1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Strictly judging by the grammar used, it appears Case Orange was written by a person for whom English is a second language. I'm guessing he's from the Netherlands, the color of the Dutch Royal family is orange. At the Grand International Chemtrails Symposium, the document was presented by Dr. Coen Vermeeren of the Delft Institute of Technology. He is a UFO 'researcher', and I personally suspect he at a minimum co-authored Case Orange.

    http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=9556d037-bf27-4e36-877d-962af01d89e0&lang=en

    It is no wonder the author(s?) remained anonymous, considering the caim that it is a scientific document yet ignores the scientific method altogether. I am also guessing someone in that group has it in for these Luxembourg aircraft.
    According to NATO:
    "Since NATO, as an inter-governmental organisation, cannot certify the AWACS fleet, the aircraft
    are registered in Luxembourg and each plane carries the royal Luxembourg lion emblem on its
    vertical tail. "
    Here is an image showing the emblem:
    http://homepage.mac.com/topcover/blog/user_files/e-3a-7:06-10w.jpg

    So, if Belfort Group simply did some telephotographic recon they should be able to catch these bogeys in the act, or more likely find out that what they see are ordinary airbus, etc....

    This stuff took 15 minutes to research, why couldn't the alleged 'insiders' that wrote Case Orange show some brains and come up with a solution to their conundrum??? Are they really so stupid, or are they just selling chem-busters? They mentioned at the Grand Symposium that they were being sold at a discount, though as I recall the cost was quite high for an ugly lawn sculpture of no intrinsic value!

    Jay
     
  2. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    I haven;'t sen much debunking of the Belfort Group Case Orange "study" - perhaps it needs some work? It's often mentioned by the hoaxers as more proof, and is available at http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=292&Itemid=50

    [ADMIN NOTE: The Belfort Case Orange document is available as a searchable/copyable PDF here (98MB)]

    Just for a start here's its conclusions with some obvious comments:

    Seems true enough

    This is an obvious illogical leap from the paper “Owning the weather”, which was (is) a thought exercise and not a plan for how to actually control the world wide climate. Attempts to control local weather through cloud seeding, such as the US carried out in Vietnam, are not “chemtrails” as they are commonly understood.

    This section leaps from the premise that the technology is available to eth conclusion that the technology is being used – I was unable to determine what the “well documented” evidence for this conclusion was in the paper.

    Presumes that the spraying is taking place in the first place, and, as is commonly the case, does not show that the mentioned patents are in use in any way ,shape or form.

    Presumes that the spraying is taking place in the first place.

    There is no evidence presented that “spraying operations” are taking place at all – the whole paper follows the usual chemtrails tactic of begging the question and then fitting the facts to the reconception.

    I don’t think anyone has an issue with this – other than they seem unaware of the studoes that are doing exactly this, and that the idea has been around, in the public arena, for several decades.

    It is up to the nation concerned to define its own law, and there is no case established that this is illegal in Luxembourg in any fashion.

    Other AWACs aircraft are not civil registered at all (Eg RAF 8 Sqn, the whole USAF fleet), and often military aircraft are registered under civil registrations but are not subject to all of civil law.


    Are engine types relevant to chemtrails? They are certainly relevant to contrails and general pollution, which the report points out, but what is the connection to chemtrails??

    Another question begging exercise - presumes that there IS "a monopoly in climate modeling and weather as a geo-engineering or military instrument" when ther is ample evidence that research into this is going on all around hte world by many different organisations.

    [/quote] If possible an international ban should be placed on such weapons.[/quote]

    Done.

    Prejudges the adequacy of their proof – it might be enough for them, but it falls well short of what many other people think of as verifiable evidence.
     
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    (This is from some comments on ContrailScience.com, but relevant here)

    I should probably write a full post sometime, debunking Case Orange. After all they (anonymously) were nice enough to reference me several times, and used a photo I took from my balcony. But let's just look at one thing:

    Patents do not indicate evidence of use. There are literally millions of patents for things that were never built or used.

    The previously classified documents seem to just be regarding the use of cloud seeding to make rain in wartime.

    The "order forms for Barium" seem to be missing.

    The "maps with daily spraying schemes" are described in more detail:

    Now that's funny. And sad. Kevin Martin is an enthusiastic young amateur meteorologist with ambitions to be a TV weatherman.

    http://www.southerncaliforniaweatherauthority.com/audition.html

    He created the "Chemtrail Alert System" simply to demonstrate he could forecast the formation of persistent contrails. He eventually stopped doing this, and posted an explanation, unfortunately I can't find it. But on the last archived version of the page it says:

    http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20081219041545/http://www.owsweather.com/contrailreport.html

    He does not think it's deliberate. His maps are not "intended spraying schemes", they are just weather forecasts.

    Kevin Martin, that amateur meteorologist quoted by Case Orange, did claim to believe in Chemtrails a few years ago. Now he does not:

    http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/chemtrails-do-not-exist-contrails-are-your-answer

    Unfortunately his earlier work is being used as a serious reference. He was quoted as "Kevin Martin, a meteorologist working for the Ontario Weather Service in 2008", which sounds impressive, as Ontario is a huge province of Canada with 13 million people.

    Except actually it's Ontario, California, a city near Los Angeles of 170,000 people. And the OWS is just Kevin Martin's old personal web site.
     
  4. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    debunked?

    People will believe what they want to; it's a bad habit. You three are a good example of this. It is perfectly possible to back up any idea/theory if one chooses only to reference the points one wants to, rather than putting together all the relevant - and perhaps contradictory - information. Ironically, some of you are guilty of this at the same moment as you deride others for what you perceive as the same; no doubt you choose not to see this somewhat embarrassing element to your own efforts. It is important - if getting to the truth of a matter is what we really want - to be open and honest with each other; and crucially, with ourselves.

    Psychology is a powerful tool, and phsychologically it is very difficult to accept such a premise when those who claim to work on our behalf deny it - and use all the tools at their disposal to back this claim. The required learning and understanding of this goes far beyond what you are discussing here; it appears to me (as you all lean towards the 'me' in your arguments, I thought I might be permitted the same subjective and unscientific approach) that you lack this understanding. Do you believe everything establishment agencies or individuals tell you? Are you still able to be skeptical in its true meaning?

    Your ages might also be a factor. If you are under thirty, or even thirty-five, it is unlikely that you will have the capacity in your memory to recall what jet travel looks like from the ground. You may also not recall what a clear blue sky looks like. You will therefore not be able to see the huge difference in the results of aircraft trails from 'before' and 'after'. This can be called empiricism. Observation, records, history, collection of data, experience, comparison; these are the starting tools available to anyone with the inclination to form a fair view. Couple to this - in a mind free of prejudice, with pre-existing leanings put aside - the analysis of these results and you have a good start in getting to the nub of a matter. One also needs to have at least a partial understanding of the political on a global scale throughout history. Science is not everything.

    Your analyses are partial, in more ways than one. It is just as important to apply common sense sometimes, if there's any left, as it is exacting scientific data. One needs to know that not all the information available is available to you or me. Hence theorizing. Sometimes that lack of information is not down to the fact that we haven't collectively uncovered the truth yet; it's because someone else has (and there are such things as lies, boys) and they might wish to prosper from exclusivity in one way or another. Incidentally, I've never made a penny from trying to sell any idea to anyone, or t-shirts, videos etc. Every single organization, from Amnesty International to Greenpeace to any charity you want to name asks for donations - so why not criticize them for trying to ponce money to pay their staff's wages? That's no argument at all - and certainly isn't a scientific one, if that's what you claim to be.

    Try and get a bit more 'rounded' view of the world and its sky activity - you might even surprise yourselves.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well perhaps you could point us at some of this contradictory information then?

    (and BTW, I believe all three of us are unfortunately well over thirty-five).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Unregistered made some vague statements.
    I'd like to be more specific.
    I have some questions for unregistered.
    I take it that you have read the entire Case Orange report, as I have.

    So what do you consider to be the single most unimpeachable evidence for the existence of "chemtrails" within the report?
    What specific criticism do you have of any points made within this thread?
    How do you feel about an anonymously written report by supposed insiders as the Case Orange is?
    Would you accept a government report written by anonymous people?

    Bring it on, by all means, don't just be a 'hit and-run'.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    I am 52.


    Not unless there is insufficient scientific data to make a valid conclusion.

    Indeed - so far I've encountered many chemtrails lies - exclusively from those who believe chemtrails exist. I have seen no lies about contrails.



    What sort of information do you think constitutes a "rounded view of...sky activity"?
     
  8. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    I started a paragraph-by-paragraph debunk of that "report". I got a bit over half way through and ran out of enthusiasm for it. I might pick it up again, but it really hasn't achieved much traction... not as much as I thought it might. The conspiracy theorists lapped it up, though.

    It's an interesting document... full of Non Sequitur argument, has several contradictions, and at one point totally debunks the whole idea of chemtrails by explaining exactly what the lines in the sky are. As already pointed out, is was clearly not written by "experts in the field"; certainly no meteorologists. Dr. Coen Vermeeren, an aerospace engineer, who presented an "informal peer-review" of the report doesn't seem to know much about how contrails form and dissipate.
     
  9. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    debunked? again

    Ok. First let me say that I have no axe to grind, and also that I'm surprised there are so many people looking to back the 'official' version on this subject and that they are prepared to spend so much time 'disproving' something that, if it is as claimed, should really just be ignored and surely it will wither and die for its own intrinsic 'wrongness'. So, I suppose there's a question in there: what motivates you to spend so much time 'disproving' that there is a stratospheric Welsbach seeding program in operation?

    As a rule I'm going to try not to get into petty arguments about specific lines that have not been understood in their context. I'll give an example or two off the top, and hopefully leave it at that: MikeC says: I am 52. Well done, but how exactly do you explain the difference in the performance of aircraft and the trails they leave? Or is it just the same as ever? And: MikeC asks: (I'm not picking on you Mike, it's just you're at the top of my page) What sort of information do you think constitutes a "rounded view of...sky activity"? Nice. You should have left out the dots and you would have done a proper job on misrepresenting what I wrote. I think it was pretty clear from the context and content of my post that I was suggesting there might be other issues at work, or disciplines that needed to be exercised; psychology, politics, historical record, common sense, minds free from pre-existing positions etc. If you read the whole, and refrain from trying to isolate and edit what I write to make it suit what you want to argue about, then we might get somewhere. Perhaps the sentence should have been more clear, but I think it makes sense in context.
    That done, let me present some evidence for the defence.

    On patents:

    The patent offices do not hand out patents for things that don't work. If they did, any fool could roll up and claim rights to something they could then profit from in the future. I think that's pretty clear and requires no further comment. Let's have a look at some patents:
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...4,686,605.PN.&OS=PN/4,686,605&RS=PN/4,686,605
    is the US patent office record of the HAARP patent (I'm sure you're all familiar). Note in Description (2) Background Art, it states: It has also been proposed to release large clouds of barium in the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through enhanced whistler-mode interactions.

    There is no discussion required about whether or not this patented system exists in the real world. There are quite a lot of reports that barium is one of the particulates being turned up in soil and water tests. Or are people making it up? Barium is a metal known to ionize quickly in sunlight; put very simply, its purpose is to increase the efficacy of the HAARP installation in its 'work' by improving the carrying capacity of the atmosphere for radio frequencies emitted. This patent (although not originally) is owned by Raytheon.

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5003186.PN.&OS=PN/5003186&RS=PN/5003186

    is the us patent office record of the method of 'stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming' which states aluminium oxide as a suitable material; when? 1990; owned by? The Hughes Aircraft Co. - now owned by Raytheon; fyi, Raytheon is one of the largest defence contractors in the US.
    Edward Teller (father of the H bomb, if you recall) came up with this Welsbach seeding proposal in 1997 http://www.rense.com/general18/scatteringEdTellerwithnotes.pdf and suggested that putting 10-20 million tons of aluminium oxide particles into the stratosphere would slow down warming to the tune of 1 degree celcius. One of the National labs, Livermore, were into this and said: We can do this. We have the delivery system (patent as above, owned by...Hughes Aircraft Co, now Raytheon), the material and it will only cost 1 billion dollars per year as opposed to 100 billion to seriously start to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and meet agreed targets on carbon reduction. I think it is safe to assume that someone commissioned (paid) Teller and his pals to come up with this report, and that it wasn't just for fun. It is also interesting to note that this document isn't so easy to find - not from its source - why do you think that might be? In fact, if you look you will find many cases of scientists discussing this possibility as a means to mitigate climate change. I think it's also interesting to note that the discussion on Climate Change has changed considerably since 1997, when it was known as Global Warming; that's quite a shift, isn't it?
    Also interesting to note is that aluminium is another particulate being turned up in soil and water tests. Or is that all made up as well? One other patent in relation to aluminium is this one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7582809&OS=7582809&RS=7582809
    this is a patent for an aluminium resistant gene for plants; when? 2007; owned by? The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. Now, the US dept of Agriculture is pretty much owned by a company called Monsanto - GMO being very much a US industrial base. Given that we've never had any problems with heritage seeds, why would such a patent be desired at this time? If you don't know: elevated levels of aluminium in soil plays havoc with PH levels and causes great difficulty for plants trying to draw nutrients; in short: it's lethal. In case you don't know Monsanto's history: they gave us pcb's, Agent Orange (dioxins) and now carcinogenic herbicide (Roundup) resistant crops - all of which they said were perfectly safe. By the way, I think one of you said something about Case Orange being a Dutch thing because that was the colour associated with their royals. I think you'll find it was for the relevance of this subject to the systematic spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos - 42,000,000 litres of carcinogenic poison sprayed on se asia and its people, nice work. You can find that Monsanto and the US govt. denied that dioxins were harmful to human health and as a result thousands of exposed and subsequently seriously ill Vietnam veterans were denied benefits for about nine years while they argued it through the courts; many of them died before what was already known was 'proved' by lawyers. Perhaps poisoning your own people and denying responsibility along with a bit of genocide is ok as long as the victims are at a remove in distance and culture and it doesn't affect the price of your beer.

    Empiricism etc

    Personally, I have endeavoured to understand, as best I can, the physics of cloud formation and the physics of contrail formation - two similar, but distinct phenomena. The Appleman Chart is cited as being about as reliable a method for predicting contrails as exists. Please take a look if you haven't before. It's woefully inadequate in my experience.
    One can learn fairly quickly that the important elements of contrail formation are rh, atmospheric pressure, temperature and altitude. This also goes for clouds. Someone's comment about Coen Vermeeren knowing little about contrail formation is disingenuous, to put it politely. There are so many variables in this chemistry that no-one knows that much, and research is a bit tricky and expensive - I can guarantee that, as an aeronautics expert, he knows a lot more about it than you or I. Or perhaps that person might like to enlighten us all with their greater knowledge of this.
    I have made scores of observations, checking radiosonde data and following visible aircraft on radar and found that the necessary conditions for this phenomenon of 'persistent contrails' to form, by all the available methods, are not being met by the information in front of me, not even close. In the absence of these conditions I was seeing aircraft producing what you like to call 'persistent contrails' (a euphemism, I believe); 'clouds' would be the more accurate term. I was surprised and disturbed by this. This experience led me next to call on memory - was it always thus? The answer to that is categorical: No. So what's happening? I began to look at some official responses to requests to officialdom from the public for information - some are so contradictory they are diametrically opposed. Why?
    Checking some of the radar pictures, along with reams of reports from joe public available on line (eyewitnesses), it appears that this phenomenon only happens in certain parts of the world. Why? What is different in these places? Is it Geo-physical or Geo-political?
    Eyewitness reports are considered to be admissable in a court, indeed they are regarded as important tools in such matters; likewise in science. Observation leads to experience through data collected. Subsequent scrutiny of that data and all other relevant information (such as, for example: being in the midst of an ongoing discussion about the extent and severity of 'global climate change' and its possible 'remedies'? Maybe?) must lead the scutinizer to lean toward one side or another in this argument.
    History shows that the governments of the US and the UK have sprayed hazardous materials on their populations over a number of decades. They didn't say so at the time. What's changed? Laws in both these countries allow this. Why would it be made law if it wasn't intended to be used?
    The visual evidence is, well, visible. I'm surprised if you can't see it - and would love to hear your explanations of this relatively new phenomenon, as that is what it is. Please, no nonsense about more aircraft 'holding' for landing slots, or the like; you'll simply be displaying a lack of knowledge of contrail formation and its pre-requisites if you start on that.

    If I were a policeman, trying to get the meat of a matter, I might take these quite pertinent (if I may say) bits of information and start to join a few dots to refine my line of enquiry. All kinds of evidence are evidence - it needn't all be scientific, indeed, science has got it quite spectacularly wrong on innumerable occasions. Science is forever changing, evolving - everything in science is really just a theory until another, more informed one, replaces it. Would you agree? Going back to being a policeman: I'd need to be able to interview relevant parties, get more documents, go deeper...but no-one 'official' really wants to talk, and when they do they contradict themselves and each other.

    Conspiracy

    A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful, wrongful or subversive act.
    A theory is designed to describe a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
    Any one of you has at one time or another speculated about a conspiracy theory. By definition that makes you a conspiracy theorist. What you are doing here is exactly that: theorizing about a perceived conspiracy. We have all been brought up on conspiracies; stories about them populate our daily media. Brutus conspired against Caesar; the US and UK governments, it is clear, conspired to lie to us about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. There are many examples of conspiracies that have been shown to be real. We should stop using this expression as a perjorative; it describes us all. Definitions are important.

    Cui Bono?

    Corporations have but one aim: to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Given the obsession with growth (I urge you to understand the exponential function and its relevance here re: sustainability) and its promotion by those who would seek to benefit in the short term, I suspect that there is a very big financial incentive to attempt to curb the alleged effects of so-called anthropomorphic 'climate change' or 'global warming' if you set it against the alternative stated in the Teller et al report. Activists trying to sell t-shirts or cd's to fund themselves cannot realistically be compared here; and if you do, as you explicitly have, I think you'll find that the former stand to make a fair bit more. One needs to apply the same standards to all relevant parties in this.

    Anyway, I've tried to make a case in a very short space of time. And, as you all know too well, there is so much more that could be introduced into the discussion. However, I hope that the information here should be adequate to promote at least another look at the possibilities and probabilities that arise from it. I look forward to any response with interest.
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    One thing at a time.

    Really? So every single thing that is patented works, and has been demonstrated to work? Even this one:

    http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6960975

     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  11. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    People believe what they want to; it's a bad habit

    I think I said: The patent offices do not hand out patents for things that don't work. If they did, any fool could roll up and claim rights to something they could then profit from in the future. I think that's pretty clear and requires no further comment.

    breaking my own rule just for once: when patents are given - and there's a lot more writing, drawing and modelling related to this one than you choose to show here - they must be demonstrably unique and viable. That's the rule.

    Have you heard of Nikola Tesla?

    Why don't you now go on to deal with the patents I have quoted which are relevant to this discussion? One at a time, if you like.
     
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Whoa, I just showed you an approved patent for an anti-gravity flying saucer. So are you saying that it works?

    If not, then why assume any of the other patents work?

    Actually, I'd image that Welsbach seeding works pretty much as described - or at least some variant of it. But that type of science was nothing new at the time - it's been contemplated for decades. Do you think this 1965 proposal was done, just because it was presented to President Johnson?

    [​IMG]


    Thinking about something is not the same as doing it. There's lots of proposals for geoengineering going back over 50 years. There's zero evidence than any of them have been put into practice. All the geoengineering scientists worldwide are in agreement that no SRM (Solar Radiation Management) geoengineering experiments have been done.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  13. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    if you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you...

    ...if you actually make them think, they'll hate you.

    Blinkers. Shame.

    Keep on preaching to each other. Bye.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Preaching isn't the idea - unless you mean preaching about using the scientific method, and science and reason in general.

    Debunking aims to remove bunk, so the truth can shine through.
     
  15. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    what do you think you have debunked?

    You've got an odd obsession with patents that 'don't exist'; it's not too clever, using it to deflect focus from the real questions. A good example of someone who has a pre-existing position and can't, for whatever reason, extricate themselves from their entrenched view based on a perception of what science is or can do. It's no better or worse than a religious person arguing their point to the exclusion of all others. You, matey, are adrift in that pseudo-religious swamp
    and with your 'methods', you couldn't debunk a bunk bed; not to anyone with the capacity for critical thought.
    I hope there might be some others here to read that and all else I've posted.
     
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  17. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    do you actually read?

    You're a bit mad.
     
  18. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Thanks for your contribution, Unregistered.
    I could ask the same question; what motivates you to spend so much time arguing that there is a stratospheric Welsbach seeding program in operation? It is pretty obvious by simple observation that such a program is not in operation. There are no aircraft venturing into the stratosphere, except the few airliners that inadvertently fly above the tropopause while crossing troughs of low pressure in high latitudes. The trails you see in the sky, if that is what you are referring to, are not in the stratosphere.

    Patents: I will skip them. HAARP, really? The false arguments and procedural errors with all that "testing" is covered in other threads here.

    Empiricism etc:
    You suggested that physics of cloud formation and the physics of contrail formation are similar, but distinct phenomena. That is partially correct; one is an adiabatic cooling process, and the other is an adiabatic and isobaric mixing process. The important elements of contrail formation are the characteristics (temperature and RH) of the two air masses being mixed, and the pressure at which this happens. So it's not quite the same as for clouds. The commonality is phase changes of water.

    It was me who said that Dr Coen Vermeeren doesn't seem to know much about how contrails form and dissipate. There is a video of his presentation where it is clear that he does not recognise a contrail. In another (I think it is in "That in The World Are They Spraying?") he is shown contrails outside, and he says that his students ask about them and he has no answer as to what they are. I find it incredible that an educator in that field cannot explain contrails. I think it is he who is being disingenuous by pretending not to understand. Maybe there is a conspiracy there! The process is pretty simple; there are only 5 variables. Two of them are characteristics of the jet engine and the other 3 are environmental. The presence of condensation and freezing nuclei is a consideration but it is not a "variable". I am a meteorologist and I probably do know more than you and Vermeeren about this.

    I have made the same researches as you. I have followed Appleman into the modern era with Mark Schrader's Calculations of Aircraft Contrail Formation Critical Temperatures. I wrote a program to do all the calculations with any atmospheric sounding and draw a chart. Here are some examples arranged like a calendar: Contrail Analyses - November 2007 - Paraparaumu, New Zealand, and here is an explanation of the various parts of the charts.
    I have found these to pretty much fully explain the presence or absence of contrails of all types in the vicinity of an upper air observation station.

    The term 'persistent contrail' is not a euphemism; it is an adjective and a noun. It is used for contrails that persist. How is that a euphemism? And, yes, they are clouds in the universal sense. Could you give an example of responses to requests to officialdom for information that "are so contradictory they are diametrically opposed". All that I have seen are entirely consistent - no unusual aircraft/activity, there is no spraying going on, the trails are contrails / vapour trails / jet trails / condensed exhaust / etc.

    Eye witness observations, Conspiracy, Cui Bono?:
    If you misinterpret your observation (observe a trail in the sky; characterise it "spray operation") then this is not science, and your subsequent "research" will lead you down rabbit holes that go up. Yes, nonsense, because your initial assumption is incorrect.
    Past behaviour of governments is not a valid argument.
    The trails are an accident of modern aviation - there is no "conspiracy".
    Capitalism and the profit motive is only tangentially relevant. The trails could be largely prevented by judicious choice of route and altitude.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Maybe you could explain why you think that, Unregistered, (and feel free to register, or at least pick a name). Did I not debunk your assertion?
     
  20. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Of course it does - if something doesn't work then no-one is ever going to profit from it in the future - unless through fraud - you contradict yourself

    Yes they must be viable - at least in the estimation of the patent office - but if they don't go and actually test it themselves then estimation is all you get/

    Take hte "contrail device" - I forget how to spell it - might it work? Certainly - as a mechanic it sems viable to me.

    Well and good - now the question is - is it actually being used by anyone anywhere for any purpose, and if so, what is the evidence of that?

    The existence of the patent for he device is completely irrelevant to this question - the question can exist for non-patented devices too!


    What relevant patents? Barium in the Magnetosphere? Do you know where the Magnetosphere is, relative to where aircraft fly??

    I'll give you a hint - they use ROCKETs to send barium up for HAARP to study......
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Actually it's more the other way around. Soil is naturally around 7% aluminum. When the soils are too acidic, then the aluminum is disolved, and aluminum ions poison the plant. Adding more aluminum is not going to change anything.

    This has always been a problem, so finding aluminum resistent plants that can survive in highly acidic soils is a natural goal.

    This article explains the specific use of the patent you linked:

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug07/SoilsKochian.kr.html

     
  22. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    here's an example of diametrically opposed explanations from govt


    So that's all clear then.

    Anyway, I'll have to tear myself away; you guys are only interested in what you want to say, not in addressing the real questions

    Ross says: The trails are an accident of modern aviation.

    If that's not an assertion backed up with, er, nothing at all...I don't know what is. But I feel so much better now I've been educated. Euphemism: is a substitution for an expression that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the receiver, using instead an agreeable or less offensive term - I think substitution of 'persistent contrail' for 'man-made or chemical cloud' might be considered to fall into the above category - so yes, it is a euphemism. Debunk that - you'll probably try!
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What's diametrically opposed about those?
     
  24. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    They are not diametrically opposed explanations at all. They both say the trails are contrails. The explanations are a little inaccurate and a bit confused in places, but basically, they are correct. Exactly where do they contradict?

    If you don't recognise the veracity of "The trails are an accident of modern aviation." then you didn't pick up much about contrails with all your scores of observations, checking radiosonde data and following visible aircraft on radar... or maybe you didn't do any of that at all.

    Don't leave now, just when you were picking up some new information. You could learn so much more about debating, arguing a position, debunking even.

    BTW, "contrail" already contains the notion that the cloud is man-made, so using it as a euphemism defeats the purpose of euphemising, yar?
     
  25. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    This unregistered person is quite vague and demonstrates only a shallow understanding of the subject. He/she needs to read the entire contrailscience website and come back with some specific issues and the background needed to discuss them. Starting off with the patent stuff right away told me we were dealing with someone who has always restricted their reading to pro-chemtrail sites, and who walked in totally disarmed.
     
  26. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    I'll stick with my original assessment

    You've all amply demonstrated that you don't even bother to read things properly - not even the ones you asked for. If you can't see two explanations offering completely opposing reasons for this relatively NEW phenomenon, well, that says a lot.
    Being 'corrected' by someone on aluminium and soil is quite hysterical - how long did it take you to google that? Now you're an expert, right? Something you don't understand, but parrot from some web page you found; that's about the size of it.
    According to you lot, all your sources are without reproach and your arguing methods exemplary - to the exclusion of all other reasoning. You really are incredibly narrow-minded. If there was an elephant in your bedroom, and someone tried to point it out you'd probably say, yes, but the trunk is outside - so it's not entirely in the bedroom; or, yes but is it african or indian, or is it an elephant at all - how do you know it's not a rhinoceros in an elephant suit?
    Pseudo religious, blinkered and naive are words that describe pretty well.
    Like I said before: Has it always been thus? The answer is categorical: No. You have your pre-existing positions and you look for data or information to reflect those positions - avoiding any other evidence that might upset your world view. This is science in reverse, bad science. Starting with a conclusion and working your way backwards to 'prove' it. You're only talking to each other and don't appear to have the capacity to take on other elements in an argument, amply demonstrated by your collective inability to see what is put before you. Some people only see what they want to see.

    meteorology: The branch of science concerned with the processes and phenomena of the atmosphere, esp. as a means of forecasting the weather.

    aeronautics: a science dealing with the operation of aircraft

    Yes Ross, your assertion that you know more than Coen Vermeeren about contrails given your respective fields of expertise seems a little shaky when one looks at the actual definitions. But you probably don't see that either.

    You also said, expertly no doubt:
    (er, yes it is).
    . And: ONLY five variables - do you understand how many more can be extrapolated from that? Probably not.

    And finally, for the wantonly blind (I'll make it a bit easier for ya): NUMBER 1: In addition, contrails are becoming more common as a result of more efficient engines on modern aircraft (really? oh). The exhaust from these new engines is much cooler (COOLER NEW ENGINES _ GOT IT?) than the exhaust from older engines, and results in the formation of contrails in warmer air. A modern aircraft can leave a contrail in the same airspace where an older aircraft would not because the atmosphere is not cold enough to condense hot exhaust gases from the older, inefficient engines, but can be cold enough to condense the cooler exhaust gases from newer, more efficient engines.
    And, wait for it...NUMBER 2: The reason contrails are becoming more common is that modem jet engines are more likely to generate contrails and are capable of creating contrails at lower altitudes than their older counterparts. This is due to the fact that the exhaust of the newer engines is warmer (WARMER NEW ENGINES_OH?) and has a greater amount of water vapour available to form a contrail.
    Sounds like bollocks to me. Not to you guys though, eh?
    No doubt you'll find an excuse for that as well.
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No excuse, that was a mistake on the part of Brian Klunder. It should have said "cooler", not "warmer". Everything else was correct though. Perhaps it would not be wise to read too much into an understandable mistake made by a non-scientific bureaucrat, and instead focus on the actual science.

    As a meteorologist, surely you KNOW why modern engines are more likely to leave contrails than older engines? So I'm not clear what your point would be?

    Perhaps you could address the actual issue there? What was wrong about what I said?

    I'd also appreciate it if you could keep the insults to a minimum, with the goal of more efficient communication. The competence or credentials of individuals is not really the issue. The actual science is the issue. So let's try to keep on topic and not descend into a flame war.

    Also, if you want to continue discussing things here, I'd appreciate it if you could register, or at least fill in a name.

    Thanks.
     
  28. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    pointless

    Attempting a fully rounded discussion with you guys is a futile exercise. Insults? Now you're seeing things; bit like all those 'millions' of patents that 'don't exist' according to you. You must have done a lot of counting for that one. If anything, any insults have been inferred by you and your mates. Your collective arrogance at denigrating another person's attempts to understand something and enter a discussion, while trumpetting your own dubious methods as beyond question, and your response to that, shows very well the narrow approach you take. The fact that you don't bother to read your correspondent's statements is amply demonstrated within this thread and makes a mockery of the use by you of a perversion of a truth associated with an esteemed philosopher. I think Schopenhauer, a real thinker, might be a bit upset about your tribute to yourself and your intellectual perception of your 'purity'. It also appears perverse to choose a man whose work contends that at its core, the universe is not a rational place. No doubt you'll put another slant on that truth for your own petty justification of whatever it is you think you're doing. You, matey, are as much a philosopher as I am a meteorologist. If you read things with some attention, you'd know that.
    You've now failed to understand - demonstrably, if you can be bothered to look back - quite a few things I have written. I don't think that's because the writing was difficult to understand, but more likely a condition of your pre-existing position and inability to see any other possibility, however clearly it might be indicated.
    Like I already said: science isn't everything; evidence is evidence (unless you don't listen to or see it because you can't wait long enough to take it in - you need to 'debunk' something - anything); bad science is, well, bad.
    Believing in something isn't the same as it being true.
     
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I didn't say the patents did not exist, I said they were for things that were not built or used. You seemed to be asserting that a patent was evidence that the subject of the patent was in use. So I showed you one extreme example to demonstrate this was not true.

    The majority of patents are not commercialized, and probably don't even work. See:

    http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/news/archives/2009/08/many_proposals_to_reform_the.html
    Perhaps you'd like to address some of the actual points that have been raised. Like about the relevance of the aluminum resistent GM crops? Why would that indicate aluminum spraying when the level of aluminum in the soil is not the issue - rather it's the acidity of the soil.
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I apologize for thinking you said you were a meteorologist, I misread the part of your post where you were quoting Ross. I'd suggest you use the QUOTE tags in the future. You can just highlight a part, and click on the little text bubble icon at the top right of the edit box. I'll go back and edit your post for clarity.

    Given that, perhaps then you don't know why modern engines are more likely to produce contrails? Basically it is because of the higher humidity and cooler temperatures of the newer engine exhausts. This paper has a more technical explanation.

    http://elib.dlr.de/9281/1/AIAA-2715-2000.pdf
     
  31. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    because that's not the whole picture

    I prefer to keep the English the way I wrote it, if you don't mind; I quote:
    Ok. Let me debunk your assertion, seeing as that's what's done here. It's quite easy. This is an example of what you do

    With particular attention to this bit: (quote)
    Ok. Your little research does you a disservice; you are only looking at a particular part of the whole (is this my point?) which is comprised of many other possibilities and variables. Your comment implies very clearly that your position, based on the research you undertook, is that (I think you actually said this before - check - yes, you did), to paraphrase: that it wouldn't make a difference if more aluminium is added and it's actually the other way round, it's the ph that affects the aluminium.

    As with so much here - your enquiry is partial. I don't like giving links (you can find it where you want to), but it's known by loads of people who have a garden, that if you add aluminium sulphate (sulfate to you) you will lower the ph of your soil. Check it out. That's the opposite of what you said - but again, it's only part of the story....progressively lowered ph levels lead to.......? and so on, ad infinitum; living systems eh? Who would a thunk it?

    Have you been debunked yet? If that happened the universe might turn inside out and turn out better - you never know!
     
  32. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    and another thing!

    I'm getting into this debunking thing - serves no purpose, but I like it.

    I quote:
    Thanks for the condescension trail (geddit?), but we're not talking about contrails per se, we're talking about that they now turn into clouds, like they never used to - that probably means there's more ccn's available, wouldn't you say? particulates, aerosols, slice of lemon and some ice? that type of thing...the whole picture

    why does this only happen in some parts of the world? is the atmosphere different in non Nato countries?
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've not changed your english, I just highlighted which bits are quotes. It makes it much easier to read. I've done it with your last post too.

    Yes, adding aluminum sulphate to soil increases the acidity. But that's not because of the aluminum, it's because of the sulphur. When the AlSo4 hydrolyses it produces weak sulphuric acid. The aluminum is just a handy carrier, so you don't have to spray sulphuric acid on your garden. You could also add raw sulphur, but it takes longer to form sulfuric acid in the environment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_sulfate

    That lowered pH will then lead to aluminum toxicity - but NOT because of the aluminum, it's because of the sulphur.

    So are you suggesting that the Monsanto patent suggests they are spraying the planet with aluminum sulfate?
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, firstly it's incorrect to say "they never used to" turn into clouds. They have always turned into clouds. There's lots of evidence for this. See:

    http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/


    It happens more now that it used to, sure. But there's a lot more air traffic, a lot more air routes, and engines run cooler and wetter, so all-in-all you get more contrails, in more locations than before.

    There's no need for more ccn (cloud condensation nuclei) in the atmosphere, as there are plenty in the exhaust itself.

    It happens in all parts of the world. But it depends on the weather, and on the amount of flyover traffic. Consider South Africa for example - almost none of the cities are under flyover routes. So people living in cities in South Africa will almost never see contrails. This is in great contrast to the US, where every city, and nearly every square mile of the county, is under a flyover route.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  35. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    codswallop

    Didactic, or what? And you're now educating me are you? You are deluded. There ya go again. Wrong in the first instance but have to somehow qualify it by looking up more stuff on google to try to give this illusion of rightness. And then feeling the need to share this new information you've found with anyone who'll listen. I knew that all along; that's what you're trying to project. You didn't, and now you now a little bit more, but only just enough to cover your arse. It's madness what you're doing here. You can't even admit when your assertions - and it's there in black and white - are wrong, wrong, wrong.
    When did I suggest that Monsanto's patent indicates spraying of the planet with aluminium? A: Never. But, for an enquiring mind free of prejudice, it is a plausible piece of evidence when looked at in a much broader context. A context you choose not to see due to your religious belief. May your cod be with you.
     
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm sorry, I though that you were implying it when you said:

    Aluminum shows up in normal levels in water and soil tests, because it's everywhere:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

    Just to clarify again there, though, when you say "elevated levels of aluminium in soil plays havoc with PH levels", you realize now that that is wrong? It's the pH level which releases the aluminum in the soil. All soil has aluminum in it. Usually lots.

    I'm not sure why you are saying I'm "wrong, wrong, wrong". I'd be more than happy to address anything I was wrong about, so I'd appreciate it if you could quote where I was wrong.
     
  37. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    bye

    well, this has been fascinating. thanks so much for all the insight. all the best
     
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You're welcome. I'm sorry we could not actually get to grips with any of the questions though. One final thing, in answer to your question:

    I'm not disproving anything. I'm debunking. I explain my motivations here:

    https://www.metabunk.org/content/122-Why-Debunk
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  39. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    This unregistered person(UR) is using the "I'm going to be vague and play dodge-ball" tactic. U/R is not willing to come out with a clear set of claims, because U/R knows that keeping it vague makes it difficult to be pinned down and ultimately debunked. However, you guys did your best to pin U/R down and U/R began to see that if it continued things would start closing in until the claims would become clear and the debunking clearer. This person isn't being honest, yet was honestly afraid. I'm not quite sure what U/R was trying to be accomplished here. Whatever it was, U/R didn't do the homework and could have avoided this silly little dance around we have seen.

    I really hope that U/R can go ahead and read the whole contrailscience site and learn exactly how far from the facts he has gotten, and what he's up against.
    Go to the site, read the claims previously made by all the chemmies, see how they were debunked, and then debate real issues and let the chips fall as they may.
    Mick and I'm sure all of us are willing to go to any lengths to explain our positions. If one reference doesn't seem valid, there are usually a plethora of others.

    If a chemtrail believer wants to have an honest discussion, just be honest and admit you didn't know something, if you think you are correct, provide a clear explantion why and facts to back them up and bring it on. Don't try to ride a merry-go-round and try to win a debate over facts by being vague. It just doesn't cut it in the long run, it is a tactic doomed to eventually fail and the one who uses it is doomed to forfeit the debate.
     
  40. firepilot

    firepilot New Member

    Typical chemmie. When their claims are shown to be total bunk, they just stomp off like little kids.