Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings?

Has ANYONE examined some? Preferably from different airliners, in different areas, over an extended period of time?

Yes:

http://www.pall.com/main/Aerospace-Defense-Marine/Literature-Library-Details.page?id=46181#46193

[h=2]Q13: What testing has been performed on cabin air filters after they have been in-service?[/h]One of the objectives of the EC Cabinair project was to establish the current in-service performance of filtration systems through the programme of Measurements in the Sky.
In order to evaluate the performance of the filtration systems installed on current commercial aircraft, Pall are continually monitoring the in-flight performance of their filtration equipment. Pall have been involved in cabin air filtration for over 20 years and in the last 5 years alone, more than 300 cabin air filter elements have been returned from service, either at the request of Pall or by the airlines themselves. Overall, this monitoring programme has confirmed that the cabin air filter elements are performing satisfactorily in-service.
The types of test performed include: weight measurement, differential pressure across the filter element, particulate removal efficiency, and analysis of contamination.



Content from External Source
 
Well you have seen much of the evidence already, of course none of it is conclusive evidence as the tests are fundamentally flawed... also a lack of testing by professionals doing a serious investigation has caused many conspiracy theories to take the front of the discussion because the facts are few and far between.
 
But you did not present evidence of people doing it and not getting caught. Obviously such a thing might exist - but again there's no evidence

That's your robot cat argument Mick. Anyway, the program WAS secret, so they WERE by default, spraying and not getting caught, until they actually WERE caught of course, and that was only because people got sick. Someone still might catch a chemtrail plane... just because they haven't yet does not prove that they do not exist. Robot cat's... hehehe
 
I think I proved that they have existed... and that they were secret. That is compelling evidence in itself. Hitler was not caught immediately either... hell he was on the cover of time magazine as man of the year... twice!
 
SD said:
What needs to be done is a test showing the accumulation of metals such as aluminum over many years like from a varve core or an ice core.

I don't think you understand at all what we have done here.
There is no need for further testing, they can do all the tests they want, all more testsing will do is to bring their averages down lower.
Please pay close attention to this accounting:

'Chemtrails' observations:
First, people saw something in the sky.
They never established the basic physics behind what they saw, thus thinking it was unsusual.
They accepted the statements of unreliable people and added layer upon layer of bunk.
After awhile, the bunk got repeated enough so that a herd of people accepted it.
They never looked back and re-examined the statements for accuracy.

Rain Water Samples
They proceeded to look specifically for several elements in rain water.
They never established a baseline norm for the elements they found.
They never looked back and re-examined the statements for accuracy.

Enter the debunkers.

We established the basic physics behind the trails they saw.
We established that what they saw was not historically out of the norm.
We found the bunk and outed the unreliable people spreading it.
We re-examined the statements for accuracy, found more bunk and outed those people spreading it.
We examined their rain water samples, compared them to baseline norms forty years old and found nothing out of the ordinary.
We examined the statements about the rain water samples, found the bunk and outed those people spreading it.
We began outreach to notify the bunk spreaders and their followers of what was going on.

SD, why make more tests to look at accumulations in ice cores or varves when current tests show nothing above the baseline norms established forty years ago?
Where did they go wrong?
Where did we go wrong?
 
Yes:

http://www.pall.com/main/Aerospace-Defense-Marine/Literature-Library-Details.page?id=46181#46193

Q13: What testing has been performed on cabin air filters after they have been in-service?

One of the objectives of the EC Cabinair project was to establish the current in-service performance of filtration systems through the programme of Measurements in the Sky.
In order to evaluate the performance of the filtration systems installed on current commercial aircraft, Pall are continually monitoring the in-flight performance of their filtration equipment. Pall have been involved in cabin air filtration for over 20 years and in the last 5 years alone, more than 300 cabin air filter elements have been returned from service, either at the request of Pall or by the airlines themselves. Overall, this monitoring programme has confirmed that the cabin air filter elements are performing satisfactorily in-service.
The types of test performed include: weight measurement, differential pressure across the filter element, particulate removal efficiency, and analysis of contamination.



Content from External Source

There is no source for the results of the analysis of the contamination.
 
Some of the tests were not so bad, but the interpretation of the results was horrid.
It is this interpretation that you speak of which keeps my mind open. Nobody has gone wrong in anything, they just have not gotten it right yet. This is a new arena of investigation and of course there is going to be some controversy along the way. There still yet remains unanswered questions, even if some have been answered. Perhaps you can debunk a film, because the authors did not get the analysis correct, but it does not debunk the issue itself. There could be new information or new types of tests which may come in the future which will change everything.

We all make errors along the way, but it is not a mistake unless you refuse to correct it.
 
I don't think you understand at all what we have done here.
There is no need for further testing, they can do all the tests they want, all more testsing will do is to bring their averages down lower.
Please pay close attention to this accounting:

'Chemtrails' observations:
First, people saw something in the sky.
They never established the basic physics behind what they saw, thus thinking it was unsusual.
They accepted the statements of unreliable people and added layer upon layer of bunk.
After awhile, the bunk got repeated enough so that a herd of people accepted it.
They never looked back and re-examined the statements for accuracy.

Rain Water Samples
They proceeded to look specifically for several elements in rain water.
They never established a baseline norm for the elements they found.
They never looked back and re-examined the statements for accuracy.

Enter the debunkers.

We established the basic physics behind the trails they saw.
We established that what they saw was not historically out of the norm.
We found the bunk and outed the unreliable people spreading it.
We re-examined the statements for accuracy, found more bunk and outed those people spreading it.
We examined their rain water samples, compared them to baseline norms forty years old and found nothing out of the ordinary.
We examined the statements about the rain water samples, found the bunk and outed those people spreading it.
We began outreach to notify the bunk spreaders and their followers of what was going on.

SD, why make more tests to look at accumulations in ice cores or varves when current tests show nothing above the baseline norms established forty years ago?
Where did they go wrong?
Where did we go wrong?

Bottom line:
We compared the claimed abnormals to the norm, they did not exceed the norms.

What more would it take to get it right?

There is no sense in us using money to take tests they would discount simply because we are not of their fold.
 
They most likely are contrails that you see. It does not mean that a plane with a contrail cannot also be spraying something invisible.

And nor does a cat having flesh and bone preclude it having a camera implanted in one eye socket.

The point is still the absence of evidence.
 
Well there is absence of evidence of current spraying, but not absence of evidence of spraying. How did they get caught before? by spraying something that got people sick right away. Maybe they are spraying something that will affect health long term, and then it can be proven later.
 
Bottom line:
We compared the claimed abnormals to the norm, they did not exceed the norms.

What more would it take to get it right?

There is no sense in us using money to take tests they would discount simply because we are not of their fold.

The abnormals were results from tests that were flawed. Spending money on the same types of test would be stupid. We need new types of tests as I have been stating, and I suggested Ice cores and Varve cores
 
SeriouslyDebatable, when I asked you who gave you the idea that there might be something sinister in the trails, I tried to make this point:

You are researching and pondering in a thorough and serious way an idea that started as a true hoax, blown up over time by unqualified promoters. (Jay Reynolds has pretty much followed the "chemtrail" word and the 'movement' right to the original sources.)

Again: would you have suspected bad intentions in airplane trails if you hadn't read about it? Purely by observation?

I think you won't object to the statement that even if a share of the visible trails was in fact intended spraying of chemicals, there would be no way to tell apart "normal" from "chemical" just by observation from the ground.

So why assume the extraordinary in sight of the ordinary? Solely because of implicated historical analogies?
 
I think I proved that they have existed... and that they were secret. That is compelling evidence in itself. Hitler was not caught immediately either... hell he was on the cover of time magazine as man of the year... twice!

It was once, in 1938 (Stalin got the nod twice: in 1939 and 1942). As Time magazine point out, the Person of the Year title isn't necessarily an honour, it is given to the person who "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." In 1938, it would be hard to argue that anyone was influencing world events more than Hitler.
 
SeriouslyDebatable, when I asked you who gave you the idea that there might be something sinister in the trails, I tried to make this point:

You are researching and pondering in a thorough and serious way an idea that started as a true hoax, blown up over time by unqualified promoters. (Jay Reynolds has pretty much followed the "chemtrail" word and the 'movement' right to the original sources.)

Again: would you have suspected bad intentions in airplane trails if you hadn't read about it? Purely by observation?
No... not in airplane trails, but if you said just airplanes, then yes. I have not suspected, I have been aware. I was aware of aerial spraying before the "chemtrails" movement, and I do not claim persistent visible contrails are chemtrails, but I am also not discounting every single contrail, as some seem suspicious.

I think you won't object to the statement that even if a share of the visible trails was in fact intended spraying of chemicals, there would be no way to tell apart "normal" from "chemical" just by observation from the ground.

As long as the conditions are adequate for form persistent contrails, then of course. I agree.

So why assume the extraordinary in sight of the ordinary? Solely because of implicated historical analogies?
I am doing the opposite of assuming. I claimed there was secret spraying in the past, and I have proven it. Determining that there is no secret program currently just because you personally don't have any evidence for it would be assuming.


It was once, in 1938 (Stalin got the nod twice: in 1939 and 1942). As Time magazine point out, the Person of the Year title isn't necessarily an honour, it is given to the person who "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." In 1938, it would be hard to argue that anyone was influencing world events more than Hitler.

Good point. I wonder if Hitler made the cover before, or after he burned his own capitol building down?
 
Here is a good question to determine whether or not you make assumptions.

"Is the government currently spraying us with chemicals?

If you answer "yes" or "no" without any proof, then you are making assumptions and you do not have an open mind.
If you answer "I dont know", "possibly", or "maybe", then you are on the right track to thinking logically.
 
The chemtrail controversy includes more than just visible trails. The visible trails are a symptom of the claim, but the claim is still that they are spraying. Just because SOME claim that ALL persistent contrails are "chemtrails", does not mean that every person who thinks that spraying may be happening, adheres to this idea. Soil and rain samples would not have even come into play if we were dealing only with things that we can see.
 
No... not in airplane trails, but if you said just airplanes, then yes. I have not suspected, I have been aware. I was aware of areal spraying before the "chemtrails" movement, and I do not claim persistent visible contrails are chemtrails, but I am also not discounting every single contrail, as some seem suspicious.

Suspicious how?

Of course, you must be aware of the problems with disproving a universal negative, and why the burden of evidence is on those making positive claims. The burden does not fall on nonbelievers to demonstrate that no contrails are "chemtrails" - the burden logically falls on chemtrails believers and promoters to provide evidence that even ONE of them IS.

It is fallacious to conflate other, known forms of aerial spraying (such as cloud seeding, crop dusting, or even the past secret projects you've referred to) with what "chemtrails" are claimed to be. And while you might not see any connection between "chemtrails" and persistent contrails, the claim that ordinary contrails can't persist (and thus, that any trails that do are evidence of "chemtrails") is indeed central to the chemtrails idea as it is accepted and promoted by believers. What you're doing is creating your own separate and distinct idea for the sake of debate. Regardless, the burden of evidence still falls on the positive claim.
 
Suspicious how?

Well, flying in loops seems suspicious.

Rosalind Peterson showed a map provided by the FAA which revealed how “intra-flights” – mainly of military origin – are flying in loops around counties in flight paths that differ substantially from normal airline trajectories. The flights have no meaningful purpose because they have no fixed destination, they merely fly around and around in circles.


Of course, you must be aware of the problems with disproving a universal negative, and why the burden of evidence is on those making positive claims.

Which is why I am very careful about making unsubstantiated claims.

The burden does not fall on nonbelievers to demonstrate that no contrails are "chemtrails" - the burden logically falls on chemtrails believers and promoters to provide evidence that even ONE of them IS.

Agreed for the most part, except that I do not lump myself into the category of a chemtrail believer... I am a chemtrail skeptic.

It is fallacious to conflate other, known forms of aerial spraying (such as cloud seeding, crop dusting, or even the past secret projects you've referred to) with what "chemtrails" are claimed to be. And while you might not see any connection between "chemtrails" and persistent contrails, the claim that ordinary contrails can't persist (and thus, that any trails that do are evidence of "chemtrails") is indeed central to the chemtrails idea as it is accepted and promoted by believers.

Im not a chemtrail believer.

What you're doing is creating your own separate and distinct idea for the sake of debate.

I am actually specifying, defining and clarifying the position. "what in the world are they SPRAYING" right? Not what in the world are those "TRAILS". And the idea of spraying, is certainly not MY idea.

Regardless, the burden of evidence still falls on the positive claim.
Well sure, I never asked anyone to PROVE that it was NOT happening... I only ask people to not dismiss the possibility due to lack of evidence... which does not mean there is no evidence, it only means that at the present moment, no evidence has been found.

When people say we are not being sprayed... THAT is someone trying to prove a negative. I am not the one doing this here.
 
Suspicious how?

Of course, you must be aware of the problems with disproving a universal negative, and why the burden of evidence is on those making positive claims. The burden does not fall on nonbelievers to demonstrate that no contrails are "chemtrails" - the burden logically falls on chemtrails believers and promoters to provide evidence that even ONE of them IS.

It is fallacious to conflate other, known forms of aerial spraying (such as cloud seeding, crop dusting, or even the past secret projects you've referred to) with what "chemtrails" are claimed to be. And while you might not see any connection between "chemtrails" and persistent contrails, the claim that ordinary contrails can't persist (and thus, that any trails that do are evidence of "chemtrails") is indeed central to the chemtrails idea as it is accepted and promoted by believers. What you're doing is creating your own separate and distinct idea for the sake of debate. Regardless, the burden of evidence still falls on the positive claim.
Seems he is not the only one to suspect that historical trends are to be concerned about . . . do thieves stop stealing after they get caught . . . sometimes they do but I bet the recidivism rate is high. . . loL!!
 
Well, flying in loops seems suspicious.

Rosalind Peterson showed a map provided by the FAA which revealed how “intra-flights” – mainly of military origin – are flying in loops around counties in flight paths that differ substantially from normal airline trajectories. The flights have no meaningful purpose because they have no fixed destination, they merely fly around and around in circles.
There are certainly reasons that jets can go around in circles, most notably because they are in a holding pattern. This has been previously discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/120-Rosalind-Peterson-s-maps. I have actually done "suspicious" flying myself, although at low altitudes - and I organize a program to do the same thing in half the counties in my state. It must seem very strange to the general public if anyone pays attention, but it's really just an annual aerial pest survey program.
SD said:
Agreed for the most part, except that I do not lump myself into the category of a chemtrail believer... I am a chemtrail skeptic.



Im not a chemtrail believer.
As I said, that's fine, but I'm talking about what chemtrails believers claim.

SD said:
I am actually specifying, defining and clarifying the position. "what in the world are they SPRAYING" right? Not what in the world are those "TRAILS". And the idea of spraying, is certainly not MY idea.
It certainly is the position of chemtrails believers that persistent contrails are actually "chemtrails", and this claim is found through both of those WITWATS movies. I don't know whose position you are clarifying, specifying etc., but it does not accurately or completely represent that of chemtrails believers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are certainly reasons that jets can go around in circles, most notably because they are in a holding pattern. This has been previously discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/120-Rosalind-Peterson-s-maps. I have actually done "suspicious" flying myself, although at low altitudes - and I organize a statewide program to do the same thing in half the counties in my state. It must seem very strange to the general public if anyone pays attention, but it's really just an annual aerial pest survey program.

As I said, that's fine, but it's "chemtrails" that are the topic of conversation here.


It certainly is the position of chemtrails believers that persistent contrails are actually "chemtrails", and this claim is found through both of those WITWATS movies. I don't know whose position you are clarifying, specifying etc., but it does not accurately or completely represent that of chemtrails believers.

In essence we are not chemtrail believers in your definition . . . but we understand the concern . . . and we are trying to articulate a middle ground for debate and discussion . . . that is a hard thing to do especially when the majority of the participants on this Forum are conditioned to debunk the classic Chemtrail Conspiracy positions . . . there are those of us who do not identify with the profiteers but because they are making a living on the conspiracy does not invalidate the entire concept . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said, that's fine, but it's "chemtrails" that are the topic of conversation here.

there would be no way to tell apart "normal" from "chemical" just by observation from the ground.

So why limit the debate to VISIBLE chemtrails? Especially when they cannot be proven? What is the point of proving people wrong when the topic is irrelevant? The ultimate topic is if they are spraying or not.


It certainly is the position of chemtrails believers that persistent contrails are actually "chemtrails", and this claim is found through both of those WITWATS movies. I don't know whose position you are clarifying, specifying etc., but it does not accurately or completely represent that of chemtrails believers.

You are treating advocates of the chemtrail theory as a group instead of individuals. If everyone had the exact same position then there would not be a forums debate with individual users.
 
The abnormals were results from tests that were flawed. Spending money on the same types of test would be stupid. We need new types of tests as I have been stating, and I suggested Ice cores and Varve cores

SD, I can't understand why you still don't get it. The idea of testing for contamination of the environment the way they did with rainwater wasn't fundamentally flawed.

They tested fairly properly, even if none of the tests were documented, had no standardization, and they only tested for three elements, ignoring other significant elements such as silica which would have unmistakeably shown the signature of ordinary alumino-silicate mineral dust.

What I am saying is that, in every respect, THE RESULTS OF THEIR TESTS SHOWED THAT THE RAIN WATER WAS NORMAL.

There is NO USE in proceeding to test ice cores, varves, or tree rings BECAUSE THE TEST RESULTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE NORMAL.

Do I make myself clear?

Explain to me what use testing ice cores would accomplish beyond what the chemtrails conscious activist people have already done, if you don't agree.
 
What is more important? Whether or not we are being sprayed, or whether or not the spraying is visible? I mean.. come on!
Sure, but as shown by the titles of those movies, the question of whether or not we are being sprayed is generally not addressed among believers - it is assumed at the outset, based primarily on this false claim that contrails can't be persistent.

Edit: As I was told in the banning message when I posted on a chemtrails forum: "The existence of chemtrails has been well established and is considered trolling and is not allowed on this forum" (sic).
 
Well, flying in loops seems suspicious.

Rosalind Peterson showed a map provided by the FAA which revealed how “intra-flights” – mainly of military origin – are flying in loops around counties in flight paths that differ substantially from normal airline trajectories. The flights have no meaningful purpose because they have no fixed destination, they merely fly around and around in circles.

Ok, well now we can begin, since you have made a positive claim.
let's look here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/120-Rosalind-Peterson-s-maps

If that isn't a good enough explanation, let me know your questions on that thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SD, I can't understand why you still don't get it. The idea of testing for contamination of the environment the way they did with rainwater wasn't fundamentally flawed.

Oh? You don't seem to be 100% certain about that.

They tested fairly properly, even if none of the tests were documented, had no standardization, and they only tested for three elements, ignoring other significant elements such as silica which would have unmistakeably shown the signature of ordinary alumino-silicate mineral dust.

It seems that way to me, at least.

What I am saying is that, in every respect, THE RESULTS OF THEIR TESTS SHOWED THAT THE RAIN WATER WAS NORMAL.

Yep, THEIR tests are unverifiable because of improper testing from lack of documentation.

There is NO USE in proceeding to test ice cores, varves, or tree rings BECAUSE THE TEST RESULTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE NORMAL.

Other than the claim that aluminum testing has not been included for most tests until recent years has not been addressed yet, Show me the test results please from independent sources and we can debate the facts, and determine from that whether the tests are accurate and fundamentally sound.

Do I make myself clear?
\
This is an emotionally driven response that I should have ignored, but I have emotions too, So I just can't help but say this; That comment was not necessary...
You are not my authority, so you will have to explain yourself clear. I do not take dictations very well.

Explain to me what use testing ice cores would accomplish beyond what the chemtrails conscious activist people have already done, if you don't agree.
It would provide an accurate reading of accumulation of chemicals on a yearly basis, with today's updated testing technology. We could then see if there has been an increase in these chemicals over a given amount of time. Of course the source could still be in question, but there would be no doubt that it was something that has contaminated the atmosphere. Depending on what is found, sources of the contamination could be eliminated. Only specifically testing in an investigative sense would be sufficient in adding enough weight to the case because as the saying goes, "You cannot find what you are not looking for".
 
Sure, but as shown by the titles of those movies, the question of whether or not we are being sprayed is generally not addressed among believers - it is assumed at the outset, based primarily on this false claim that contrails can't be persistent.

Edit: As I was told in the banning message when I posted on a chemtrails forum: "The existence of chemtrails has been well established and is considered trolling and is not allowed on this forum" (sic).

Yep, that was another forum. This forum seems to be much more fair.
 
Ok, well now we can begin, since you have made a positive claim.
let's look here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/120-Rosalind-Peterson-s-maps

If that isn't a good enough explanation, let me know your questions on that thread.

I just said it looked suspicious. This is not a claim of fact, only a claim that I do not understand something and I have questions. Another user agreed that it would look suspicious or "strange" to the general public. I have not had any time to research the facts or make any claims of them. I will have to come back to this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Other than the claim that aluminum testing has not been included for most tests until recent years has not been addressed yet, Show me the test results please from independent sources and we can debate the facts, and determine from that whether the tests are accurate and fundamentally sound.

You have to compare like with like. Why don't you point to a "suspicious" test, and then we can explain that particular test, with references.
 
You have to compare like with like. Why don't you point to a "suspicious" test, and then we can explain that particular test, with references.
Yes, you must compare like with like. If you point me to tests of varves or ice cores that are explained, then I can research them. I have not found any tests. Suspicious or otherwise.
 
SD, I confess that I'm not totally following your responses with regard to Jay's statements. He is saying that the main problem with the rainwater results by the Shasta group and others is not their methodology, documentation, etc. (although there are some problems there, too). It's in the conclusions that they draw from the results.

The chemtrails activists (including Mangels and the Shasta group) frequently claim that there should be zero aluminum, barium, or strontium in rainwater samples. However, there is ample evidence in the scientific literature - including sampling results going back at least to the 1960s, well before believers think that "chemtrails" started - showing that this is a false claim. This documentation shows that is entirely normal for these elements to be in airborne dust and in rainfall, and indeed that the levels the chemtrails believers are finding are within the same range as has always been seen.

This is another fundamental, provably false claim that they base their idea on: that there should be absolutely no amount of these trace metals in ordinary rainfall, therefore any detectable amount is extraordinary. It's disprovable with just a cursory literature search. See this thread for some examples: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just said it looked suspicious. This is not a claim of fact, only a claim that I do not understand something and I have questions. Another user agreed that it would look suspicious or "strange" to the general public. I have not had any time to research the facts or make any claims of them. I will have to come back to this one.

This is nothing at all personal, SD, but I feel a little frustrated by responses like these. I originally set up contrailscience.com because it seemed like I could just put up all the explanations for the various "suspicious" things, and then the chemtrail theory would be over. But of course the best explanation in the world is useless if nobody reads it, or if nobody watches the video.

The explanation for looping contrails is here:

http://contrailscience.com/racetrack-contrails/

So my question to you is: what could I have done to help you find the answer to your question easier? Did you do a Google search after you saw the suspicious loops? What did you search for?

Did you look at Jay's link? Is it too boring looking? lacking in pictures (again, nothing personal here, it's just about effective communications, meta debunking).

I'm thinking that we really need some more visual debunks, as an entry level thing - as people just really don't have the time of patience to read long explanations. I had a lot of trouble with the "Mystery Missile" story, and so I ended up telling it in kind of a picture story:
http://contrailscience.com/los-angeles-missile-contrail-explained-in-pictures/

But it almost seems like a single image info-graphic might be what's needed for immediate use.

Anyway, help me out here. Debunkers like Jay and myself have a mountain of facts at our fingertips - how do we effectively get those facts across?
 
Well, flying in loops seems suspicious.

Rosalind Peterson showed a map provided by the FAA which revealed how “intra-flights” – mainly of military origin – are flying in loops around counties in flight paths that differ substantially from normal airline trajectories. The flights have no meaningful purpose because they have no fixed destination, they merely fly around and around in circles.

Seems suspicious to whom? Flying in circles may also have meaningful purpose. The surveillance planes and refuelling tankers normally fly fixed circular or racetrack orbits during missions. Test flights usually begin and end in the same airport. Civil planes are regularly circling skies in the holding stacks near major airport etc.
 
SD, I confess that I'm not totally following your responses with regard to Jay's statements. He is saying that the main problem with the rainwater results by the Shasta group and others is not their methodology, documentation, etc. (although there are some problems there, too). It's in the conclusions that they draw from the results. The chemtrails activists (including Mangels and the Shasta group) frequently claim that there should be zero aluminum, barium, or strontium in rainwater samples. However, there is ample evidence in the scientific literature - including sampling results going back at least to the 1960s, well before believers think that "chemtrails" started - showing that this is a false claim. This documentation shows that is entirely normal for these elements to be in airborne dust and in rainfall, and indeed that the levels the chemtrails believers are finding are within the same range as has always been seen. This is another fundamental, provably false claim that they base their idea on: that there should be absolutely no amount of these trace metals in ordinary rainfall, therefore any detectable amount is extraordinary. It's disprovable with just a cursory literature search. See this thread for some examples: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow
Well, you have to have a belief or question before you test something. What they are doing is justifying their beliefs. To make my position clear, I agree with Jay that the conclusions of the Shasta tests do not provide ample evidence of chemtrails.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is nothing at all personal, SD, but I feel a little frustrated by responses like these. I originally set up contrailscience.com because it seemed like I could just put up all the explanations for the various "suspicious" things, and then the chemtrail theory would be over. But of course the best explanation in the world is useless if nobody reads it, or if nobody watches the video.

The explanation for looping contrails is here:

http://contrailscience.com/racetrack-contrails/

So my question to you is: what could I have done to help you find the answer to your question easier? Did you do a Google search after you saw the suspicious loops? What did you search for?

Did you look at Jay's link? Is it too boring looking? lacking in pictures (again, nothing personal here, it's just about effective communications, meta debunking).

I'm thinking that we really need some more visual debunks, as an entry level thing - as people just really don't have the time of patience to read long explanations. I had a lot of trouble with the "Mystery Missile" story, and so I ended up telling it in kind of a picture story:
http://contrailscience.com/los-angeles-missile-contrail-explained-in-pictures/

But it almost seems like a single image info-graphic might be what's needed for immediate use.

Anyway, help me out here. Debunkers like Jay and myself have a mountain of facts at our fingertips - how do we effectively get those facts across?

Good point Mick. Well, the short answer is... everybody does it. You made a forums before you had all the facts, and the facts accumulated. You did not research every possibility before having a discussion, because nobody can. That is what discussion is for. The long answer is... you would need to make a new thread for every single topic and moderate the threads heavily or have some type of automated system. This would take much more time and effort. To give the situation a happy outlook, I would say that I have at least done some research before discussion, and that I have made you ask a few questions yourself. I rarely bring up topics that have been answered but I understand how it is frustrating to get the same questions over and over from people. I am an individual here remember... So let's not try to think about this problem too much in our discussions unless it becomes a continuing issue.
 
Back
Top