Why I debunk the chemtrail myth

reply to post by THEDUDE86


1/ He was never FBI Chief - he was senior agent at 1 office.

2/ his so-called secret-bomber-like chemtrail planes at Liincoln, Nebraska are ANG KC-135 aerial refuelling tankers - 8 of them.....right out in the open at a PUBLIC airfield.

3/ his identification of Ft Sill as a base for them is laughable - it has a 5000 ft runway - far too short for KC-135's

4/ he also believed this:

I have also developed information through credible and reliable sources that in the past, children have been taken from Foster Homes, orphanages, and Boys Town Nebraska, and flown by private jets from Sioux City Iowa to Washington D.C. for sex orgies with politicians.

- from here

All this, and more, is discussed here already - www.abovetopsecret.com...

I enjoy reading your posts.

Keep up the good work...

All you folks coming in here to help me over my failure to believe the chemtrial myth - if you are going to present some evidence, please try to check & see if it's something new.

Because, honestly, I've seen an awful lot of it, and none of it has been convincing to date.

I've seen What in the world are they spraying, I've seen hundreds of contrails on YT that someone says are chemtrails & can't prove why. I've seen Ted Gunderson, I've seen tanker enemy, I've seen Arizona and California Skywatch, I've seen high barium levels in Mohave residents, Clare Sweeny, Rense, Carnicon, AirCrap (never a better name for a site!!).

And every single bit of all of it I discount as hearsay, speculation, bad science, outright mistakes and sometimes probably lies.

And if all you're going to do is say "you are wrong because I say so" or "it's been proved that chemtrails exist" or whatever other unsubstantiated assertion, then I hope that makes you feel better for getting it off your chest - because that's all the effect it will have.

I'm not really expecting any better ...but that's something I wanted to get off MY chest

Originally posted by CaDreamer
to all you believers... if chemtrails are making us sick...why is life expectancy worldwide increasing 50% of children born today will live to 100.

oh and BTW that FBI guy is nuts...

Do you have a source for that? I have heard the opposite.

articles.boston.com...

Life expectancy of Americans fell for the first time in 15 years, as the nation’s oldest adults died from heart disease, cancer, and respiratory ailments, according to a report by the National Center for Health Statistics.

reply to post by hardamber


See my link in the post at the top of this page for a long thread discussing Gunderson.

as for life expectancy - yep - when you're overweight, eat crap, sit on your arse all day, etc......sooner or later improved public hygiene, improved diet (or at least the possibility), improved medicines just aren't going to be enough.

Or did you think life expectancy was going to keep increasing forever?

For most of the rest of the world it is still increasing of course - even places with "chemtrails"...but it won't go on forever there either.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
All you folks coming in here to help me over my failure to believe the chemtrial myth - if you are going to present some evidence, please try to check & see if it's something new.

Because, honestly, I've seen an awful lot of it, and none of it has been convincing to date.

I've seen What in the world are they spraying, I've seen hundreds of contrails on YT that someone says are chemtrails & can't prove why. I've seen Ted Gunderson, I've seen tanker enemy, I've seen Arizona and California Skywatch, I've seen high barium levels in Mohave residents, Clare Sweeny, Rense, Carnicon, AirCrap (never a better name for a site!!).

And every single bit of all of it I discount as hearsay, speculation, bad science, outright mistakes and sometimes probably lies.

And if all you're going to do is say "you are wrong because I say so" or "it's been proved that chemtrails exist" or whatever other unsubstantiated assertion, then I hope that makes you feel better for getting it off your chest - because that's all the effect it will have.

I'm not really expecting any better ...but that's something I wanted to get off MY chest

You talk about bad science but you are the one who constantly tries to present it. You do not pay attention to detail and do not understand the science. You also lie. When me and Phage were debating this subject, you got yourself involved and it was obvious that you could not follow what was going on. In the end, Phage had to admit that the science was not so clear and to making some mistakes. You tried to say that you had comparable data and pictures from LA during WW2. I asked you for it and you then tried to state I was being unfair to you. I then asked you for pictures and data from even the 80's and you could not present it. I think you then ran off after you were handled and started another thread on chemtrails. I am still waiting.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


Perhaps you could link to that thread - it doesn't ring a bell for me.

Never mind - found it. www.abovetopsecret.com...

In fact your accusation is the lie - I did NOT say I had that atmospheric data at all!

The exact request from you was:

If you have WW2 evidence of contrails over Los Angeles with comparative data, I would like to see it. If you have WW2 evidence from any city with comparative data ( temp, humidity, height), I would love to discuss it with you.

Since I have no such data I did not provide any - that is not a lie, nor is it bad science, nor is it a misunderstanding of science. It is a strawman on your part - setting up something you know does not exist as the basis for an "attack".

You were selective about the data you were choosing to acknowledge and ignore - apparently if it was not accompanied by detailed atmospheric readings you didn't want to talk about it.

What I had said was:

Bills' objection that no-one has seen contrails from 100 years ago to compare with today is spurious - there is plenty of video & still evidence from WW2 - 70 years ago now.

And lastly his claim to be interested in the science is an obvious crock - sorry Bill - the fact that he can so blithely ignore WW2 evidence shows that he is not actually interested in collecting comparative data at all.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

- no suggestion there that I had atmospheric data - just video and stills - which you were not prepared to address or compare - and obviously still are not.

Sorry about that - but your shortcomings, selective definitions, strawman arguments and dishonesty are not my problem.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Now you are starting to be deceptive again. Here is your quote.

Bills' objection that no-one has seen contrails from 100 years ago to compare with today is spurious - there is plenty of video & still evidence from WW2 - 70 years ago now. And lastly his claim to be interested in the science is an obvious crock - sorry Bill - the fact that he can so blithely ignore WW2 evidence shows that he is not actually interested in collecting comparative data at all.

You did not ever present any of your pictures from WW2 or any other time period. You are the one that said you had comparative data. I asked for it. That is how science would work. You could not even present one picture let alone with comparative data. You could also not even read the soundings and the chart that me and Phage were discussing so please stop trying to present yourself as some kind of expert.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


Like I said in the quote Bill - the data is video and stills - what is dishonest about that??? You didn't want to address that data - you wanted atmospheric conditions which are not available AFAIK - it's not me being dishonest....

There are threads on here with the information - sorry you were not able to find them - but you didn't ask for links to the vids & stills I said were around - you asked for atmospheric data - which I said I did not have.

Yet again you are dishonest in your criticism.

Do you NOW actually want to see the video and still data that exists, without atmospheric data for the time and place, that you were not interested in back then??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

You can not present any picture of a contrail and claim that is a chemtrail. You have to have high humidity to have persistent contrails. You can not compare a hot dry area like Los Angeles with a cold humid place. In order to compare I asked for the same city. I had to present the soundings for every picture I presented now you want to throw out all the science for contrails and present pictures without soundings. That is fine. Present WW2 pictures of Los Angeles or video without any soundings.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I presented evidence to show that what was happening does not match the science and it should not be happening. I never stated that there is no such thing as a contrail. There is a science behind it. I did state that I had personal observation for one city for over 40 years. In order to disprove what I say you need pictures of the same city. Not New York or Belgum as a plane is falling out of the sky.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


I do not say contrails are chemtrails Bill

I do not recall asking you for pressure data - that was Phage's argument. Mine with you was that you were unwilling to discuss photographic and video evidence from earlier times.

I am unaware of any photos of contrails over LA in WW2 - I am aware of many photos and videos from various places throughout WW2 - there are some in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go fill your boots

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I presented evidence to show that what was happening does not match the science and it should not be happening.

Indeed you did. Phage pointed out your problems - so I'd invite people to go look at the discussion the 2 of you had - Phage's conclusion is at www.abovetopsecret.com... - you never responded after that.

I never stated that there is no such thing as a contrail.

Never said you did.

There is a science behind it.

Well spotted.

I did state that I had personal observation for one city for over 40 years. In order to disprove what I say you need pictures of the same city. Not New York or Belgum as a plane is falling out of the sky.

What plane falling out of the sky?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I presented evidence to show that what was happening does not match the science and it should not be happening.

Indeed you did. Phage pointed out your problems - so I'd invite people to go look at the discussion the 2 of you had - Phage's conclusion is at www.abovetopsecret.com... - you never responded after that.

I never stated that there is no such thing as a contrail.

Never said you did.

There is a science behind it.

Well spotted.

I did state that I had personal observation for one city for over 40 years. In order to disprove what I say you need pictures of the same city. Not New York or Belgum as a plane is falling out of the sky.

What plane falling out of the sky?

edit on 4-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

This was the end of the discussion at this point. There was no need for me to beat a dead horse. Phage had already admitted that the science was not so good. He admitted after 2 days that you need humidity above 60% for persistent contrails. He never had that except for one day in which there were no contrails or chemtrails. On this day there should have been contrails because it had the best conditions. You guys had thrown up this challenge and I responded. One week of pictures with comparable data.

How were you deceptive? You made claims that you never backed up and you make claims of what I said that I never did. You make a claim that I said people never observed contrails 100 years ago or during WW2. Please provide the quote. I am still waiting for your pictures also. Otherwise, quit crying and thinking that being a grease monkey for an airliner makes you an expert.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

How were you deceptive? You made claims that you never backed up and you make claims of what I said that I never did. You make a claim that I said people never observed contrails 100 years ago or during WW2. Please provide the quote.

How about you provide a quote that shows II made that claim first - because I don't see me making it anywhere.

I am still waiting for your pictures also.

Link is above Bill - have a look through the thread I provided for you.

Otherwise, quit crying and thinking that being a grease monkey for an airliner makes you an expert.

Where did I say it makes me an expert Bill - quote please?

Phage handed you your posterior - coming back 8 months later saying you proved something you never did is pretty sad - the thread tells a different tale from you - he used better data than you, with more soundings per day, and showed that your selection of data was biased and irrelevant.

Sorry about that - but, as you said, there's science her, and you failed to make your case.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

I do not say contrails are chemtrails Bill

I do not recall asking you for pressure data - that was Phage's argument. Mine with you was that you were unwilling to discuss photographic and video evidence from earlier times.

I am unaware of any photos of contrails over LA in WW2 - I am aware of many photos and videos from various places throughout WW2 - there are some in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go fill your boots

So in other words you want to throw out all the science of contrails. You want to take an old picture of a contrail from WW2 in a cold humid place and say that is the same phenomenon as a chemtrail over a hot dry city today.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


I want to say that a contrail in 1944 was a contrail, and a contrail in 2011 is a contrail.

What is the problem with that?

Your whole premise in the old thread was about humidity and temperature at altitude - why would the temperature and humidity at city level be of any interest to you now??

In fact come to think of it, weren't you using data from Vandenberg and saying it applied to the airspace over LA or something like that? So you were perfectly happy to say that conditions over 1 place were relevant to conditions over another when it suited your purposes....hmm...???

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

How were you deceptive? You made claims that you never backed up and you make claims of what I said that I never did. You make a claim that I said people never observed contrails 100 years ago or during WW2. Please provide the quote.

How about you provide a quote that shows II made that claim first - because I don't see me making it anywhere.

Lets take one point at a time so you don't try to slither away.

Bills' objection that no-one has seen contrails from 100 years ago to compare with today is spurious

Now provide the evidence that I made this objection.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Sorry, OP, but I have to vehemently disagree with you on chemtrails.

I have seen the contrails aircraft leave, and I have seen jets spraying CHEMTRAILS that come out of New Mexico. They always spray out here in advance of a weather front. I have watched jets spray in a pattern that no jet leaving contrails could leave. They spray, then stop, spray, then stop, and it leaves a dotted pattern like broken lines on a highway. Never in my life have I seen commercial jets do that. It is entirely intentional, and the chemtrails stay in the air (unlike contrails) for a very long time until they dissapate into the approaching weather front. The chemtrails have a distinct way of hanging in the air and "fringing" on the edges that is unlike anything else I have ever witnessed.

I understand you think that you would "know" if there were something to chemtrailing, but since you worked in the commercial airline industry and not the United States Air Force, I would suggest that perhaps you aren't privy to what the military does with its aircraft.

Look up "geo-engineering", because that's what they are doing. Messing with nature.

OP clearly states that commercial chem-trailing is a myth. Military is for another post.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Deducting from your OP you are very offended with the general public for noticing chemtrails. This appears to be because you take it extremely personal, since you work(ed') in aviation.

If you were a mechanic or a lawyer, would your extreme convictions still be as solid?

You are taking something personal that has nothing to do with you.

Chemtrails are evil, totally disregards human rights, and have an agenda so obscure that after many years of this disgusting practice, we still can't really phanthom WHY.

In my area they started recently. So, explain to me how planes that never EVER made lines in the sky now makes them???????

DOWN WITH CHEMTRAILS!!