If you don’t believe in chemtrails why are you here?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


www.osti.gov...

reply to post by luxordelphi

Maybe you should have read it (as unreadable as it may be). All of the atmospheric scatterers (dielectrics and metallics) depend on the selective scattering of specific wavelengths. That is their function. The only difference is in their relative efficiencies and means (and cost) of deployment.

The physics of metallic scatterers – which, to be sure, also include small, thin metallic-walled superpressure balloons – suggest that they could most effectively scatter back into space the UV portions of solar insolation, just as do dielectric scatterers. These more highly engineered scatterers have significantly higher specific costs-to-emplace in the stratosphere than do dielectric aerosols, but their far lower masses result in estimated annual costs to address the reference year-2100 problem which may be as much as five times less than approaches of comparable power based on dielectrics: of the order of $0.2 B/year.1

Metallics may be more cost effective, making them the "favored" method. It doesn't matter, the visual effects would be the same because of the purpose they would be used for.
www.osti.gov...

reply to post by luxordelphi

Positioning of scatterers of incoming solar radiation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere – specifically, the middle to upper stratosphere – is a now-venerable approach that appears to provide the most practical deployment, as operational lifetimes of such engineered scatterers can be as long as a half-decade; required replacement rates are correspondingly modest. Thus, the stratosphere is where we propose to deploy all of the insolation-modulation scattering systems that we propose for near-term study.

www.osti.gov...

So you do know the difference between the middle to upper atmosphere and how high planes fly,right? Here is a link that may help you out...

calipsooutreach.hamptonu.edu...

reply to post by Phage


You say:

Metallics may be more cost effective, making them the "favored" method. It doesn't matter, the visual effects would be the same because of the purpose they would be used for.

Please re-read your sentence and give me a good reason to consider it anything but nonsense. Specifically, "...the visual effects would be the same because of the purpose they would be used for." Perhaps you should re-read your own link to learn that no observational effects were given for anything other than volcanic aerosols. And how could they be when this paper:

saive.com...

found that:

One of the most obvious side effects of the formation of contrails is the impact on astronomy. One has seldom a clear sky available for observation in areas with dense air traffic.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Positioning of scatterers of incoming solar radiation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere – specifically, the middle to upper stratosphere – is a now-venerable approach that appears to provide the most practical deployment, as operational lifetimes of such engineered scatterers can be as long as a half-decade; required replacement rates are correspondingly modest. Thus, the stratosphere is where we propose to deploy all of the insolation-modulation scattering systems that we propose for near-term study.

www.osti.gov...

So you do know the difference between the middle to upper atmosphere and how high planes fly,right? Here is a link that may help you out...

calipsooutreach.hamptonu.edu...

That was a link that Phage put up to disprove chemtrails based on an observation in the paper that skies were bluer and twilight more spectacular due to volcanic aerosols. Please take up your 'how high' queries with him/her.

chemtrails don't mean deathtrails, you have no idea what could be in those trails, for all you know its some compound that can be helping instead of hurting. thats of course .... if they were real but they're not

reply to post by ZeroUnlmtd

you have no idea what could be in those trails

We know what's in contrails though...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And pro-chemtrailers deliberately ignore how to prove what's in their chemtrails...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you had the ability to undeniably prove the existence of chemtrails, what would you do?

reply to post by luxordelphi

Yes, contrails like all clouds, interfere with astronomy.

I think the question here is.......

Why jump onto a thread...if you dont believe what the OP wants you to believe....?

or we can turn this into the 190,000,000 thread on chemtrails.

I will time to time jump on a chemtrail thread....put in my two cents...and thats it..

I can't believe in them...so I make my little point, and move on with my life.

DONE.

At least in the past 50 years you only had to worry about all the atmospheric nuke testing done, which has left enough to worry about for hundreds of years.

You also at least knew they were taking place...

Maybe Anonymous needs to do some digging around to see what they can discover (TOP SECRET) regarding chemtrails?

reply to post by ThatGuy45

Just because you cant 'see' it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist... or further more; a part of something else...

Yes but chemtrails aren't invisible exhaust vapors, according to the people seeing them, they are contrails with strange characteristics. What those people are seeing is not jet exhaust, was my point.

I still think you win

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

The tactic, to debunk my link, will fall on certain debunkers here, as we will soon see. They will scoff at the writer, but not really address much else of real substance. Others focus on the contrail science aspect because they know how contrails work, there are very few scientists here, and they love to expose the layman as being ignorant of "the science", as if their science explains everything we see.

As I stated several times before, how on earth are we supposed to believe anything you, or any of your experts say, when they fail BASIC HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE. so yeah, call me whatever you want, but until your experts have even a simple grasp of atmospheric conditions and the effects on condensation trails, there's simply not much to bother to debunk as most of it is based on pseudo science or assumptions.

See, the whole barium and aluminum particles that have been sampled is the only thing concrete to suggest any actual geoengineering to reflect sunlight has taken place.

but see, you are the only one who even mentioned that. You are the type of research who should be involved with this. but instead we get

"it's a chemtrail cause it don't look right"

And don't even start with the patents. I can go find various patents for almost anything, including to but not limited to, time machines. Actually, I know of 2 time machine patents. does that mean there is a working time machine? No.

I've said it a million times, there is enough "doubt" cast to at least make the conspiracy worth investigating. but as long as everyone keeps making the same basic mistakes, it will never go anywhere.

My opinion? Find these areas that are subjected to heavy chemtrailing and have HONEST scientific testing and sampling of the air quality at ground level as well as at the altitude most of these planes would be flying at.

As well, if you intend to prove anything, you'd also have to monitor the hospitals because if these planes are indeed spraying barium and aluminum you'd see people coming into ERs probably within 12 - 24 hours complaining of respiratory distress.

Using the samples and testing, as well as collating the data from the standard respiratory patients to see if there is any increase.

now if someone was willing to do that, I'd be more inclined to spend more time on this. And no, Carnicon doesn't count as a valid source of information.

reply to post by dplum517

Are you kidding? Yes they do. And yes a patent most certainly means that technology exists... otherwise you are being naive.

Alright, there are at least 2 filed patents for 2 different working time machines. Find me that time machine. A patent is just that, a patent. there are millions of patents that never even saw a prototype. It is indeed a piece of the puzzle, but it's nowhere as important as some of you guys seem to think.

I'd love to know one way or the other, but I refuse to ignore basic science so the theory fits.

Can you explain how the honey bee can fly seen as science claims it should be impossible for a bee to fly. Yet bees do fly.

reply to post by killemall


Not that it has much to do with the topic at hand, but you're mistaken.

In his 1934 French book Le vol des insectes, M. Magnan wrote that he and a M. Saint-Lague had applied the equations of air resistance to bumblebees and found that their flight could not be explained by fixed-wing calculations, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality". This has led to a common misconception that bees "violate aerodynamic theory", but in fact it merely confirms that bees do not engage in fixed-wing flight, and that their flight is explained by other mechanics, such as those used by helicopters.

In 1996 Charlie Ellington at Cambridge University showed that vortices created by many insects’ wings and non-linear effects were a vital source of lift; vortices and non-linear phenomena are notoriously difficult areas of hydrodynamics, which has made for slow progress in theoretical understanding of insect flight.

In 2005, Michael Dickinson and his Caltech colleagues studied honey bee flight with the assistance of high-speed cinematography and a giant robotic mock-up of a bee wing. Their analysis revealed that sufficient lift was generated by "the unconventional combination of short, choppy wing strokes, a rapid rotation of the wing as it flops over and reverses direction, and a very fast wing-beat frequency". Wing-beat frequency normally increases as size decreases, but as the bee's wing beat covers such a small arc, it flaps approximately 230 times per second, faster than a fruitfly (200 times per second) which is 80 times smaller.

The Wikipedia article from which the above was taken. It includes citations for everything above.

The 2005 scientific paper explaining how bees fly.

A more recent paper supporting the explanation.

Attacking the scientific enterprise in general is a desperate tactic. There are things that science has not explained, and there are plenty of scientific theories that have turned out to be wrong. However, science is still the most successful epistemological enterprise in human history.

Is there anything at all that could possibly, in principal, convince you that the chemtrail conspiracy theory is false? If you could sample something you thought was a chemtrail and analyze it, and it turned out to be water and jet exhaust, then would you reject the chemtrail theory? I'm just wondering if, in principal, you have the capacity to change your mind. It's a question worth asking yourself. If there's nothing that could change your mind, even in principal, then your belief isn't rational and isn't based on a desire for truth, it's a dogmatic belief based on faith. If that's the case, then your involvement in any debates or rational discussions attempting to really assess the truth of the issue are a waste of time.

I can say that in my case - and I like to think this is true for most skeptics - my position of rejecting the chemtrail conspiracy theory could, in principal, change. There are plenty of things which, if true, would undermine my position and cause me to accept the conspiracy theory. For example, if samples were taken from supposed chemtrails and they turned out to contain an aerosol other than exhaust and water, I would consider this supporting evidence for chemtrails. Or, if a whistle-blower were to come forward and provide substantial, credible documentation that chemtrails were being used by the government, I would change my mind. Any evidence which could best be explained by the chemtrail conspiracy would support the theory. I just have seen any such evidence.

Originally posted by dplum517

Most of the patents you guys point to deal with weather modification not areosol spraying of deadly chemicals (that's why it's called chemtrails)

Are you kidding? Yes they do. And yes a patent most certainly means that technology exists... otherwise you are being naive.

Totally untrue. See this for example:

www.freepatentsonline.com...

reply to post by Uncinus

I like this one. And it's related to climate change.
Process for the utilization of ruminant animal methane emissions

www.youtube.com...

...and then we have these people claiming that chemtrails and HAARP are related and making youtube videos to 'edumacate' the masses.

reply to post by OnceReturned


To all I directed the bee question to, I humbly apologise for my mistake. Please understand I was trying to show that science is not always fact and evidence, but I failed here so again I do apologise I was wrong
.
Thank you for the reply OnceReturned.
To answer some of your questions, first yes I could be convinced that chemtrails are false if we were to tract ten or more planes that appeared to spray chemtrails all the way to landing and then have access to assessed internally. If nothing was found I would be convinced.
Second, if I could sample something I thought was a chemtrail and analyse it, and it turned out to be water and jet exhaust, then again I would reject the chemtrail claims and theory.

At this stage I am more than convinced that we live in a time when planes are used to disperse chemicals into our sky and that the chemicals are harmful in one way or another to earth and all life that inhabit earth.
I am convinced these planes are know by governments and most likely deployed by governments also.
I am convinced that we will one day have some truth exposed in regards to chemtrails.

Hearsay is not good enough so I have no concrete evidence as yet. I do however know a man, a good man that once was contracted to fly over certain parts and spray for many years. Once he had realised the damage he was involved in he retired from flying and became a natural path to help reverse the damage. I have seen many test before and after chemtrails and the results are amazing but contrail supportes want nothing to do with the results. Again hear say is not good enough so evidence is what I will be looking for.

If we were to come out with evidence, what would the people do? I think there would be hangings in local parks and on the streets of the groups involved. It would be madness everywhere.
It seems to me that anyone with concrete evidence would not live to expose it, but let us hope for all our sake that if chemtrails do exist, it is exposed carefully.

There's obviously no arguement that there's weather modification taking place, and as such they are SPRAYING materials that are designed to interact and help form rain inducing clouds.

Given that they are SPRAYING (something), it surely wouldn't be unrealistic to assume that some of what we see in the skys, especially when it appears that a plane(s) have been known to loop back & forth, that leave lingering trails (grid-like).

Take a close look at some of the planes used (including jets), along with their attached dispensers: Weather Modification


Until we can find a credible whistleblower that comes out and says that there are nasty CHEMICALS being seeded above us, then we have contrails and weather mod seeding, that are known and proven.

Not that I don't trust TPTB to not be experimenting on us all!