can use generators on the ground which release silver iodide vapor into the air currents that rise up one side of the mountain and into the clouds.

The NAS recommends that indepth studies are done to determine the effectiveness of cloud seeding and also to study impact beyond just weather modification. I think this is what really needs to happen, then we may be able to safely put 'chem'trailing to rest.

“It must be acknowledged that issues related to weather modification go well beyond the limits of physical science,” the study says. “Such issues involve society as a whole, and scientific weather modification research should be accompanied by parallel social, political, economic, environmental, and legal studies.”

www.slate.com...

A cool cloud making machine experiment with no carbon emissions that sprays sea water vapor into the atmosphere by Prof Stephen Slater of the university of Edinburgh. I think this would be the optimal way to go, without the silver iodide being released into the air.

Taken from the following youtube video:

Scientists first began trying to manipulate clouds in 1946. They found that by firing tiny particles of silver idodide into rain bearing clouds they could induce rainfall. Steven Salter has been working with clouds since the 1980s but the challenge now for him and John Latham was to figure out how not to make it rain but to increase cloud cover. "

youtu.be...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look guys... This poster is not saying that all contrails are chemtrails. He is just saying that he can't just look at a white trail of a cloud in the sky and tell what its chemical make-up is.

So why isn't anyone complaining about clouds in the sky - we dont' know what is in them after all....

At what point does mockery equate to logic in your distorted view of things?

Are you finally admitting that your eyes don't perform chemical analyses on cloud formations thousands of feet away, or are you just taking the opportunity for another cheap derogatory jab?

So who can, and how do you do it?

By experience perhaps?

What happened to logic and reasoning? I guess you gave up on that for insults and cop-outs huh? You can't possibly have experience with telling water vapor trails apart from something you claim doesn't even exist.

Now present some evidence that they are anything else and I'll re-evaluate.

I don't have to present evidence of anything else. I have proven my only point: you can't tell what the make-up of a cloud behind a plane is just by looking at it. Now keep barking about it.

reply to post by bsbray11


this is like trying to prove that reptilians are real... they look like us so how would we know or not know....


think i will start a thread on santa is he real or is that your dad dressed like santa?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by stars15k
Sorry, if the claim is made then the person making the claim has to prove it. You cannot logically prove a negative. If there is evidence to back up the claims, show them.

Actually you can logically prove certain negatives. For example, there is a famous Euclid proof that there can be no limit to prime numbers, and there must be an infinite number of them. But I digress.

there are much simpler cases - I can prove I have no pens in my pocket simply by turning my pockets inside out.

The limit of being unable to prove a negative does nto apply if the environment of the question is small enough.

none-the-less since contails are known to exist, and the clim is that at least some contrails are somethign otherthan contrails, it is not up to anyone to prove that ALL contrails are only contrails - it is up to eth claimant to prove that ANY contrails are somethgni othe than contrails.

In this instance the argument "prove they are not chemtrails" is an argumetn from ignorance - a common logical fallacy that is often used to try to shift the burden of proof away from the person actually making he claim in hte first place.

It is a common chemmie tactic.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Those are cirrus clouds. People can't get nice photos of cloud seeding, so they just use stock photos of clouds, or random stock photos of planes leaving a trail.

Exactly!

You have just proven my point.

The poster who originally posted that image claimed it was a photo of cloud seeding. He couldn't tell the difference!

I didn't assume to know as much because my question is still, how in the hell can you even tell the difference?!

The only people who pretend they can are only fooling themselves at best, or purposefully spreading disinformation at worst.

I imagine the poster posted it because it was used to illustrate a story about cloud seeding.

I can certainly tell the difference between every instance of cloud seeding I've ever seen on photos or video, and all the contrails I've see.

I'll admit an outside possibility that some of the trails that look like contrails are actually some unusual kind of blue-sky cloud seeding that I've never heard of, that exactly resembles contrails, and is top secret. But I see no more evidence for than than for robot cats.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
this is like trying to prove that reptilians are real... they look like us so how would we know or not know....

think i will start a thread on santa is he real or is that your dad dressed like santa?

Unfortunately neither of those things take away from the fact that no, you can't tell the chemical make-up of the trail left by a plane just by looking at it.


You can keep mocking this all you want but mockery does not equate to a logical rebuttal.