I Have Been Wrong

As a debunker, I am often told that I need an open mind. What people don’t believe is that my mind is open to the possibility that I might be wrong. I think all debunkers can truthfully say this as well. Because the science behind contrails, because “chemtrails” are a myth, does not change, we do tend to sound alike, but that is because there is usually just one answer.

Recently though, I have found that there are three things which I have stated often that turn out to not be entirely correct. These three things do not change my view, and are more ‘tweeks’ in my delivery of information, but I felt it is only truthful to admit I was a little bit wrong.

First, I have previously stated that “contrails do not turn on and off.” This is to explain why the ‘trail has spaces in it; the trail is going through a turbulent area that has two different types of conditions. That explanation is still factually correct, for the conditions stated. But this video shows a contrail actually turning “on”.

This video is of a refueling run, which is why the two planes are so very close together. When the boom releases, the engine is put on idle, which means no exhaust, so no ‘trail. When the proper clearance is achieved, the engines engage, and the ‘trail turns on. So, I admit I was wrong. Contrails can turn on and off, for this very reason alone. It does not change the validity of an explanation in conditions other than this one, though. It doesn’t make “chemtrails” anymore believable.

Second, I have previously stated that the very word “chemtrail” is only used by “chemtrail” believers and that the rest of the world knows they are contrails. This video has a NASA researcher actually saying “chemtrail.”

It has been pointed out that he was using the language of the person he was talking to, as a way to make her understand what he was talking about, and it is clear she still did not. The project he performed was nothing even remotely like a “chemtrail” according to the current theory…white lines behind airplanes spraying chemicals. But he did use the word “chemtrail” to describe what he did, so I have been literally wrong, but not factually wrong when discussing “chemtrail theory.

Third, I have known I was making an error and have been working hard to not do it anymore. That is the statement, “you can’t tell the chemical content of something using just your eyes.” Well, yes you can. I’ve done it myself. Burning some elements, including the oft mentioned barium, produces a color flame. Barium burns green. I have been tweeking my explanation lately to include the conditions…miles over your head, or in a photo or video. There is no possible way to put that much barium through a jet, nor any possible way to be close enough to actually see the color, but that does not really change the fact that I was wrong you really can tell chemical content of some elements using just your eyes. Just not from miles over your head, in a photo, or in a video. No one ever caught that faux pas, so I guess “chemtrail” believers need to refresh their chemistry, too.

So I have been wrong. None of these errors do anything to help prove “chemtrails”, as the word is currently used on this forum. Contrails can turn on and off, to safely refuel inflight. When you release a chemical from a rocket in the ionosphere, it can be called a chemtrail. If you put some elements, including barium, in a flame, you can tell it is barium using just your eyes. But you can’t look at something miles over your head and do it. Because that is still just dumb to believe.

reply to post by stars15k


Wrong once, no problem. Wrong twice? I guess we might over look that providing it doesn't happen again......But THREE TIMES? I am afraid I will need to recommend our handlers up at chemtrail centrail dock your pay. IF for nothing else,to teach you to NEVER, EVER admit to being wrong. You just blame someone else!

My god woman, this was taught to you in your first disinformation class.

Just so you know, I am using my disappointed typing style right now.

Originally posted by stars15k

Recently though, I have found that there are three things which I have stated often that turn out to not be entirely correct.

So if you are now finding out that they are not entirely correct, what does it say about your research methods?

Maybe instead of 'saying the nay' you should consider sitting on the fence until you know that what you will be saying will be correct.

Let me help you some...

Solar Radiation

Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative

Royal Society - Solar Radiation Management Governance

Basically, it can involve injecting stuff into the atmosphere to try to reflect the sun's heat. However, side effects are the potential for 'wacky weather'.

The suggestion is that politicians drag their feet, so someone has to take the initiative.

EDIT: Royal Society - Geo-engineering.

reply to post by stars15k


One minor point. Even atty flight idle the engines are producing thrust, just not as much when at a normal power setting.

reply to post by OratoryHeist


Would you mind terribly if you were asked to point out where in your links anything has been done? It seems as if it's all just been proposed as of yet. If you spend too much time on the fence, you will end up with a sore ass.

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Originally posted by stars15k

Recently though, I have found that there are three things which I have stated often that turn out to not be entirely correct.

So if you are now finding out that they are not entirely correct, what does it say about your research methods?

nothing - it 's not actually research he was wrong about.....but then you apparently think chemtrails exist so I'm not sure you should be criticizing anyone else for being wrong or suggesting they need to change their entire approach to information simply for being human.

I mean it's not like he was wrong about something for which there is no evidence for while at het same tiem claiming millions of people around the world aer all part of a giant criminal conspiracy.....

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by OratoryHeist

 

Would you mind terribly if you were asked to point out where in your links anything has been done? It seems as if it's all just been proposed as of yet. If you spend too much time on the fence, you will end up with a sore ass.

If there was the possibility, as is pointed out, that it could affect the weather (not just locally, but also neighboring countries) then do you really think they are going to advertise what they are doing? Come on, be honest. In this day and age of 'sue if you can'.

What happens if the weather gets screwed up? Crops get screwed up; home get flooded; businesses get damaged. So who reimburses the farmers, home and business owners? How much would that likely cost? If you don't advertise what you are doing, you can simply claim it's an act of God, therefore you won't get sued.

The proposals are over three years old. Seeing as they have commented on politicians dragging their feet, it would be slightly hypocritical of them to be dragging their feet also, don't you think?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I mean it's not like he was wrong about something for which there is no evidence for while at het same tiem claiming millions of people around the world aer all part of a giant criminal conspiracy.....

There is plenty of evidence out there for those who care to look. Who has claimed millions are involved in a giant conspiracy?

reply to post by OratoryHeist


My research methods are fine, as is my comprehension about what I read.

The videos were both "new" this week. I have researched enough to know how to find the truth about what they actually portray. Which is not what the videographers have claimed.

The other? Well, that's something nobody has ever even mentioned......so the people who didn't know barium makes a green flame need to retake chemistry. Knowledge about chemistry is pretty fundamental to "chemtrail theory," and saying "Look up and see"....well, that's just dumb.

reply to post by OratoryHeist


You misunderstand. Gaul meant evidence that hadn't been fabricated or what really shows what it's claimed to show. This is the evidence tha remains oddly elusive.

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I mean it's not like he was wrong about something for which there is no evidence for while at het same tiem claiming millions of people around the world aer all part of a giant criminal conspiracy.....

There is plenty of evidence out there for those who care to look.

sorry I meant "credible" or "verifiable" or "good" evidence.

Yes someone saying that contrails are chemtrails is indeed evidence - but it's crap evidence - along with aluminium in soils as crap evidence for spraying at 30,000 feet, patents that no-one can show are actually in use are crap evidence for het patents actually being used and so on.

the litany of evidence for chemtrails contains nothing but drivel, deceit and deception.

Who has claimed millions are involved in a giant conspiracy?

Everyone who claims that civil aviation makes these supposed chemtrails - because there are millions of people employed in civil aviation who would have to b e part of the conspiracy.

I am one of them.

Originally posted by OratoryHeist
If there was the possibility, as is pointed out, that it could affect the weather (not just locally, but also neighboring countries) then do you really think they are going to advertise what they are doing? Come on, be honest. In this day and age of 'sue if you can'.

What happens if the weather gets screwed up? Crops get screwed up; home get flooded; businesses get damaged. So who reimburses the farmers, home and business owners? How much would that likely cost? If you don't advertise what you are doing, you can simply claim it's an act of God, therefore you won't get sued.

The proposals are over three years old. Seeing as they have commented on politicians dragging their feet, it would be slightly hypocritical of them to be dragging their feet also, don't you think?

So while the whole scientific community is still debating on the issue of climate change being something that will affect us long term, you think that even though no evidence exists, "they" must be doing something?

Here is my biggest bitch with the chemtrail folks. YOU and them completely ignore the step in the process where this "MIGHT" be happening, and you jump right to "IT IS" happening. All based on faith alone.

Then you will come here and try to convince others that it is happening yet you don't know anymore than the person you are trying to convince.

Not one of the debunkers here that I know of say that chemtrails are an impossibility, only that there is nothing to prove that chemtrails exist. In fact, almost everything that get's brought into the fray as evidence points to contrails, which makes perfect sense.

Do you see why this is, or am I crazy?

reply to post by network dude


That's one of the most frustrating things for me when I'm actually trying to have a two way dialogue a out this. When I say why a particular piece of "evidence" is faulty or not what it's claimed to be, a common response is something along the lines of "so why are you here if you think they are impossible and you trust the govt to be kind to you...." None of which is in any of my previous posts. How is that a discussion? I decided a while back that this is code for "I can't actually argue with anything you've said but I WILL NOT back down here".

Originally posted by network dude
So while the whole scientific community is still debating on the issue of climate change being something that will affect us long term, you think that even though no evidence exists, "they" must be doing something?

Actually if you bothered to read the links I provided you would see that some of the scientific community is being proactive about climate change, or what they perceive to be climate change. If there is no evidence then maybe you should start a campaign to prove and discredit a reputable scientific establishment, the Royal Society. After all, clearly in your eyes, you believe they are a bunch of liars; pretty strong claims. I am sure they would be interested in your thoughts, you should email them and let them know your gripes. I am sure you will get an educational reply.

Here is my biggest bitch with the chemtrail folks. YOU and them completely ignore the step in the process where this "MIGHT" be happening, and you jump right to "IT IS" happening. All based on faith alone.

And here you are jumping right to the 'YOU are one of them' scenario. IF I was one of them, I would not have previously mentioned sitting on the fence.

Then you will come here and try to convince others that it is happening yet you don't know anymore than the person you are trying to convince.

I've done no such thing.

Do you see why this is, or am I crazy?

Network, I'm going to have to go with 'crazy', sorry dude!

reply to post by OratoryHeist


Could you please show me anything at all that says any group is doing anything more than talking about climate change? All the links you provided show that they are discussing it. They are talking about it. They are investigating the pros and cons. Go ahead and point out the part where someone is actively doing some experimentation. And not the guy who dumped iron oxide into the ocean on his own.

edit to add: Oh, and I can live with crazy.

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Actually if you bothered to read the links I provided you would see that some of the scientific community is being proactive about climate change, or what they perceive to be climate change. If there is no evidence then maybe you should start a campaign to prove and discredit a reputable scientific establishment, the Royal Society. After all, clearly in your eyes, you believe they are a bunch of liars; pretty strong claims. I am sure they would be interested in your thoughts, you should email them and let them know your gripes. I am sure you will get an educational reply.

I feel like your post deserves a bit more attention than I gave it this morning. Above, you claim that in the links provided, the Royal Society is being proactive about climate change. It almost looks as if you are saying they are doing something or experimenting with something, could you clarify your position? Do you believe the Royal Society or any other group is actively involved in any geoengineering projects?

And here you are jumping right to the 'YOU are one of them' scenario. IF I was one of them, I would not have previously mentioned sitting on the fence.

I think you need to read your above quote to understand why I said that. YOU are the one claiming someone is actively involved in geoengineering. I am silmply stating that they are TALKING about it.

I've done no such thing.

again, look up.

Network, I'm going to have to go with 'crazy', sorry dude!

Normal is just a setting on the dryer.

Originally posted by network dude
It almost looks as if you are saying they are doing something or experimenting with something, could you clarify your position? Do you believe the Royal Society or any other group is actively involved in any geoengineering projects?

The SPICE Project - Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering. This one is two year old, using a balloon, not an airplane.

Geo-engineering projects have been going on for decades. Everyone should be familiar with the various cloud seeding experiments that various nations have claimed to have done.

So yes, various geoengineering projects/experiments are happening; not just being talked about.

reply to post by OratoryHeist


"...must now be considered.". "...proposed delivery system..." "..balloon and pumping system will be designed and tested..." From your link. Again, not going on, but being looked at as a possiblity.

reply to post by OratoryHeist


The SPICE project was cancelled and cloud seeding is not geoengineering.

reply to post by stars15k

Flame test

en.wikipedia.org...

To help those who would like to see the color of many chemicals that are claimed to be included in
chemtrail fallout.