I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER

reply to post by Painfulhead


Right, and none of that proves that it isn't a secret facility to create and steer hurricanes into unsuspecting places, but logic is sure on the side that it's exactly what it's claimed to be. I like logic.

i live in hawaii part of the year and we have no "Persistent contrails" there really ever, one day i noticed a few being made a few miles out above the ocean, they floated over eventually, i was joking at the time and said to my friend" watch i going to get sick now", went to bed that night healthy and no joke the next day i awoke with a nasty little flu bug along with many others i know, hmmmmm, thats the kind of thing makes me wonder....

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by Phage

 

ok we agree that they are fake clouds then, you can call it a potato and I will call it a patato.. same effect a unnaturally grey and hazy day in sunny colorado

I have a better idea. Call them contrails. As in condensation trails, because that's what they are.

Originally posted by Painfulhead
My introduction to the whole topic of Chemtrails came from watching “Don’t talk about the Weather”. I must say I thought it was crazy talk, yet that same day I myself noticed for the first time the same sky as was talked about in the film (You tube video). That night I called my brother, he is the sane voice I often turn to and he told me about ATS and prompted me to sign up. That date was February 24 2011.

I'm a chemtrail debunker. Let me give you some tips.

The key to the chemtrail theory being bunk is that people first notice "chemtrails" on different years, even when they live in the same place. Then they say they don't remember seeing the sky like that before.

So, for some people it started in 1998, they don't remember seeing the sky like that before. For other people, it started in 2011, and they don't remember seeing the sky like that before.

Presumably though, if it started in 1998, then 2011 guy managed to not notice it for at least 13 years!

So what's to stop 1998 guy from not noticing it for 13 years, since 1985? Or even longer?

What if IT WAS JUST CONTRAILS, and people just did not really pay much attention to contrails.

What if they never really paid much attention to contrails until they watched some video about them, then went out and looked at the sky, and there they were. Just like they had always been (weather permitting), but they did not pay them any heed until they watched this scary video. Now they see them all the time.

So if you want to be a chemtrail debunker, I'd advise you to focus on this key discrepancy, and keep pointing it out. Ask chemtrail believers when they first noticed chemtrails, and point out how odd it is that some people noticed them decades ago, but they only just noticed them last year. If you keep bringing this up, then you might get people to think about if maybe they were there all along, but they just did not notice them.

Good luck debunking!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

If the sky is ceelar you have no idea whether the conditions are right for persistent contrails or not, unless you are sending up sounding balloons??

Actually there is another way...

"Just look up" and see if those planes above have short contrails or whether they are persistent, might as well use their own logic for this one...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I was thinking more like.
‘yep there’s one” write down today I saw a persistent contrail.
Now after two months if I am seeing them say 76.5% of the days that would seem odd.
After all if its conditional then is it more likely or less likely to see them day in day out. This seems like good data to have. Not very scientific but data no the less.
Cool…………………Painfulhead

reply to post by bluestorm

How long do you reckon anything contained in those "chemtrails" would take to reach the ground? You know that the wind blows at different speeds and directions at different altitudes, right?

Hawaii...not many overflights so they probably don't see contrails very often.
Hawaii...prevailing upper level winds are from the west. Is that the way the contrails were moving?
Hawaii...prevailing lower level winds are from the east. If anything was in those "chemtrails" it would take a long time to reach the surface unless it was something pretty large. With those changes in wind direction, chances are small that something falling from a "chemtrail" that passed over you would land on you.

That's a big problem with the idea that people are the target of "chemtrails". It's not easy to predict where the stuff would end up but it's pretty much guaranteed that it won't end up directly under the "chemtrail".

The typical incubation period for influenza is 1—4 days (average: 2 days).

www.cdc.gov...

reply to post by Uncinus


you have made good point in a kind and thoughtful way.
thanks for your poast and i will rest on its content.,.............. Painfulhead

Originally posted by Painfulhead
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I was thinking more like.
‘yep there’s one” write down today I saw a persistent contrail.
Now after two months if I am seeing them say 76.5% of the days that would seem odd.

Why would it be odd?

If you are gathering data then it is generally considered not good practice to make up your mind what it will show before you have it.

Also consider that there is actually a "chemtrail season" - see www.abovetopsecret.com...

After all if its conditional then is it more likely or less likely to see them day in day out.

The conditions of the atmospehre are not the same day in and day out - so it seesm to me a totally erroneous position to take - especially since you will not actually know the conditions in the atmoosphere!!

And, again, why have you made this conclusion without seeing the data?

This seems like good data to have. Not very scientific but data no the less.

It will be perfectly valid data for what it is - however the conclusions you can reasonably take from it will be limited, and you have already shown how you are ready to make leaps that the data will not suport - that is wher any errors will occur.

If you can understand what your data is - a count of days where there was 1 or moer persistent contrails observed - and what it is not (eg a measure of how often conditions in the sky are conducive to persistent contrails), then you can avoid making egregious errors.

I think there are other parameters that might expand the usefulness of your dataset:
1/ is there any "natural" cirrus in the sky - and how much?
2/ what is the weather like in general on that day? (this one is more for comparing what happens on teeh days after you might see contails or cirrus)

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

If the sky is ceelar you have no idea whether the conditions are right for persistent contrails or not, unless you are sending up sounding balloons??

Actually there is another way...

"Just look up" and see if those planes above have short contrails or whether they are persistent, might as well use their own logic for this one...

Yeah but that's not applicable in clear skies - which includes ones where there are not contrails!

Originally posted by clairvoyantrose
British Columbia, Canada.
Mainly the Vancouver/heavily populated areas.

There are 2.3 million people in Vancouver.

How many people there have "Morgellans"

And... again - what is the link between Morgellans and Chemtrails, exactly?

reply to post by BrainWasher

if you notice, it's the same cast and crew causing those threads to fall into that black hole. You have to wonder why they're so interested in teaching people meteorology???

They do it because it's fun, and sometimes they actually help people that ask for it.

A couple of them that are here right now are the very same people that helped me out of my own personal hole regarding 'chemtrails' (Hi guys!).

Sort of like Solomonic demons, they will take on a less frightening shape and assume a more comely appearance if you ask them the right questions.

This whole trip here on this forum at ATS can be a deeply metaphysical thing for chemmies.

I wish you a happy journey.




P.S. That makes three of my helpers when you include Uncinus. Hi, Uncinus!

This is your lucky day, Chemmie Brothers.

anyone who questions persistent contrails effecting our climate should come sunbath here on a day where we have persistent contrails and day without, the fact that the sun's potential energy is filtered by "persistent contrails" is undeniable!

reply to post by bluestorm

anyone who questions persistent contrails effecting our climate

Has anyone done that?
But you have the actually climatological effects wrong. While they do filter sunlight, they trap heat.
news.sciencemag.org...
www.ipcc.ch...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I will try and use your advise.
I can see how you would read that post and think I was ready to see a conclusion before I have even started.
Not sure how I could show the usefulness of this data without an example and that example maybe seen as my motive or bias. Yet some of this data witch I have not documented has lead me to question the regularity of conditions.
Thanks Gaul………………………..Painfulhead

reply to post by Painfulhead

I think I showed this to you before. Twice a day balloons are sent up with instruments to record upper level conditions. While not perfect, it can give you a good indication if you should expect to see persistent contrails or not.
weather.uwyo.edu...

The trouble is it takes some research to figure out exactly what you are looking at and what it means as far as contrails go. But for a "debunker" research is necessary.

(Good chance for "chemtrails" over Anchorage today, BTW.)

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BrainWasher

 

If the planet is getting warmer because of global warming, wouldn't artificial clouds help to cool things down, or control the temps?

No. Not high altitude clouds. Not contrails.
news.sciencemag.org...
www.ipcc.ch...

They're creating clouds. So what???

Yes. Yes they are. And they aren't spraying anything to cause those clouds to form.

edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You're explaination doesn't make sense. 1st you say, yes they are, but then you say they aren't spraying anything to cause those clouds to form? With all due respect, but, HOW DO YOU KNOW (beyond a reasonable doubt) THEY'RE NOT spraying anything to cause those clouds to form? Do you believe they're not because tptb said they're not? You can't say that with 100% certainty; especially when we know there are techniques that can create clouds; like cloud seeding. They're spraying something to create those clouds. There has to be something in those trails that attracts water causing them to make bigger clouds.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Yeah but that's not applicable in clear skies - which includes ones where there are not contrails!

I know, I just thought it was a good place to use a little chemtrail logic...

reply to post by Phage


thanks i have this book marked and will become more aware.
thanks sir...........................Painfulhead

Originally posted by BrainWasher
if you notice, it's the same cast and crew causing those threads to fall into that black hole. You have to wonder why they're so interested in teaching people meteorology??? Is cloud formation really that important? My shower makes clouds that linger. If the planet is getting warmer because of global warming, wouldn't artificial clouds help to cool things down, or control the temps? That's what i believe is happening. They're creating clouds. So what???

Well, the premise of this site is Deny Ignorance, right?

So if someone is scaring people, either deliberately or out of ignorance or - frankly - straight out stupidity, with this chemtrail stuff when, actually, there are genuine explanations for what is being presented as "evidence", shouldn't the people with the knowledge actually try and help educate those who don't necessarily understand the actual science?

It must be a miserable existence spending your days thinking someone is deliberately spraying death on you and your loved ones, when actually the answer is saturated air pockets, temperature differentials and an exponential increase in air travel.