1. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    So you really think there is a consensus that chemtrails exist. Check this survey, by a respected polling firm. It estimates 5% believe in chemtrails, 8% are undecided, and 87% believe it is bunk. And the bias, if any, would be that conspiracy theorists are more likely to be willing to answer these questions.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Agreed. Affecting cloud cover is not the same as affecting weather.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I'm not saying that you shouldn't trust your feelings, based on your casual observations, Rusty...
    but I'd wager that--like many others--if you actually DO attempt to objectively, factually quantify the
    phenomena you think you're seeing, it will prove much, much more difficult than you expect.

    Most of us in this room have heard 100 times that persuasive evidence was "right around the corner"...
    but somehow it just never arrives...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Natasha

    Natasha New Member

    I agree - the video content speaks for itself. We don't need external 'editors' to explain or misinterpret what we hear has actually been said and the issues that have been raised.

    What is being debunked? Mick West seems to make a great deal of fuss about trivial issues. It was a UN conference - no one is claiming that it was a General Assembly - the UN hosts different functions. So why does MW fuss about 'who' is being addressed? What's the point he's trying to make?
  5. Natasha

    Natasha New Member

    Cloud cover IS weather - what do you think weather forecasters talk about?
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    did you read the title of the thread? that's the bunk that is being debunked.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  7. cmnit

    cmnit Member

    FYI, this video is heavily circulating in Italian social media these days, with a subtitled version:

  8. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Agreed, but there is the matter of degree. The claim is that rain and storms are being produced or eliminated. If it doesn't rain it's because of chemtriails. If it rains too much it's because of chemtrails.
  9. LarryT

    LarryT New Member

    She is listed on several websites as being a retired United States Dept of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Crop Loss Adjustor having worked in more than ten counties.
  10. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    So how would that make her an expert on clandestine geoengineering? She never cites any observations from her former employment in support of this. I spent much of my career evaluating tree mortality. I was a professional forester for the USDA Forest Service, and a California state licensed forester. I never had any reason to suspect that the government was deliberately tinkering with the climate, nor would I have had any way to prove it if I did suspect. Unlike her, I didn't network with conspiracy theorists, and didn't hear the term "chemtrails" until two years after I retired.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  11. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    Well if she wants to use her USAF credentials, I can too. I am a SSgt as well, but the difference between her and I is that the 2 AFSC's I worked in (2A671, as a engine mechanic on the F15C/D Eagle, as well as 1A171 or Flight Engineer on the KC-10 Extender) are directly involved with aviation, something she has absolutely no experience in. I was a 7 level (Craftsman) on those engines, to include borescope, blade blend, and engine run qualified. I also have 3700 hours flying on the KC-10 and am a certified instructor. I'd love to ask her what proof she has of chemtrails being loaded onto aircraft and being sprayed into the atmosphere.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    She has admitted she has none.

    PS: Oh... you were referring to Kristen Meghan. It's Rosalind who has admitted she has no evidence. Kristen.... never.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    LarryT was referring to "She..." as Rosalind Peterson, not a certain ex USAF employee ;)
  14. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    Well if she wants to use her USAF credentials, I can too. I am a SSgt as well, but the difference between her and I is that the 2 AFSC's I worked in (2A671, as a engine mechanic on the F15C/D Eagle, as well as 1A171 or Flight Engineer on the KC-10 Extender) are directly involved with aviation, something she has absolutely no experience in. I was a 7 level (Craftsman) on those engines, to include borescope, blade blend, and engine run qualified. I also have 3700 hours flying on the KC-10 and am a certified instructor. I'd love to ask her what proof she has of chemtrails being loaded onto aircraft and being sprayed into the atmosphere.
    Ah..I see this now ;)
  15. librepensee

    librepensee New Member

    These flares are mostly used for cloud seeding, and anti-hail in use since WWII. This is not the kind of ChemTrails or better, GeoEngineering that people are getting worried about.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. librepensee

    librepensee New Member


    I'm new here and would like to give you my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the debunkers on this site couldn't care less about getting the truth about important matters to the surface. All they seem to care about is debunking little details such as the correctness of the title or claims about information instead of checking for the correctness of the information or matter itself, and then when one or other of such details is incorrect, the matter's been debunked, case closed.

    I came to this site to be better informed about matters of importance, but all I find here is angry young men who very quickly do away with (debunk) important matters in a way that is not at all informative.

    Maybe you guys may think that what Rosalind Peterson claims is totally irrelevant, and that we better assume that all's well with the air and water quality in California (the state where she lives) or elsewhere in the USA, but maybe, one day we realize that she was right after all but then it will be too late to do anything about it. I really would like to know for sure!

    The point that she makes is about the dangers of large scale geoengineering the way it's actually being done. So that's what should be investigated and eventually debunked if she's been wrong about it, and not whether or not the title of a video she didn't even post on Youtube herself was correct or not, and whether she spoke to the UN or was it in reality on the ladies toilets of the Euro Parliament.

    Why not dive into the matter a bit more seriously like: OK, Ms Peterson has these claims and such and so proof on her web-site, now let's truly investigate whether she's spreading disinformation or not, whether her web-site misrepresents matters, and if so mention that in detail on this site. If she happens to be right, at points or completely, mention that as well. That's the info I would like to get from a 'debunk' web-site.

    Now here's a video of a meeting where Ms Peterson as well as a biologist inform the audience about the effects of geoengineering in California, and it would interest me if the members of this site could give it an honest effort to find out whether this lady is providing valuable information or not.

    Sorry for my English, it's not my native language.

    Greetings from a wet S-W of France,
    • Disagree Disagree x 7
  17. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Yes, you are but only slightly. Metabunk is here to debunk claims of evidence not entire theories.. its far too broad a subject to try to debunk. Instead, if you look at Mick's explanation of the site, you'll see that if you have a claim or evidence to present..we look at and either agree with the evidence or dispute or debunk said evidence based on science and scientific evidence.. not theory and hear-say.

    If there were actual evidence.. evidence that can be tested and has the ability to be proven false (which is the important part) then we can look at it. Evidence that has no chance of being proven false is worthless... its not how science works. For example, if I claim that the sky is blue because a unicorn farts rainbows... Id have to produce evidence of, not only unicorns but have samples of said rainbow farts that can be tested to show that thats what they are. Does that make more sense?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    But it's not being done in any way, so her point has no basis.
  19. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    its not being done.

    and yes to most of what Svartbjorn said. IF the chemtrailists have any evidence soemthing IS being done feel free to present it (see the posting guidelines) and we can examine it and decide if it is correct.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2014
  20. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    um. you can present TRUE evidence. metabunk will also determine what claims of evidence are true. True evidence isnt worthless at all. :)
  21. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    And about Rosalind's (*former) concerns about large scale experimentation and what she thinks is geoengineering... she, and many others, have observed contrails that don't dissipate and postulate that it is some spraying program, some experiment, geoengineering, whatever.

    Well, no it's not. the contrails that don't dissipate can't dissipate because they are in an ice-saturated environment where there is already too much moisture for the ice to ablate (or sublimate) back to vapor again. These are called persistent contrails because they persist.

    * Recently she has stated that there is no evidence that the trails are anything other than aircraft emissions (meaning exhaust).

    Earnest, forthright, plain-speaking, but not "angry".
    Some of us are not all that "young".
    Not all of us are men; there are some women.

    EDIT TO CORRECT "now" to "no" in the original phrase "stated that there is nowevidence that"
    Note to self: Proofread more carefully.
    Thank you deidre for spotting that massive faux pas.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    NO evidence. Guys, (and gals) he just said English isnt his first language and the "typos" are cracking me up.
  23. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Jaques, if you could summarize her claims of evidence in a little more detail, that would be helpful. We shouldn't have to watch a one hour twenty seven minute video to get what her main points are. I have watched the first 10 and 1/2 minutes, and she hasn't gotten to the main subject yet. What part of the video is most relevant?
  24. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Bonjour Jaques...

    Your dead wrong about us not us not wanting to get to the truth. In fact it's why many of us are here, if not all of us. We are looking for the real truth behind a lot of things from 9-11 and chemtrails / contrails to the Lochness Monster and life in outer space. And yes we do spend a lot of time picking over tiny details, but that is how we get to the truth. It's only by taking claims point by point and picking them apart one small part at a time can the real truth be separated from rumour, speculation and lies.

    I see it like this; the real important matter is finding the truth, and the truth is a rare gold nugget in a mountain of dung. Now you could say, 'I've got a gold nugget somewhere in that big pile of crap', or you can shovel the crap out the way and actually show the gold nugget to the world. And personally I think one gold nugget in the hand is worth five in the shit.

    Hope that makes sense.

    PS... I am a man, but I aint young and tend not to do anger, its such a negative emotion if not channeled and rarely leads to anything constructive. :)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    I'm up to 25 1/2 minutes on the above R.P. video, and I find a lack of specific evidence. For instance, a vague reference to a Stanford University study claiming that 1/4 of global warming is due to water vapor produced by aircraft exhaust. She doesn't give a title or an author so we can't check to see whether it really says that. Here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/useful-chemtrail-debunking-images-and-infographics.1007/#post-22374 are some references to specific studies showing aircraft have a much lower impact on warming, and water vapor being a small part of this impact. Check the references from posts 9, 10 and 14. The problem with You tube videos is there are no links, no footnotes and no bibliography.
  26. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    And that is something we'd like also. If you have a specific thing you'd like examined, present it, but be a bit more precise than just posting those videos - post a transcript or an exact time in the video of the particular claim you wish to look at more closely.

    Curious as to what has given you the 'angry' impression?

    And you also say the way we debunk is not informative; can you give some examples of a debunking that is not informative? Because that is something we consider very important, making things that may be complex easily understood. Any particular suggestions?
    • Like Like x 2
  27. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Around 29 minutes, she is talking about an unexplained increase in Ricketts. However, this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612965/ blames the increase primarily on the increased number of Somali immigrants in the study, who do not absorb vitamin D as well from the sun.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  28. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Around 34 minutes, she talks about a US Navy experiment injecting aluminum oxide into the atmosphere. This really happened. However, it was only 66 kilograms, or about 150 lb. A geoengineering program would need 10-20 million tons initially, with about 2 million tons added each year. Scale matters. http://www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA08/papers/HG2p3.pdf And this experiment was in the ionosphere. Proposed geoengineering programs would be in the stratosphere (much lower), and 99.9% of all jet aircraft flights are in the troposphere.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Why thank you - it's been a few decades since anyone called me young :D

    Greetings from a beautiful and sunny central New Zealand:)
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Bonjour Jaques,
    I am confused as to why you think debunkers here are angry.

    Also, I think we ARE definitely interested in the truth, but that looking at small details can be a very good way to do that.

    A conspiracy theory is normally presented like the argument of a lawyer in court. "Evidence" is put forward by the barrister, while trying to attack and discredit the "Evidence" of the other side.
    When it comes to a conspiracy theory, one tiny flaw or discrepancy in the OFFICIAL STORY is apparently enough to claim that the WHOLE thing is a lie. Any debunking of a major point in the conspiracy theory is met with "What about this? or this? or This? " where multiple other pieces of evidence are used to show the theory is still valid, but it means they don't address the fact that the first point was proved wrong.

    If you look at EVERY piece of evidence in isolation, it can be seen whether it is bunk or not.
    A conspiracy is often a huge number of separate pieces of bunk holding each other together.

    This is a far more scientific way of looking at it. We are interested in the truth. If you can show evidence than can NOT be debunked, or even better, shown to be ACCURATE, then people here will accept it. Nobody that I know of is here with a specific agenda to assume the official story on anything is always the truth.

    Looking at things in a properly scientific manner removes the bunk.
    If a conspiracy is apparently happening because people think A) also because of B,C,D,E,F,G and H then all those other things support why people think A, but if B,C,D,E,F,G AND H ALL turn out to be bunk, then people are STILL thinking A, because it fits their worldview and NOT because of any supporting evidence.

    I am sure there are other threads about Rosalind Petersen and her claims. She herself has since admitted there is no evidence to show that persistent trails are anything but the same vapour trails that non persistent ones are.

    The video in the OP was spread around Social Media as if it was something NEW, when in fact it happened in 2007.
    All it showed was Rosalind stating her claims. The fact that she got to make them in an important meeting is not evidence it is true. As the rest of the meeting is not shown, it does not show whether anyone else at the meeting refuted her claims.

    In the OP video, Rosalind Petersen stated these things WERE happening but did not actually show proof or even cite any sources.
    Steve Funk is going through the REALLY long youtube Video you posted.
    If you read the posting guidelines, you should REALLY quote and cite which part of the video (timestamp) represents the actual claim you are making is true.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i think its just a subliminal (as my niece would say) jab at the Styx song of that name. because no offense guys but none of you look "young" ... well maybe you Steve, i think funk is making a come back, no?
    • Funny Funny x 1
  35. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Rosalind Peterson has repeatedly stated her worries that plant photosynthesis would be reduced because of geoengineering or because of contrail cirrus. Actually, the contrary may be true. According to the paper cited below, cloud cover or stratospheric aerosols like volcanic ash make the light more diffuse, therefore the amount of shade is less, light will come from all directions instead of just directly from the direction of the Sun, therefore plant photosynthesis can increase. The authors calculated that global dimming resulted in an increase of the carbon sink due to the more efficient photosynthesis thanks to the increased diffuse sunlight.

    Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink
    On the other hand, power obtained from solar cells does reduce from clouds or aerosols because solar cells need direct sunlight.
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  36. morris

    morris New Member

    This article / information proves nothing. if you look up weather modification on amazon you will find at least 10 books on the subject that are not by marginal people but are scholarly tracts. two books were published by the u.s. government one titled "Weather Modification, Problems and Prospects" written in 1978 !! Another is a transcript of congressional hearings on the prospect of "Weather as a Weapon."
    Rosalind Peterson has a stellar record and should be honored and respected rather than "debunked" by someone who is probably a disinformant. what is your purpose?
    • Funny Funny x 1
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Nobody has ever denied weather modification. It's been public knowledge since the 1950s. That's not what she is talking about.
  38. Esther18

    Esther18 New Member

    I don't think that the people seeing and commenting on "chemtrails" (or whatever name you want to give them) are "fringe" at all. As far as I know they're quite mainstream, as often highly educated as not, career people, creative people, engineers, themselves. What Rosalind Peterson was saying, which received no challenge from members of the UN (it doesn't matter the specifics of the type of convention it was, it was an organized convention containing UN members, if it's important to you that the UN lends something credence, although to judge their recent work, people should be skeptical of the UN and calling anyone who really cares what they say "fringe!"), is that there is intentional aerosol spraying going on without consent or forewarning (or any information at all) given to the public. One has to be delusional to say that there is not spraying going on, and that the effects of the spraying is that clear, sunny days become hazy days. Calling people "fringe" because they have concerns about observable events which are fully CONFIRMED by this video as a regular phenomena (she even lists some of the chemicals in use, which really ARE turning up in our topsoil and drinking water), is a form of bullying. I realize that corporations and our own government use such tactics in lieu of being able to be transparent about the way they spend and organize taxpayer dollars, but it doesn't change the name-calling in its nature. You're a bully who has written a whole site to diminish people who have concern. Since you like to use names to taunt people and diminish the weight of their concerns and observations, I'd love to do the same to you. How much education do you have? Personally, I can put you in touch with 5 Ph.D.'s in he various sciences who can engage you in a much better and more clinical, scientific discussion than I can, who find it plainly clear (as clear as the white trails of whatever name you want to give them left by the plains by day) that there is plenty of climate and atmospheric engineering going on, and that naturally, it's making us all ill. Where do you come from and why do you want to tell people who have eyes and necks with which to look up, how to feel about their own experience and the time they've spent researching? You (who wrote this website) are exactly what's wrong with our government and the media. You're all afraid of self-empowered people who educate themselves and form their own opinions about what is important, in this case, human health and environmental protection! Then you find a way to belittle and bully them into submission, ignoring what their eyes and ears and reading confirms. You write website after website making real reports hard to come by. Your agenda is that of a narcissist and a coward, plainly put.

    Attached Files:

    • Disagree Disagree x 8
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I didn't use the term fringe, that was another poster. However the position of believing in covert geoengineering is very much a fringe belief in science - in that it's a tiny minority of scientists who think it is happening. I was recently involved in a study of scientists assessments of chemtrail evidence, and they overwhelmingly rejected it. The term describe this well
    I'd be happy to discuss it with them - I'm interested what evidence they found to be compelling, and how they assessed it.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  40. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    First, UN members don't have the habit of interrupting speeches.
    Second, Peterson was NOT addressing the UN. It was simply an address HOSTED at that facility.

    PS: I see I'm late to this thread. This has probably already been stated.
    • Agree Agree x 4