Chemtrails - Failure of Proof (Proof of Failure)

I think the chemtrails "theory" is the most ridiculous nonsense ever, in fact i am just reading this forum purely for entertainment.

What catches my eye is that the so called "believers" never are able to produce any proof, but instead use pictures, youtube videos and their own "observations" as a pseudo-evidence for chemtrails.

They also constantly claim they are able to discern between chemtrails and contrails - but then at the same time often display a freightening lack of knowledge. It's like arm-chair wannabe scientists who *think* they can analyze and spot "chemtrails" simply by looking up in the sky or checking out the latest youtube video.

If the "chemtrails believers" would want to produce proof...here is a tip:

Isn't the chemtrail "theory" that "they" are spraying chemicals or toxins which (somehow) affects us, wildlife etc....so do me a favor and produce a validated study where those allegeded toxins have been sprayed over a city...and then show elevated levels of whatever "toxin" or chemicals showing PROOF that there was spraying going on which allegedly affects our health.

You know, there wouldn't be a point if "they" are spraying and there are no measurable levels of those toxins....so if one of you making such claims about chemicals or toxins being sprayed...please present the data which confirms your theory since those levels or whatever toxins/chemicals CAN be measured easily.

LOOKING AT A PICTURE of contrails is no proof for anything..but that's all you do...and the rest is making up some logic defying speculations...or things like "normal planes dont fly cross patterns" or "normal contrails are disappearing withing 15 seconds"...pretending you have some indepth aeronautical, climatological, scientific meteorological etc. knowledge...and then just showing that indeed you dont have such knowledge at all and are just repeating what you read on "some" websites.

If someone comes in and points out the eclatant errors in the theory and the failures of producing evidence (not pseudo evidence such as youtube vids or pictures) - they call them shills or disinformation agents

Individuals with superficial knowledge of a topic or subject may be worse off than people who know absolutely nothing.
As Charles Darwin observed, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."[4]

Ignorance can stifle learning, in that a person who falsely believes he or she is knowledgeable will not seek out clarification of his beliefs, but rather rely on his ignorant position.

He may also reject valid but contrary information, neither realizing its importance nor understanding it.

There is a great deal of proof out there.

Please view the film "What In The World Are They Spraying?" :

www.youtube.com...

I would put forth my own numerous observations watching jets spray here over west Texas, but since personal observations constitute nothing but fantasy to you, I'll spare you. However, what people are finding stuck all over the landscape (barium salts, aluminum oxides), and what is causing wildfires to go from bad to uncontrollable, are not debatable.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


There is as much proof in favor as in denial.

We see the stripes! And we find strange residues in the air..

Unless someone is going to fly behind those plains and measure air quality, it's everyones guess.

And no, they don't need fancy equipment and 1000's of people.

Just one guy somewhere between the reffinary and the plane mixing stuff in the fuel could be enough.

Happy guessing.

reply to post by EartOccupant


This is a new one!

Chemtrails controlling wildfires now?!

Sure it isn't HAARP?

I may sound like a broken record to some, but proving chemtrails is so easy.

It just takes some cash, tough for the average Joe, but how much do you think it costs to produce a movie?

The money spent on chemtrail movies should have been spent on getting the proof needed.

Why not?

ETA:

$50,000 spent on What in the world are they spraying!

$50,000 would have hired this plane for a month:

Requests for access to research flight hours begin with the submission of an Initial Request for Aircraft Support (Word (35kb), PDF (30kb)) to the manager of the facility. Based on information provided on this form, a DOE-empowered advisory panel recommends to DOE an award of flight hours for the proposed use. Then the user completes a more detailed Research Aircraft Deployment Document (RADD: Word (180kb), PDF (85kb)) in coordination with the RAF manager. RAF users not associated with the DOE Atmospheric Science Program will need to work with the RAF manager on an estimate of the cost of offsite aircraft logistics such as 1) landing fees, 2) hangar rental, 3) ground support facilities, and 4) labor and expenses for a PNNL flight crew of two pilots and two scientific support personnel. During the preparation of RADD, schedules are confirmed and safety and environmental compliance requirements are addressed.

The RAF does not cover the cost of engineering studies and airframe modifications needed for custom installation of project-specific equipment and instrumentation. Such costs must be budgeted separately through a contract with PNNL or Battelle. When requested, RAF staff will assist users in estimating these costs.
*

Gulfstream-1 Research Aircraft

The G-1 is a large twin turboprop with performance characteristics of contemporary production aircraft. It is capable of measurements to altitudes approaching 30,000 feet over ranges of 1500 nautical miles, and can be operated at speeds that enable both relatively slow sampling and rapid deployment to field sites throughout the world. The aircraft is configured for versatile research applications. It accommodates a variety of external probes for aerosol, radiation, and turbulence measurements and internal sampling systems for a wide range of measurements. The G-1 has sufficient cabin volume, electrical power and payload capabilities, and flight characteristics to accommodate a variety of instrument systems and experimental equipment configurations. Internal instrumentation is mounted in removable racks to enable rapid reconfiguration as necessary. Data from most systems are acquired on a central computer that is tailored to airborne research data acquisition. In addition to acquiring the various analog and digital input signals, it can be configured to communicate with and/or control other systems onboard, and to provide time synchronization to other computers.
*

reply to post by Chadwickus


Hmm where did i write about that?

I just pointed out that saying it is, or it isn't is guessing.

Whatever is in it, i hate it when a nice blue sky gets clouded by plane residue.

It might be the healthiest air on earth behind those planes, i don't care. I just don't wanna have my view and sunlight spoiled by those plane exhausts.

There are many sunny days around here that get spoiled by contrails, creating a thin layer in a few hours and blocking the sun and the blue sky. That alone is pollution enough for me.

But please, go on and respond to more things i didn't say. (Edit: accepted, have a nice weekend! )

reply to post by flexy123


there are a lot of different levels of chemtrail "believers" out there. I didn't believe in them for years and thought it was ridiculous, for the same reasons you list: namely, lack of physical chemical proof.

but then... sitting at a restaurant with my wife we watched planes lay line after line of "trails" in the sky and the planes were low enough that we could see they were all-white L10-11s, I could clearly see the separate tail engine, meaning they were NOT at cruising altitude because planes that high can't be identified so easily. We watched as those trails floated across the sky, while higher contrails dissipated quickly. These lower trails gradually faded into a thick haze that covered the entire valley.

After looking into some of the science of the phenomena I found that in general an airplane must be at around 29,000 feet or above to have the temperature to make a contrail and typical conditions would allow a contrail to last around 5 to 15 minutes. The longest-lasting, with perfect conditions, was around 40 minutes. Granted these were general facts from the internet but seemed plausible and matched with my life experience.

In the last few years we've seen a new type of cloud: Asperatus; the first new cloud classified since 1951.


Asperatus: a new cloud

SOMETHING is going on....

What is it? We don't know yet.

So, although I believe there are something other than contrails being purposefully put into our atmosphere I have no idea why or who's doing it. Could be to control us, to poison us, to benefit us, to cool or heat the atmosphere, to inject nanoparticles into everything, to enable new technologies for tracking/spying.... we really DON'T KNOW YET.

But, to categorically say something doesn't exist due to lack of a certain level of evidence means you're choosing ignorance over curiosity.

reply to post by EartOccupant


I hit reply to the wrong person.

My bad!

What Are They Spraying should have had someone fly behind several of these planes and taken fresh samples for analysis, I wish they, or someone with the funds, would do that already. I don't know the FAA regulations behind doing such close approach flights but I've seen them done so it's possible to conduct those experiments.

Whatever they are, chem or contrails, they need to stop because they are affecting life on the planet, especially photosynthesis in crops, essential for health and survival. Wait... they don't want us healthy, they want us sick so they can "treat" the symptoms.
With that FACT in mind, I'd say it's likely they'd spray us like cockroaches and not lose any sleep over it.

reply to post by Thermo Klein

In the last few decades we've seen a new type of cloud: Asperatus; the first new cloud classified since 1951

Asperatus Forms below 2000 feet.

I'm not sure if you're insinuating that chemtrails have something to do with it, but clearly, they don't.

The cloud classified in 1951, relatively speaking and as far as cloud identification goes, is fairly recent.

Is something up with that too?

reply to post by JibbyJedi

What Are They Spraying should have had someone fly behind several of these planes and taken fresh samples for analysis, I wish they, or someone with the funds, would do that already. I don't know the FAA regulations behind doing such close approach flights but I've seen them done so it's possible to conduct those experiments.

I got booed out of the building for suggesting it over a year ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whatever they are, chem or contrails, they need to stop because they are affecting life on the planet, especially photosynthesis in crops, essential for health and survival.

Very little of jet exhaust ever comes back down to ground level, yes it's bad but until we get something better, it will only get worse.

And also, ground based sources are what's affecting crops etc.

Cars, buses, trucks, trains, bikes, machinery, generators, power plants, factories, lawn mowers...all these are the real concern.

Wait... they don't want us healthy, they want us sick so they can "treat" the symptoms. With that FACT in mind, I'd say it's likely they'd spray us like cockroaches and not lose any sleep over it.

You've mistaken your opinion as a fact there...

Here's a fact, if they (whoever they are) are spraying something, they're copping it too...

reply to post by Chadwickus


Asperatus didn't exist until recently; they named all the other, typical cloud types by 1951.

Asperatus is an undulating, connected type cloud that seems to imply there's something in the atmosphere tying particles together. I think they could be related to chemtrails - again, not sure without evidence. What we do know is that something has changed our atmosphere to allow a new cloud type in the last decade.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


What changed in the atmosphere in 1951 for there to be a new type of cirrus named?

reply to post by Chadwickus


It is a good suggestion, why not spend some of that financing to fly a plane behind them and take samples?

Compartmentalization runs rampant in this world, and my opinions about Big Pharma and the round table groups wanting us sick is a fact, based on what I've observed in my line of work and extensive research and plain old looking around at the reality of the situation. Cures are suppressed, and they've pretty much outright admitted it in the MSM, but what are we going to do about it? We are bugs to these monstrous corporations.
How can you say it's an "opinion" after watching this one video alone?


I'd love some proof of intentional chemtrailing to put this debate to bed once and for all.

reply to post by Chadwickus


looking into when clouds were first named but if we were naming the types and had named them all by 1951, it's common sense that somethng changed recently to make the undulating asperatus...

at first glance some guy after 1800 named three types of basic clouds. I'll spend a little more time on it but my point it that something changed recently. I am curious when the majority were named though and in fact the 1951 cloud was new, or simply we'd named them all around then.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

What changed in the atmosphere in 1951 for there to be a new type of cirrus named?

oh ya! They added "Cloud 9"

The phrase to be on cloud nine, meaning that one was blissfully happy, started life in the United States and has been widely known there since the 1950s; it’s since spread worldwide.

(still looking)

reply to post by Thermo Klein


To be honest I don't know when say cirrus was first named, I'm assuming it was a long time before 1951 though.

We're probably straying off the topic slightly with it, but I hope you understand my reasoning here?

reply to post by Chadwickus


yup, it's a good question. I'm not finding anything obvious but we only first started calling them clouds after 1800.

Here's a little about Luke Howard, who first named clouds: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

and a wiki on cloud types if anyone's interested in pursuing this area.


ETA: oh hey! Just got my 2,000th post

ETA2: just as a side note the first cloud atlases were published around the 1890s and Sirrus was the first cloud named, That's it from me

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Whatever they are, chem or contrails, they need to stop because they are affecting life on the planet, especially photosynthesis in crops, essential for health and survival. Wait... they don't want us healthy, they want us sick so they can "treat" the symptoms.

If you are talking about photosynthesis i need to assume you are one of the persons it's the case that the chemtrails are "blocking out the sun" (UV light that is etc.)....i dont even know where to start to point out how ridiculous this idea is.

Even if "they" would fly criss-cross 24hrs/day over some major urban areas like Chicago, let's assume a nice 100mls radius or similar which would be "entirely" covered - on a country or global scale it would mean NOTHING, there is simply no way that it would be effective or show ANY effect whatsoever....EXCEPT on a very, very limited and local scale that the "sun is blocked" for a small number of viewers. (Let alone long-term effects on plants, photsynthesis etc... *AND* the fact totally ignored that we already have natural "blockers" like clouds, volcano ash eruptions etc.... Short: It would simply not WORK to "block" the sun or have whatsoever measurable effect on a larger scale compared to normal weather etc. NO ONE would be so silly to spend money on such projects which are just...sorry...SILLY.

Furthermore, the other thing which puzzles is that you obviously seem to worry about pollution and photosynthesis etc...and this is all nice and good since we INDEED have airpollution and toxins released in the atmosphere. This is a real problem for decades already. But why then focus on something less "solid" with very little to back it up (chemtrails) instead of looking at the REAL problem and real pollution going on? Just wondering.

reply to post by flexy123


I love how the same people you were talking about pounced on this thread with the same kind of "evidence" you were mocking.