posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:36 PM
”Thats very true but the problem is how do you find evidence for a thing like this?”
Well, there are several ways to find evidence for the assertion that there is such a thing as a “chem-trail” plot. Let’s assume, for a minute,
that there really are such things as “chem-trails”.
First, you could determine what the three common assertions are about the cause of these “chem-trails”:
(1) Blocking out ultraviolet rays to ameliorate the effects of global warming.
Evidence for: None, since none of the “chem-trail” adherents has ever shown that the “chem-trails” are in a position to actually do
any good at such an ameliorative effect. For example, if the purpose of the “chem-trails” was to block high levels of UV, then why aren’t there
more “chem-trails” in places where the UV is very high, like southern Chile, the Desert Southwest of the United States, the Saharan desert, etc.?
Evidence against: “chem-trails” are in the wrong place to halt global warming; “chem-trails” are usually found right before there is
heavy cloud cover, anyway, since the “chem-trails” usually immediately precede or follow a frontal movement (which makes sense if you look at them
as being persistent contrails in the temperature/humidity envelope we have discussed ad nauseam); and there has been no correlatives between
the start of “chem-trails” and a decrease -- or even a slowing of the increase -- in global warming.
(2) Inoculating us against Secret Diseases or deliberately sickening us with a Secret Diseases.
Evidence for: None, since no one in the “chem-trail” community has ever collected any of these “chem-trails” in situ to test
to see if they’re anything but ice crystals with trace amounts of combustion byproducts.
Evidence against: Even people who believe in “chem-trails” agree that they are very fine aerosols, and they also agree that they, like
any other aerosol at altitudes, are subject to slow falling and wide dispersal, given the high winds at the altitude they’re found (the jet stream
sometimes has a lateral movement of 200 km/hr). If you figure the vertical movement at ten feet per minute, it could take two days and two hours for
that stuff to reach the ground, at which time a lateral wind vector of, say, ten miles per hour would’ve moved it four hundred eighty miles away
from the place that it was sprayed.
By the way, have you ever looked at satellite photos of contrails and seen all of them over the ocean? This makes one ask just who we’re trying to
sicken or cure: the fish?
(3) Using “chem-trails” as a guiding methodology for HAARP waves (yes, this was a big hypothesis in the “chem-trail” community a
couple of years ago).
Evidence for: Again, no one in the “chem-trail” community has ever collected contrails in situ to show any sort of material that
might help to “transmit” any sort of electromagnetic waves. Cliff Carniecon, one of the original hoaxters, made a big deal about his collection
of rainwater with traces of barium salts in it. This was leapt upon as evidence by the “chem-trail community until it was pointed out that finding
barium salts in rainwater meant they could be just normal atmospheric pollution instead of coming from “chem-trails”, and besides, barium salts
are a big byproduct of coal- and oil-fired generating stations, which are all over the country.
Evidence against: Both Barium and Aluminum (another highly-touted “chem-trail” product according to the HAARP hypothesizers) are highly
radar reflective; and yet contrails don’t show up on radar any differently than clouds do. If there were either barium or aluminum in the
contrails, then they’d be huge bright lines on all the Doppler radar all over the Internet. They aren’t.
ANOK, what I have attempted to show you is that there is no evidence for “chem-trails”, and a lot of evidence against
Is this the same as me proving that “chem-trails” don’t exist?
Science can’t prove anything, just like you, even if you came up with tons of evidence that I was not the Long-Lost King of France,
could never actually prove that I wasn’t.
But the preponderance of evidence is that persistent contrails are just that, and not “chem-trails”
Now of course, the stuff above is not the only evidence that favors normal persistent contrails over “chem-trails”; there are many, many more
articles of evidence that show the same trend. I am sure you’re familiar with the discussions of logistics, secrecy, etc. on the first post of this
thread, and I’m sure you’re familiar with the use of Flight Explorer program to show that the vast majority of the “chem-trails” come
from regularly scheduled commercial flights for which you actually have the flight number, altitude, speed, vector, etc.
Now, ANOK, I invite you, if you still have trouble believing what I say, to look at the three main scenarios above, and show me if there is an error
in my logic, or if I have inadvertently left out any evidence that shows that persistent contrails are anything but.