Why I debunk the chemtrail myth

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky
reply to post by firepilot

 

Winter and spring long past. We are in summer. Also, last winter there was nothing.

Unless you're on another planet, it's very much still spring in SA

Originally posted by niceguybob

We didn't get "sprayed" here in Lake Tahoe for over 6 months. Don't ask me why, I'm not in the loop.

Er, why would they cloud seed to increase snowfall in summer? D'oh!

(the question as to whether the firms selling coud seeding to ski centers actually make any difference is a different issue)

Edit: may have something to do with money

www.tahoedailytribune.com...

Your implying the 2 are related. Different altitudes. As I mentioned,they sprayed all the time the last 3 summers I've been here.

ZERO correlation. Not going there my friend. Believe what you want, as will I.

Cheers!

reply to post by niceguybob

= ) Some mornings,when the sun is coming up,you can see they hit us pretty hard the previous night.
Still fresh tracks starting to disipitate.

You've just described normal contrails that formed as airplanes flew that night....and lingered, until dissipating later as the conditions aloft changed, likely due to the Sun's heating.

And it's NOT because it was summer. Last summer we got hammer'd everyday. And the summer before that.

There is nothing that prevents contrails from forming and lingering, even in summer months. Again, it is all due to the relative humidity conditions, at altitude. How many rain storms did you get in those summers, those years? Contrails forming are an indication of overall higher humidity air masses, which can develop into cumulus and rain, down at lower altitudes.

That's why it was so refreshing to see just blue skies for so many days and months in a row.

Yeah, well that's the thing about weather....it tends to be cyclical. Guessing it didn't rain much during those "many days and months" either, huh??

Originally posted by niceguybob
Your implying the 2 are related. Different altitudes. As I mentioned,they sprayed all the time the last 3 summers I've been here.

ZERO correlation. Not going there my friend. Believe what you want, as will I.

Cheers!

It was not to correlate the rain to contrails - although there is a loose correlation, but rather to show how the weather can vary for long periods of time. It can be dry, or hot, or cold, for long periods. You can also get non-contrail conditions for long periods.

Originally posted by Essan


No, but you can compare the atmosphere 6 miles above Los Angeles - which is not hot and dry - with similar atmospheric conditons elsewhere

The conditions at ground level as I'd have thought even you would know by now have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not persistent contrails will form.

As to asking for video and photographic evidence from the 1940s - there's an obviously reason why this is not quite so readily available as such evidence form the 2000s is. I wonder though if you've worked it out yet?

Ad homs and straw men do not win arguments.

The height does not matter. You can have contrails close to the ground. What we are talking about is Persistent Contrails vs Chemtrails. According to NASA's site you need relative humidity > 60% and temp < 40. If you go back and read all the discussions between me and Phage you will see that I am well aware of what is needed. Pictures and soundings were provided. Aloysius is the one who tried to say he had pictures from WW2 and I was ignoring evidence from 100 years ago and comparative data. I asked him to provide it. With all my pictures we had soundings from Vandenberg AFB. He makes claims that I made statements that I never did. As you see he ran off now that I caught him. You interjected yourself and you also do not pay attention. It is now likely that you are him and are trying to change the subject.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


There are plenty of pictures of contrails from WWII. Just not from the US, as there were no high flying bombers over the US.

picasaweb.google.com...

Here's a nice 1953 pic from SF though, which is pretty close.

www.metmuseum.org...

A guy who can't handle being out of the loop, so he obsesses over what others may or may not theorize over on a conspiracy forum. A CONSPIRACY forum.

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Deducting from your OP you are very offended with the general public for noticing chemtrails.

I have no problem with peole noticing contrails.

Them then saying they are chemtrails, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, and that those chemtrails are the product of a conspiracy that I would have to be part of is what I take offence at.

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

Possibly not - and completely irrrelevant.

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

It has lots to do with me - you clearly missed the bit that I do not believe chemtrails from civil airliners could exist without me knowing about them - me and hundreds of thousands or millions of other people in the industry.

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.

You can' even provide evidence that they actually exist - why not start with that rather than wild goose chase into motivations for a myth??

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

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet - possibly someone has addressed this - what area are you in??

DOWN WITH CHEMTRAILS!!

No problem - there is no credible evidence they exist, so save yourself the hassles and anxiety!

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

There are plenty of pictures of contrails from WWII. Just not from the US, as there were no high flying bombers over the US.

picasaweb.google.com...

Here's a nice 1953 pice from SF though, which is pretty close.

www.metmuseum.org...

edit on 5-11-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

Have you even read any of the earlier posts or the thread that Aloysius linked. In that thread I provided pictures with soundings. We also had flight heights. I provided evidence that what was observed does not match the science. Aloysius made a claim that I stated there were no observations from 100 years ago. I never made this claim. He stated I was ignoring WW2 pics and comparative data. I asked him to provide it. He never provided any data. I even allowed him to go back to the 80's with data. You can't compare apples and oranges and say they are the same thing. I never denied contrails. If the science is 90% accurate to say that contrails should not be in the sky then it is possible we are looking at something else.

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
A guy who can't handle being out of the loop, so he obsesses over what others may or may not theorize over on a conspiracy forum. A CONSPIRACY forum.

Who is theorising?

People are telling me that it is happening - not a theory.

And besides it is fun pointing out the errors

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
[

Have you even read any of the earlier posts or the thread that Aloysius linked. In that thread I provided pictures with soundings. We also had flight heights. I provided evidence that what was observed does not match the science.

No you didn't.

You said that there were contrails over LA and the data from Vandenberg wouldn't allow them to happen - conveniently ignoring that Vandenberg is 130 miles away.

When Phage showed that data from San Diego did show that hey could happen, and that clearly somewhere between Van & SD conditions had changed, you accused him of cherry picking data to suit his argument - which is exactly what you had done.

Aloysius made a claim that I stated there were no observations from 100 years ago. I never made this claim.

So you think there were observations of contrails 100 years ago??

You are right - you never made the claim that there were no observations 100 years ago - what you said was:

I could not assume that the details or circumstances of my observation today matches the circumstances occurring by a different person 100 years ago.

from www.abovetopsecret.com...

You were making an observation that HAD someone observed contrails 100 years ago, you would not assume the conditions etc matched those of an observation today.

And what I said in reply was:

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

I apologise unreservedly for making such a massive and vital error....well for makign the error. Hope that helps with your problem.

He stated I was ignoring WW2 pics and comparative data. I asked him to provide it. He never provided any data.

You are obsfucating now.
You asked for pictures and video AND ACCOMPANYING ATMOSPHERIC DATA.

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.

- www.abovetopsecret.com...

I replied that I did not have the atmospheric data

I even allowed him to go back to the 80's with data.

Gosh that's very good of you to allow me that. But again - I did not have the data, and clearly you were not interested in photos, video alone....

You can't compare apples and oranges and say they are the same thing.

You CAN look at the information that is available in such evidence, and compare it with the same information that is available in other evidence of the same type

- is the trail coming from an engine
- is the aircraft at high altitude
- is there a separation between the exhaust egress and the formation of the trail
- does the visible behaviour of the trail match what is known about the behaviour of any other known type of trail

And you can make a logical deduction based upon that evidence that the visible evidence for rail A does or does not match that for trail B.

It is perfectly valid science.

I never denied contrails. If the science is 90% accurate to say that contrails should not be in the sky then it is possible we are looking at something else.

Except your science did not say any such thing - and as soon as that was pointed out you left that thread, and are now trying to resurrect your error hoping no-one will remember or notice it.

so for anyone who has made it this far, here's Bills' proposition:

The atmospheric conditions from soundings at Vandenberg showed with 90% certainty that contrails could not form over LA country 130 miles away.

Straight away the poor science and presumption is obvious!

And in answer Phage showed that the conditions on the opposite side of LA, at San Diego 110 miles away, WERE conducive to contrails, and therefore the conditions must have changed at some point between the 2 locations for the readings, therefore the c0onditions at Vandenberg are essentially useless for saying whether or not there should be contrails over LA.

Which is just common sense as well as basic science, but Phage also went to some effort to show WHY it is wrong.

Overall the OP is winning this thread. Seems like the OP is giving good reason as to why chemtrails are bogus and those disagreeing with him seem to be just being stubborn in attempts to hold onto their passionate beliefs.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Aloysius, you are a truth denier. You have never proven that any picture you have is a contrail. You have no evidence. You have no ability to prove that what someone says is a chemtrail is a contrail. No matter what evidence they provide to you, you just deny it.

Your tactics include deny, deceit, and confuse. When you are caught you ignore and change the subject.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


As far as the previous thread, Phage was the one who had continually used Vandenberg soundings until it did not support the results and he then decided to use San Diego. He tried to cherry pick not me. In any case the soundings never supported the results. I will challenge you now to predict in any city when there should be contrails. You have no evidence that anything someone observes in the sky is a contrail vs a chemtrail.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
Aloysius, you are a truth denier. You have never proven that any picture you have is a contrail. You have no evidence. You have no ability to prove that what someone says is a chemtrail is a contrail. No matter what evidence they provide to you, you just deny it.

That's like asking for proof that photos of JFK are not photos of a robot in disguise.

There's plenty of evidence that they are contrails:

- They look like contrails
- They act like contrails
- They form in conditions when you expect contrails to form

But there's no evidence they are not contrails.

So weigh the evidence.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

As far as the previous thread, Phage was the one who had continually used Vandenberg soundings until it did not support the results and he then decided to use San Diego. He tried to cherry pick not me. In any case the soundings never supported the results. I will challenge you now to predict in any city when there should be contrails. You have no evidence that anything someone observes in the sky is a contrail vs a chemtrail.

Why not just use the contrail forecast page?

www-angler.larc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

As far as the previous thread, Phage was the one who had continually used Vandenberg soundings until it did not support the results and he then decided to use San Diego. He tried to cherry pick not me. In any case the soundings never supported the results. I will challenge you now to predict in any city when there should be contrails. You have no evidence that anything someone observes in the sky is a contrail vs a chemtrail.

Why not just use the contrail forecast page?

www-angler.larc.nasa.gov...

Sounds easy doesn't it. If you go to the web site it states >80% relative humidity. I was using >70%. Phage was trying to use >30% to back up his conclusions. In any case the results did not match with what was going on. It took 2 days of arguing just to get Phage to admit that you need a very high humidity to have Persistent contrails. Aloysius was trying to argue over the definition of the meaning for persistent and other useless nonsense.

reply to post by BillfromCovina

As far as the previous thread, Phage was the one who had continually used Vandenberg soundings until it did not support the results and he then decided to use San Diego.

In the case of radiosonde, there are a limited number of stations that can be accessed via the Internet for our own research abilities.

The University of Wyoming Radiosonde page is handy for our purposes here on ATS, for education and illustration, but certainly NOT the sole sources. Meteorologists tasked with forecasting have access to many more data set resources. Perhaps there are some I am not aware of, that can be linked and displayed here??

What is more, in todays' (last decade or so) modern era, just about every civilian airliner airliner has systems that automatically collect and then transmit meteorological conditions as well, at many times during the flights. This is part of every airline's method of monitoring the *health* of the engines and other systems onboard. As part of collecting the mechanical data, the ambient atmospheric conditions are also measured, and included.

That atmospheric info is used by the airlines too....for their own flight planning purposes, and can also be relayed to meteorologists who wish it for their uses as well.


IN YOUR case, there in Covina ... the stations at Vandenberg and San Diego, rather far removed from each other, were the best alternatives for getting any data, from the Univ of Wyoming site.

The data can be interpolated, to give a "best guesstimate" for your location, but that is a big area between the two stations, and the localized conditions can be quite different....

So, the argument here that I see you attempting to make becomes rather specious, once more is understood about certain limitations of exact readings directly "over your house".....

Contrail forecasting, like all other weather forecasting, is NOT an *exact science*. Certainly in cases of weather forecast mistakes, this is fairly obvious to everyone??

LOL Phage is Phage. He chould be on the Harvard or Berkley debate team on any topic. He can win for either side.

It doesn't mean his position on Chemtrails is correct.