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

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.

One can never have all the facts about a broad topic. So if people waited, then nothing would ever get done.

However:

I'm not trying to disprove chemtrails.

Sorry for shouting, but it's a key point you seem to be missing. I'm debunking. That means I look at the evidence, and I see what is bunk, and I explain why that particular bit it is bunk. My overall goal is to explain as best I can all the evidence presented in favor of chemtrails. It is not to present evidence proving they don't exist - simply to remove the bunk presented as evidence that they DO exist.

So my question is not about how I can prove they don't exist. It's about how I can more efficiently communicate things like the explanation for circular contrails, or Aluminum in soil, or the persistence of contrails.
 
One can never have all the facts about a broad topic. So if people waited, then nothing would ever get done.

However:

I'm not trying to disprove chemtrails.

Sorry for shouting, but it's a key point you seem to be missing. I'm debunking. That means I look at the evidence, and I see what is bunk, and I explain why that particular bit it is bunk. My overall goal is to explain as best I can all the evidence presented in favor of chemtrails. It is not to present evidence proving they don't exist - simply to remove the bunk presented as evidence that they DO exist.

So my question is not about how I can prove they don't exist. It's about how I can more efficiently communicate things like the explanation for circular contrails, or Aluminum in soil, or the persistence of contrails.

Point taken, but it begs the question as to why? Explaining things that are already proven are a distraction to debate... there is no debate, only indoctrination. I know that things that you do not have an explanation for can frustrating, but that is no reason to avoid debating the unknown. I might add that even if you personally are not trying to disprove chemtrails, the general mentality of the forum members here and the atmosphere of the forums and attitude of the members seems to give this the feeling of a chemtrail debunking forum, not a contrail explanation forum.

If you wanted to make a list of facts debunking the chemtrails, then you could have it made in html with links and such for the sources.
A forum, where users interact and add input, is not a good medium for facts that are not in question. No need to talk about obvious facts because anyone who dismisses an obvious fact is not worth debating, right?
 
SeriouslyDebatable, I can't shake off the impression that you are indeed demanding proof of non-existence when you write:
If you point me to tests of varves or ice cores that are explained, then I can research them.

I understand that what you actually have as the base for your working hypothesis is:

  1. some trails that look suspicious, and which you can't immediately explain
  2. some water tests by chemtrail activists that are not verifiable
  3. a list of bad deeds quite a while back in history
I think this is not a very strong case for even an initial suspicion. (Correct me when I missed an important point in the list.)

I'd like to bring up the same question that I asked George B:
Why assuming the extraordinary in view of the ordinary?

Is there an outside factor? A grudge from a previous disappointment? A sort of fascination with the idea of a secret global power (I'd call it a "Dan Brown Effect")?
 
SD, here is a video I created explaining how the results of the rainwater samples were normal, and since they were normal, there is no need to look further.
They thought they had proven something abnormal, yet what they proved was that everything was normal.
I'm not against going down any avenue like ice cores, but hope this can make my point in a visual way, in slightly over 2 minutes:

 
SeriouslyDebatable, I can't shake off the impression that you are indeed demanding proof of non-existence when you write:


I understand that what you actually have as the base for your working hypothesis is:

  1. some trails that look suspicious, and which you can't immediately explain
  2. some water tests by chemtrail activists that are not verifiable
  3. a list of bad deeds quite a while back in history
I think this is not a very strong case for even an initial suspicion. (Correct me when I missed an important point in the list.)

I'd like to bring up the same question that I asked George B:
Why assuming the extraordinary in view of the ordinary?

Is there an outside factor? A grudge from a previous disappointment? A sort of fascination with the idea of a secret global power (I'd call it a "Dan Brown Effect")?

I have no hypothesis...
Spraying people in secret, is extraordinary... no matter when it happened. This again is not an assumption. It really was not that long ago, and it was by a government that is still in power. To reiterate, I am not making assumptions. You however are. No offense or anything, just stop it!
 
SD, here is a video I created explaining how the results of the rainwater samples were normal, and since they were normal, there is no need to look further.
They thought they had proven something abnormal, yet what they proved was that everything was normal.
I'm not against going down any avenue like ice cores, but hope this can make my point in a visual way, in slightly over 2 minutes:



There are many types of tests that can be taken is all I am saying. If you are satisfied with the results of one type of test then that is fine. I am not putting all of my eggs in one basket. You do not have to pay for tests or do anything that you do not want to do. If your goal is to satisfy others, then you have some work to do.
 
Point taken, but it begs the question as to why? Explaining things that are already proven are a distraction to debate... there is no debate, only indoctrination. I know that things that you do not have an explanation for can frustrating, but that is no reason to avoid debating the unknown. I might add that even if you personally are not trying to disprove chemtrails, the general mentality of the forum members here and the atmosphere of the forums and attitude of the members seems to give this the feeling of a chemtrail debunking forum, not a contrail explanation forum.

If you wanted to make a list of facts debunking the chemtrails, then you could have it made in html with links and such for the sources.
A forum, where users interact and add input, is not a good medium for facts that are not in question. No need to talk about obvious facts because anyone who dismisses an obvious fact is not worth debating, right?

You seem to completely misunderstand what's going on here.

This IS a chemtrail debunking forum.

Chemtrail debunking means explaining which bits of the evidence proposed for the chemtrail theory are bunk, and communicating why they are bunk.
 
I have no hypothesis...
Spraying people in secret, is extraordinary... no matter when it happened. This again is not an assumption. It really was not that long ago, and it was by a government that is still in power. To reiterate, I am not making assumptions. You however are. No offense or anything, just stop it!

Do you understand what those previous "spraying people in secret" events actually were? Can you explain just how extraordinary they were?
 
So I must have misunderstood most of your postings. I thought you were suspecting that there is some secret spraying going on.

O.K. then.

Well That is a bit misleading.
I do not suspect that all persistent contrails are chemtrails, but I do suspect the government of keeping secrets.
 
You seem to completely misunderstand what's going on here.

This IS a chemtrail debunking forum.

Chemtrail debunking means explaining which bits of the evidence proposed for the chemtrail theory are bunk, and communicating why they are bunk.

Well why go to all the effort of proving that the results are bunk, if you could just prove that the tests themselves were bunk? We know aluminum is a natural part of the environment so there is no way to measure how much has been added in an accurate way by collecting rain water!
 
Jay I love that info...could you explain what study that was or how the samples were taken...or direct me to the original. Remember....I live right near 2 of the listed areas.
 
Here you go Gunguy45. It looks like the results of the Chemtrail Project's rainfall testing over on here
http://www.chemtrailsproject.com/

Note the distinct E-W differences, most of the rainwater results in the East have no or very little metals, and most of the ones in the West have some higher amounts.
Someone suggested on another thread that it may be because the East is wetter and has more vegetation compared to the West.
 
Well why go to all the effort of proving that the results are bunk, if you could just prove that the tests themselves were bunk? We know aluminum is a natural part of the environment so there is no way to measure how much has been added in an accurate way by collecting rain water!

Why not do both?
 
I've just found evidence of covert geoengineering in the first half of XIX century as recorded in tree rings::D

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7392/Padilla_K.pdf?sequence=1

Trace element concentration in tree-rings biomonitoring centuries of environmental change

Padilla KL, Anderson KA
Environmental and Molecular Toxicology Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis 97331, USA.
Chemosphere [2002, 49(6):575-585]

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) was used to examine trace element concentration in tree-rings over three and half centuries to assess macro-trends of environmental change. Tree-rings of a 350+ year old mammoth ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) were analyzed for element concentration and evaluated versus local and global historical events. The ponderosa pine was located 100 miles south of the Canada/USA border and 180 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, and grew near apple orchards, a public road, and Swakane Creek in western Washington, USA. The elements tested did not all display the same time versus concentration patterns. Copper and chromium displayed cyclic concentration patterns over the last 350+ years, which appear to be associated with local events. Strontium, barium, zinc and cadmium were found to be relatively constant between the mid 1600s and the early 1800s. Strontium, barium, zinc, and cadmium then increased beginning in the early 1800s for approximately 50 years then decreased to present day 2000. Significantly, similar changes seen in Ca, Mg, and Zn in other studies have been attributed to acid rain, whereas, in our study area there is no history of anthropogenic acid rain. Most importantly, our data goes back to the mid-1600s several hundred years further back than most other studies of this nature. This additional time data provides for a better context of trend data not previously available.
Content from External Source
Thanks for editing
 
(use
tags. it's the second icon from the end in the toolbar above)
Content from External Source
 
What if it were simply an inert and harmless tracer material, sprayed into the air to see how far it spreads? Is that extraordinary?
Yes, when the public was not informed and the fact that it was done was withheld for decades and was begrudgingly revealed in Congressional testimony about human experimentation . . . Zinc Cadmium Silfide was feared to cause some health issues . . . as was the supposed harmless bacteria released over San Francisco which is now a recognized nosocomial infection . . .
 
Yes, when the public was not informed and the fact that it was done was withheld for decades and was begrudgingly revealed in Congressional testimony about human experimentation . . . Zinc Cadmium Silfide was feared to cause some health issues . . . as was the supposed harmless bacteria released over San Francisco which is now a recognized nosocomial infection . . .

You know that at the time it was thought to be harmless. It was also done as military research for defense against biological and chemical weapons during the cold war, and so was classified. This is not extraordinary. It's secret research, thought to be safe - so no need to notify anyone.
 
You know that at the time it was thought to be harmless. It was also done as military research for defense against biological and chemical weapons during the cold war, and so was classified. This is not extraordinary. It's secret research, thought to be safe - so no need to notify anyone.
As defense against biological and chemical weapons . . . hmmmm. . . so drift patterns, fall rates, wind patterns, etc cannot be used for offense purposes . . .???
 
SD, here is a video I created explaining how the results of the rainwater samples were normal, and since they were normal, there is no need to look further.
They thought they had proven something abnormal, yet what they proved was that everything was normal.
I'm not against going down any avenue like ice cores, but hope this can make my point in a visual way, in slightly over 2 minutes:



That's great! Why is it unlisted? Lord knows that YouTube could use some videos like this. I think that the clip from WITWATS would fall under fair use.
 
We know aluminum is a natural part of the environment so there is no way to measure how much has been added in an accurate way by collecting rain water!
You could probably get some idea of whether the aluminum is from crustal sources (i.e. dust) or is proportionately elevated from other sources, by using a different reference element such as iron or silicon. Common practice is to use Al as the reference element for determining whether other elements are proportionately elevated from non-crustal sources in air and rainwater samples.
 
You know that at the time it was thought to be harmless. It was also done as military research for defense against biological and chemical weapons during the cold war, and so was classified. This is not extraordinary. It's secret research, thought to be safe - so no need to notify anyone.
I think at the time they thought it was expedient . . . and worth the known risks . . . as was spraying agent orange in Southeast Asia . . . and just maybe sulfur compounds in the stratosphere . . . harmless or at least worth the risks . . . you know . . . expedient . . .
 
That's great! Why is it unlisted? Lord knows that YouTube could use some videos like this. I think that the clip from WITWATS would fall under fair use.
I am refining and revising it, you can expect to be among the first to know when that is complete.
Jay
 
Now you got me confused. Does that mean that you assume that some persistant contrails are in fact chemtrails?

Assume and suspect have different meanings. I have chosen the adequate term to describe my position.

You know that at the time it was thought to be harmless. It was also done as military research for defense against biological and chemical weapons during the cold war, and so was classified. This is not extraordinary. It's secret research, thought to be safe - so no need to notify anyone.

What about the 80lbs of dry ice that was dumped into a hurricane that ended up crashing into into Georgia? Was that defense research against biological and chemical weapons? Was there any need to classify this? Was there NOT any need to notify anyone that they need to evacuate when the hurricane reversed course?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Atlantic_hurricane_season
The hurricane was noted for the first time hurricane seeding was conducted in the Atlantic basin by the United States Weather Bureau through an operation called Project Cirrus. A B-17 dropped 80 pounds (36 kg) of dry ice onto the storm from 500 feet above its cloudtop after it had moved 350 miles off Jacksonville. Shortly afterward, the storm reversed course and headed for Savannah. The scientists conducting the experiment believed they had caused this change, but it was shown a 1906 hurricane had followed a similar pattern.
 
You know that at the time it was thought to be harmless. It was also done as military research for defense against biological and chemical weapons during the cold war, and so was classified. This is not extraordinary. It's secret research, thought to be safe - so no need to notify anyone.

Was this thought to be safe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
In 1956 and 1957, several U.S. Army biological warfare experiments were conducted on the cities of Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida. In the experiments, Army bio-warfare researchers released millions of infected mosquitoes on the two towns, in order to see if the insects could potentially spread yellow fever and dengue fever. Hundreds of residents contracted a wide array of illnesses, including fevers, respiratory problems, stillbirths, encephalitis, and typhoid. Army researchers pretended to be public health workers, so that they could photograph and perform medical tests on the victims. Several people died as a result of the experiments.[10][46]
 
You know that at the time it was thought to be harmless. It was also done as military research for defense against biological and chemical weapons during the cold war, and so was classified. This is not extraordinary. It's secret research, thought to be safe - so no need to notify anyone.


How about this? (from the same link as the above post)
From 1950 through 1953, the US Army sprayed toxic (not thought to be harmless at the time) chemicals over six cities in the United States and Canada, in order to test dispersal patterns of chemical weapons. Army records stated that the chemicals which were sprayed on the city of Winnipeg, Canada, included zinc cadmium sulfide.[91]
 
I'm normally in favor of Wikipedia, but I think this particular article has many problems, for example:

In 1955, the CIA conducted a biological warfare experiment where they released whooping cough bacteria from boats outside of Tampa Bay, Florida, causing a whooping cough epidemic in the city, and killing at least 12 people.
Content from External Source


Is total speculative nonsense. Scientologists concocted this story, making a hugely tenuous connection between some receipts, and a worse than normal whooping cough season.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/630-Debunked-CIA-s-whooping-cough-experiment-in-1955-kills-12-people

And ZCS was though to be harmless in the concentrations used.

That's to say everything was fine, I'm sure they did things back then they would never get away with now. But people doing bad things in the past is only the slimmest of evidence that such things are going on now. Let's assume, for the sake of argument though, that there are bad people in power who would think nothing of spraying an unsuspecting population.

Then where the evidence that they are doing so?
 
Last edited:
"I'm sure they did things back then they would never get away with now."
You are SURE of their malicious intentions? Before you thought that they were acting in a safe manner... now you are SURE that they were being malicious?
I guess then no comment on the mosquitoes is necessary. It would seem that you already agree with me on that.

For the sake of argument... in the past... it has taken years to determine something nefarious is being done in secret.
The one thing that we DO know is that the SAME government that was caught doing these things before, has done them time and time again even when they were caught.
Your argument is in essence... How do we know they are still doing these things? Well of course we don't until they are actually caught, but there is no reason to believe that they have ceased doing these things, especially with no evidence of them ceasing. And no, that's not asking you to prove a negative... I mean I could go on for HOURS but how about we just use a little common sense here. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? Well the government is saying there is no wolf over and over.. and then getting caught releasing wolves... eventually no matter even if they are being truthful, you cannot believe them. this is all about TRUST... Do you TRUST the government? Trust is earned and the government has not done a GODDAMN thing to earn it from me.
 
In conclusion...

Do I have any CURRENT evidence of the government committing atrocities? No!
Do I have any PAST evidence of the government committing atrocities? Plenty!
Do I trust the current government to tell me the truth when that same government lied before? No!

Ya know it takes time to find out the truth... And just because we do not know what is going on right away does not mean that later down the line (sometimes many years later) that we won't find out... once again... that the government has been lying to us. At that point will you just dismiss it and say "well that was in the past"?

I might add, that past events are not slim evidence. A persons record is always brought into question when trying them for an accused/alleged crime. Why bother with a term such as REPEAT OFFENDERS in a court of law if it does not have any bearing on the case?
 
Well why go to all the effort of proving that the results are bunk, if you could just prove that the tests themselves were bunk? We know aluminum is a natural part of the environment so there is no way to measure how much has been added in an accurate way by collecting rain water!

Why not do both?

Because it's redundant. The latter option (debunk the tests) is more simple, more time efficient, and more effective than debunking the results. Even worse, debating results from a flawed test is ... pointless, a distraction and a waste of time.
 
"I'm sure they did things back then they would never get away with now."
You are SURE of their malicious intentions? Before you thought that they were acting in a safe manner... now you are SURE that they were being malicious?

No, I'm just sure someone did something back then that was not entirely legal.

When I said they though they were safe, I was referring to the ZCS and bateria analogs they used to test dispersement.

I guess then no comment on the mosquitoes is necessary. It would seem that you already agree with me on that.
No. I'm lumping that in with the rest of the weak Wikipedia article. What actually happened was the army released a large number of uninfected lab-raised mosquitos. Then they simply asked people in the area (who were notified of the experiment) if they got bitten more than normal.
http://books.google.com/books?id=R3996-ouQX0C&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

Do you TRUST the government? Trust is earned and the government has not done a GODDAMN thing to earn it from me.
No I don't. Let's take that as read. And move on to other evidence.

I might add, that past events are not slim evidence. A persons record is always brought into question when trying them for an accused/alleged crime. Why bother with a term such as REPEAT OFFENDERS in a court of law if it does not have any bearing on the case?
Not entirely correct. Prior criminal record is generally not admissible evidence except for fraud. After 10 years even less so. See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_609


Because it's redundant. The latter option (debunk the tests) is more simple, more time efficient, and more effective than debunking the results. Even worse, debating results from a flawed test is ... pointless, a distraction and a waste of time.

Sure, but many of the tests were not flawed, just the interpretation results. So you've got both types of debunking required.
 
No, I'm just sure someone did something back then that was not entirely legal.

I love how you downplay the word "illegal" by instead saying "not entirely legal"


No. I'm lumping that in with the rest of the weak Wikipedia article. What actually happened was the army released a large number of uninfected lab-raised mosquitos. Then they simply asked people in the area (who were notified of the experiment) if they got bitten more than normal.
http://books.google.com/books?id=R3996-ouQX0C&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

Probably a lie. "the army proclaimed the mosquitoes to be uninfected." Taken from page 29 of that link. This proclamation does not explain how all those people became infected, and a proclamation is not evidence, it is a claim. The infections happened at the exact same time as the study... This reminds me of the 7/7 bombings, although obviously in a different way.


No I don't. Let's take that as read. And move on to other evidence.
If the army proclaims they did not do something, then you consider it debunked... to me this is trust. What do you call it?


Not entirely correct. Prior criminal record is generally not admissible evidence except for fraud. After 10 years even less so. See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_609

I am speaking of the concept, not the specifics. Also.. the "three strikes and you're out" law applies to everything, not just fraud.




Sure, but many of the tests were not flawed, just the interpretation results. So you've got both types of debunking required.
Only on those specific tests which are not flawed would this be the case, otherwise both types of testing are not required... Which tests do you refer to? Which tests are not fundamentally flawed? I am talking about the rainwater tests here...
 
Probably a lie. "the army proclaimed the mosquitoes to be uninfected." Taken from page 29 of that link. This proclamation does not explain how all those people became infected, and a proclamation is not evidence, it is a claim. The infections happened at the exact same time as the study...

All what people? What evidence is there that anyone became infected because of this experiment? What evidence is there that "Several people died as a result of the experiments."

I don't trust the government. I look at evidence. I debunk bunk.
 
Assume and suspect have different meanings. I have chosen the adequate term to describe my position.
Hmm, I don't want to debate semantics with you. So you suspect that some persistant contrails are in fact chemtrails.

You do so on the base of these arguments:
  1. some trails that look suspicious, and which you can't immediately explain
  2. some water tests by chemtrail activists that are not verifiable
  3. a list of bad (illegal or whatever) deeds quite a while back in history
This is still a somewhat weak case.

Again, why suspecting the extraordinary in view of the ordinary?

What would a judge say if your arguments were presented to him?
 
Back
Top