Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations

Ok, if we can start with this...

I'll do my best to precis the argument without prejudice.

I think it's fair to say this: there are basically two sides to this argument; all comments must be considered to be subjective because they are made in the context of a lack of definitive proof for either side in the debate.

On one side: there is a body of people who believe that changes in the visual appearance and performance of plumes from jet aircraft over the past 10-15 years(1) are part of an effort at geo-engineering and/or affiliate programs, mainly taking place within the countries of NATO. These programs are believed to be of the nature of releasing particulate matter from aircraft for a variety of possible reasons.
1. The 'changes' perceived are: condensation trails from jet aircraft are spreading to form artificial cloud cover considerably more frequently in this time than previously

On the other side: are those who believe that the changes in the visual appearance and performance of plumes from jet aircaft are due to more efficient modern jet engine technology and a general increase in worldwide air traffic.


Can we agree on that before I go any further? By all means make suggestions if you think that's not a fair appraisal. ta
 
Actually I would not agree, except on the perception part. I would say that it is quite possible that we do have more contrails than 15 years ago. People can percieve anything they want however, and it is pointless arguing perceptions, memories and feelings.

Its much better to debate things of a verifiable and quantifiable nature. Like if chemtrailers had documentation of different/more contrails, rather than just "believe me, I have great memory"
 
I think you also need to take into account the vast majority of people who have not noticed any particular change with contrails, or even really noticed them at all.

I think trying to split a complex situation into two camps is not accurate.

There is a very significant potion of chemtrail believers who think there were NEVER any persistent contrails before they first noticed them, then there are those who simply think there are more now. Then there are those who think there were more once, but now there are less as they have cloaked them somehow. Also not everyone thinks they are for geoengineering. Some people think it's for HAARP so it can make earthquakes, some think it's a poison delivery system, some thing very odd things indeed. Some people think it's sprayed from the engines, some from tail, some from the wings, some from pipes underneath the plane. Some think it's done by unmarked planes, some by planes disguised as passenger planes, and some by regular passenger planes.

On the non-chemtrails side, there are those who think that the actual increase in contrails have lead to increased awareness of them, and then there's those, like me, who think a far more important factor is simply the awareness of the chemtrail theory making people notice them for the first time (especially since 99% of the population pays them no mind).

Consider, before you go any further, that when a straw poll was taken on the conspiracy site Above Top Secret, more than half of those who responded said that they remember seeing contrails just like "chemtrails" when they were young.
 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread708238/pg1

I’m 52 and I remember seeing them all the time when I was a kid in the ’60′s. I remember because I asked my dad, who was an engineer, to explain to me what caused them.

Yeah, I gotcha, many times for hours. Maybe most of the day, I don’t know, I never spent that much time looking at em.

I’m not epic old, but I do remember some contrails lasting for hours, arching over the sky and you could follow it right to the horizon.

The Glynco Naval Air Station was working in full force when I was born in 1947.
I am also in between Savannah and Jacksonville that are both homes to military air stations.
Yes I remember the contrails growing up and enjoyed seeing the jets in the sky.
We had many sightings a day due to being so close to the ocean,

I used to sky watch all the time with my friends when we were little kids… we all remember contrails in the sky and them lasting for a few minutes, perhaps up to an hour, but not the whole day, not EVER.

im not much older than you op im 25 and remember seeing them as a kid in the early 90s. i would watch as a plane approched a contrail and expected them to crash when it hit them.

I’m 51 & live in the South Pacific.
Down here there was only 1 overhead air route when I was a kid – between 2 cities 200 miles north & 200 miles south (and it’s still the same there now). I remember seeing long contrails along that route before I started working – so in the early 70′s and late 60′s – sometimes the one from the flight in 1 direction would still be there when the a/c went back in the opposite direction an hour later.
I remember them spreading out a little – but not over the “whole sky”

I’m in my 40s and grew up in SW PA. I used to love looking into the summer sky and seeing long CONTRAILs. I would follow them across the sky to see if the plane was still in the air. This isn’t a new phenomenon, they’ve been around for as long as I can remember!
This would be in the 70s. Yes, the skies around Pittsburgh weren’t THAT bad. You have to remember that the Steel mills were starting to shut down and the air quality started to improve.

I have been looking at blue skies for over 60 years. I can remember looking at a certain amount of contrails all my life. The sky was blue and I mean blue and sunny on a summers day. 15 years ago I started working what I call vampire hours. I slept alot of the days away and up about all night. I didn’t get to see much of the sky. This past year I have found myself unemployeed like so many others. I would get up in the morning to a nice spring or summer day which didn’t last past 10 am. I kept wondering what had changed I knew something had. Some days I will see contrails going in all directions within an hour the sky will be like a sheer white veil and never see the blue and sunny sky again. … I really miss my nice mornings and sunny skies.

I’ve been around for a while, now, and here in the inter-mountain west and the northern high plains I see no difference in the behavior of contrails. There are certainly MORE of them than in the 60′s and 70′s but they act the same as far as I can tell. And you can see a l-o-n-g way from a mountain top!

I’m 50, from Indiana US. I remember contrails just as they are today from my childhood. I had an interest in the planes over my head because my father commuted by plane for most of my childhood. There is always the wonder if Dad is in that plane over head. There are absolutely more planes now.

I was in the USAF from 1990 to 1996. I remember having a guy come into our unit that had a BS in aeronautical engineering, but he was enlisted. I was amazed that he didn’t apply for OCS since he would be able to. Anyway, me being a guy who didn’t have a BS I thought he would be a wealth of knowledge for the many questions I had. (there was no Google back then) I asked him why some contrails lasted a long time and why some went away quickly. He didn’t know. Now either he didn’t pay attention in class, or they didn’t teach him about that, but it doesn’t matter. I clearly remember being interested enough to ask this question in the early 90′s. Being 43 now, I have a hard time remembering what I had for breakfast, but that one memory seems to validate that persistent contrails have been around for a bit.

I’m only 37, but I do have a pilot’s license, and I have stared at the sky since I was old enough to roll over!
There are more lines, because we have more air traffic. Much, much, much more air traffic.
The lines are more persistent because the airliners are flying higher and faster than ever before. Plus, with more lines, the lines tend to drift and combine and kind of form a high hazy layer.

used to lie on my back and watch them fly over in the late 70′s early 80′s, the contrails would last or not as often as they do here now

I am 48 and I also remember watching airplanes with their contrails in the air but not in a way that I could play virtual chess with them.

I’m an old fart, I saw JFK’s funeral procession on b&w TV as a boy. I was very much a sky watcher in my youth but I do not recall if there was always mist behind planes. I know I’ve seen trails behind planes for a very long time, nothing new.

As a kid in the 70′s and 80′s I remember watching the contrails form behind aircraft high up in the sky. I mean so high you couldn’t always see the aircraft at the front making it. But I don’t remember them lasting all day or spreading out the way they do now. They seem to form lower these days too.

1st time i notified was around the age of 7, in 1984-85.
They lasted long enough.

I’m in my mid forties and don’t remember seeing long lasting contrails in the skies when I was at school.
I don’t remember it snowing before 1979 either.

No I don’t remember so many lines in the sky, before I ever had the internet, quite a few years ago now, I started noticing them, and no one influenced me.

There is no damn way chemtrails have been around since planes started flying. i used to see planes once in awhile with a normal contrail when I was a kid. Still see normal ones today. The ones where the ice melts about a mile behind the plane. I’d say 91 was the year we started seeing this crap that stretches across the sky intersecting all across the sky. Lingers allday long. No it was not always so. Any one who says it was. Is nothing more than wrong

Mid 30′s here and I remember bluer skies, then again when your younger everything seems brighter and more colorful.
Winters were alot colder and summers seemed cooler.
 
or flown by Reptilians in UFOs, Bilderbergers, NWO, UN, FEMA, etc etc etc.

There is no single chemtrail theory, and thats their huge issue. Its all up to the individual to craft their own version, based on their particular feelings. And some day they noticed in 10 years ago, or some say the skies changed from 5 years ago, or some say it changed from last year. Again, no coherency.

If they want to argue the skies have changed since the 60s, thats probably true. Visual air quality in places like southern California is substantially better now than before. Lots more emission contrails for both gases and particulates. Those kinds kinds of things can be measured, quantified, and documented. Thats when you can debate actual substance, rather than trying to argue with someones memories.
 
Yes, when the range of "when it started" goes from one to 20 years, it's hard to say it happened suddenly, or even that it "happened" at all.

There is no damn way chemtrails have been around since planes started flying. i used to see planes once in awhile with a normal contrail when I was a kid. Still see normal ones today. The ones where the ice melts about a mile behind the plane. I’d say 91 was the year we started seeing this crap that stretches across the sky intersecting all across the sky. Lingers allday long. No it was not always so. Any one who says it was. Is nothing more than wrong
 
ok

Obviously, I thought that summed it up quite well, but fair enough. I was attempting a precis of the main thrust of the argument, as part of the problem here might be a lack of structure to the debate. It's all too easy to divert from the main point, which just leads to a bunch of one-armed rowers in a small pond, ie. nowhere. Instead of giving me loads of information, why don't you attempt a more accurate precis of the argument? Structured in the same way as I wrote it, for comparison.
 
A) Some people think that some of the trails we see in the sky are not contrails, and they label them "chemtrails"
B) Some of them think that there were never trials like this, but other think there are just more now.
C) They give a variety of explanations as to what is behind this, secret geoengineering is a popular explanation
D) Scientists say that it's just contrails.

I think though, instead of focussing on the argument, which is well known, you might want to focus on the evidence?

Consider also that millions of people believing in something is not good evidence of its existence. Millions of people believe in demons, but there's no evidence they exist.
 
ok

A) Some people think that some of the trails we see in the sky are not contrails, and they label them "chemtrails"
B) Some of them think that there were never trials like this, but other think there are just more now.
C) They give a variety of explanations as to what is behind this, secret geoengineering is a popular explanation
D) Scientists say that it's just contrails.

I think though, instead of focussing on the argument, which is well known, you might want to focus on the evidence?

Consider also that millions of people believing in something is not good evidence of its existence. Millions of people believe in demons, but there's no evidence they exist.

I think you're already showing your preferences in your A-D. It's not true to say all scientists say it's just contrails. Some do, others disagree. Focusing the argument is important - we've got agree to frame the parameters of this, don't we? I'm trying hard to stick to the neutral in framing the argument.
Think would be fair to say that 'millions of people believing in something is not good evidence of its existence', is correct. But it might be fairer to say: millions of people believing in something is not necessarily good evidence of its existence. Would you agree?
 
and...

...maybe we should get this out of the way...

Are you fundamentally disagreeing with the existence of the proliferation of 'persistent contrails' and subsequent cloud production being increased over the last 10-15 years?
 
No, millions of people believing in something is not good evidence of its existence. The only way you could say if could be is if that belief is based on evidence, and you've got good reason to believe that the people are basing their belief on that evidence.

Millions of people believe Obama is a Muslim.

Can you give a counter example - where the existence of anything is bolstered only by the number of people who believe in it?

Some scientists believe in demons, levitation, ESP, Reptilian royals. All kinds of crazy stuff. Finding one or two people with degrees that support a belief does not hold up against the vast majority of all scientists, who make an argument based on evidence.

Of course, many people in the conspiracy culture like to frame everything as a balanced argument. But as someone said:

If a mathematician says 2+2=4 and a biologist says 2+2=5, then the answer does not lay somewhere in-between.

It's all about the evidence.
 
...maybe we should get this out of the way...

Are you fundamentally disagreeing with the existence of the proliferation of 'persistent contrails' and subsequent cloud production being increased over the last 10-15 years?

No, not at all. It's probably at least doubled (over 15 years)

I just don't think it's that huge a factor in the growth of the chemtrail theory. A factor, certainly, but not the biggest factor.
 
k

No, millions of people believing in something is not good evidence of its existence. The only way you could say if could be is if that belief is based on evidence, and you've got good reason to believe that the people are basing their belief on that evidence.

Millions of people believe Obama is a Muslim.

Can you give a counter example - where the existence of anything is bolstered only by the number of people who believe in it?

Some scientists believe in demons, levitation, ESP, Reptilian royals. All kinds of crazy stuff. Finding one or two people with degrees that support a belief does not hold up against the vast majority of all scientists, who make an argument based on evidence.

Of course, many people in the conspiracy culture like to frame everything as a balanced argument. But as someone said:



It's all about the evidence.

There's a subtle difference in the two texts. Sometimes belief is based on evidence and that is why 'necessarily' makes it fairer. Again, getting bogged down in irrelevances brought in to dilute the point. I couldn't care less, either way, but can you prove, beyond refutation, that Obama is not a muslim?
Galileo got in deep with the catholics when he suggested some of the things he did - forbidden by the Inquisition to further his work on pain of death. So sometimes, some people consider evidence as heresy. It just goes to show that sometimes scientists at the cutting edge of theory are ridiculed, and much worse. Without those people where would we be? You know now better than I what might happen next. You are 'in the conspiracy culture', aren't you? My mind is open, is yours?
 
I would say he is, he just asked you to give proof and evidence. There is nothing close minded about wanting claimed to be backed up.

On the other hand, chemtrailers consistently disregard and ignore proof and evidence all the time, which is entirely "closed minded". If Mick was closed minded, he would be saying "i dont care what your proof and evidence is, I know what I see" or something like that. :)
 
z

Pleased to hear that you agree with that last at least, but I'm beginning to think that there's little point continuing. Looking back at my precis, I think it makes a good, fair starting point for the discussion, but it's not really a discussion you want, I guess. What you're looking for is to let someone make a point so that you can refute it. Is that right?
 
ok

I would say he is, he just asked you to give proof and evidence. There is nothing close minded about wanting claimed to be backed up.

On the other hand, chemtrailers consistently disregard and ignore proof and evidence all the time, which is entirely "closed minded". If Mick was closed minded, he would be saying "i dont care what your proof and evidence is, I know what I see" or something like that. :)

I think Mick's perfectly capable of speaking for himself. I don't really understand your point. What claims have I made? You can't even discuss with me in broad, neutral terms a precis of the argument. Your prejudice is clear from this statement. 'chemtrailers' this and that - what does that achieve?
 
You can't prove anything absolutely. You especially can't prove an absence. I can't prove that there are not robot cats roaming my neighborhood at night. I can't prove that Obama does not consider himself a Muslim deep in his heart.

But that's not really the point. The point here is about evidence.

What's the evidence for a hypothesis?
What's the evidence against a hypothesis?
What's the balance of the evidence?

Let's say I hypothesize that there are robot cats running around my neighborhood. My evidence is:

1) I see lots of cats in my neighborhood.
2) I only know of one neighbor that has a cat (I think that one is real, but can't tell with some dangerous experiments)
3) I've never seen the cats eat, drink, or pee.
4) The cats never seem to get older
5) I don't remember seeing this many cats before
6) Robot cats exist
7) The government has experimented with quadruped robot locomotion
8) The government has experimented with using small natural robots for spying on people
9) The cats eye glow in the dark
10) The are lots of patents for robot cats, quadruped robots, and autonomous surveillance robots
11) The government has no qualms about spying on its citizens.

Now you are a reasonable person. You could probably debunk all the evidence there. You could probably go even further, and not the absence of evidence for robots cats - specifically if there had been several robot cats roaming my neighborhood, then it's almost impossible that one of them would not have broken down, or been attacked by dogs, or have to have had its batteries recharged, and someone would have noticed.

The quality of evidence and argument for chemtrails is very similar to that for robots cats. The only major difference is that the chemtrail theory has become popular.

Your unwillingness to talk about the evidence says to me that you know that the evidence is very weak, and you are only interested in critiquing my cognitive biases and my motivation, and raising semantic objections.

I'd prefer to talk about the evidence. Do you have any evidence you want to talk about?
 
On one side: there is a body of people who believe that changes in the visual appearance and performance of plumes from jet aircraft over the past 10-15 years(1) are part of an effort at geo-engineering and/or affiliate programs, mainly taking place within the countries of NATO.

NATO is sometimes mentioned as a factor - but there are persistant contrails and chemtail believers all over the world - her's one particularly suggestable woman in New Zealand (suggestible in that she believes in every conspiracy going) - http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/

And you can find reports of chemtrails from pretty much everywhere there is jet trafic - Russia, China, Iran - this forum post from 2004 - http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002038.html - says it shows:

Chemtrails over Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Italy, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
 
Here are the two sides:

Look at the trails in the sky!

1) We're being sprayed like bugs!
2) Meh They're contrails.

Also
3) Wow! I never noticed them before.

Actually, they are contrails. Really, they are. There is no evidence that they're anything else.
 
I have an item for which it is possible for 'Dave'to provide evidence for this claim he makes:

This goes against my 'professional', and possibly even ethical, boundaries, but I feel compelled to share this with you.
I have conducted a little bit of research - entering your 'discussion' and another on the opposite side of this argument and taking up a fairly reasonable, but contradictory, position to the general flow. This is for my own reasons and they don't need to be divulged here. You'd probably try to tell me I'm wrong, even when there is no right to contrast it.

You do no better than some on the opposing side of this 'discussion', if that's what it is. Generally, and this is the point, those holding the contrary position to yours on this issue are more amenable to a more rounded discourse, less likely to back-track, obfuscate or bend the truth of something that is pointed out.

So, 'Dave', you claim that you have engaged in another discussion with chemtrails believers wherein you took a contradictory stance, and that they were more reasonable than we are.

Hopefully, you didn't come back and start posting under multiple alaises like you did here, or maybe you just didn't get caught.
Nevertheless, I'd like to see how you fare as a real debunker. If you are so good, we should all be able to learn something from you. Since you are fair minded and want to critique us, why shouldn't it be fair that we critique you?

Where is your evidence for the claim you made?

Give us a link to the discussion so that we can evaluate your claim for ourselves based on the evidence.

If you are not able to provide evidence for your claim, how can we be sure the events even took place?
After all, here is that issue of trust to restore.......
 
I once got banned from a chemtrail site for saing that red clouds weer an optical phenomena - literally nothing more than that - and linking to wiki. & Am banned from Clare Swinney's "Chemtrails New Zealand" above, and also from Tanker Enemy's youtube channel.....

So I'm sure if he's had any discussion on a chemmie site it's been more fruitful than mine!!
 
pussy robots are everywhere!

Let's say I hypothesize that there are robot cats running around my neighborhood. My evidence is:

1) I see lots of cats in my neighborhood.
2) I only know of one neighbor that has a cat (I think that one is real, but can't tell with some dangerous experiments)
3) I've never seen the cats eat, drink, or pee.
4) The cats never seem to get older
5) I don't remember seeing this many cats before
6) Robot cats exist
7) The government has experimented with quadruped robot locomotion
8) The government has experimented with using small natural robots for spying on people
9) The cats eye glow in the dark
10) The are lots of patents for robot cats, quadruped robots, and autonomous surveillance robots
11) The government has no qualms about spying on its citizens.

Sounds like you've got an infestation of fourth generation PussBot Sv's. I knew that giving them the ability to procreate would be a disaster. They should've stuck with the Gen3 models and just sorted out the glowing eye problem. It's just typical of those military geneticists, they can't help themselves.
You can easily differentiate between real cats and PussBots - put out two saucers, one with milk, the other with 3-in-1 oil and wait. To render a PussBot4 inactive, you must take a live electrical cable and place it in the PussBot's third eye, which is located where a real cat has its anus, so best to approach from the side!
 
you see how you've made up your mind?

Sorry about that last, Mick. I couldn't resist! You were actually starting to convince me there might be something in it! The evidence is compelling. I think you should try the 'two bowls' trick.

Here are the two sides:

Look at the trails in the sky!

1) We're being sprayed like bugs!
2) Meh They're contrails.

Also
3) Wow! I never noticed them before.

Actually, they are contrails. Really, they are. There is no evidence that they're anything else.

So, there's no point in a discussion. Mick says it's impossible to prove a negative, and he's spot on. But what about this? How have you managed to prove this negative, and against a supposed 'theory' which not two of you can agree to define? I'm afraid that, 'they're contrails, really they are', doesn't fit the scientific criterion you propound.
Taking into acccount the paltry evidence there is for your beliefs. That being, 1) increased air traffic and 2) more efficient engines that, as the data shows, only allows for trails to be produced over a few hundred feet difference from the old ones, and that's being generous.
You might be interested, if you don't know, that the video (5 mins long) on one of the other threads, supposedly explaining the phenomenon in those terms, uses a piece of footage also used by another film from the 'other side'. It's only a glimpse of the whole (at about 20 secs in your version), but it shows, quite clearly, three trails being laid in 'formation', first one stops, then another, the third continues until the film stops. What's interesting about that footage, for me, is that the vehicles being used are flying a military formation (a triangle, one at front two behind), and, on the longer video presented by the 'other side', you can clearly see that the vehicle in front shows no indication of being a conventional aircraft. I think you might like to tell whoever made that film that this piece of footage is what we call 'a wrong 'un'. If those were regular trails, those aircraft were cruising for a fair old time with no power. I think Mr I Newton might have something to say about that. It's just a thought.
 
You can prove a negative. I can prove there's no kitten in the coffe cup on my desk, very easily.

What you can't prove is

A) A universal absence (I can't prove there are no unicorns anywhere in the world)
B) An absence in a context you have no access to (I can't prove there's no kitten in the white house, because they won't let me check)
C) An absence in the past (I can't prove there never was a kitten in my coffee cup)

(C is related to B, but the past is more definitively inaccessible than places are)

Now, regarding your video. Can you conceive of a reason for contrails to form like that? Given that you know that contrail formation conditions can very in a few feet vertically.
 
ok

You can prove a negative. I can prove there's no kitten in the coffe cup on my desk, very easily.

What you can't prove is

A) A universal absence (I can't prove there are no unicorns anywhere in the world)
B) An absence in a context you have no access to (I can't prove there's no kitten in the white house, because they won't let me check)
C) An absence in the past (I can't prove there never was a kitten in my coffee cup)

(C is related to B, but the past is more definitively inaccessible than places are)

Now, regarding your video. Can you conceive of a reason for contrails to form like that? Given that you know that contrail formation conditions can very in a few feet vertically.

Watch this on 'proving a negative' - at the least it'll make you laugh (8mins). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

He has some stuff to say about 'debunking' you might find interesting.

Re: trails. I can think of a couple of viable reasons why trails might form like that. I forgot to say, btw, that all three trails start simultaneously. You should have a look at the longer version, if you haven't. 1) the aircraft are at the margins of waves of moisture at altitude, or 2) they are performing a well choreographed exercise in the intentional release of matter which makes the trails visible.
It's impossible to say definitively that either of these theories are correct or incorrect. I think, given the abruptness of the off/on/off factor; the formation appearing to be military (it's pretty certain it's not civil) and therefore altitudes quite likely to be very very close together; and the apparent longevity of the trails, that on the balance of probabilities (no perfect measure, but there isn't much else to go on), the latter appears more likely. I'm sure you'll disagree
 
Would you be happier if airspace rules were changed, so that no aircraft were allowed in 5 miles laterally of any other aircraft at all times, no matter what altitude they were at? What about if airliners were required to fly at altitudes that would not result in contrails?
 
I rest my case

You can prove a negative. I can prove there's no kitten in the coffe cup on my desk, very easily.

What you can't prove is

A) A universal absence (I can't prove there are no unicorns anywhere in the world)
B) An absence in a context you have no access to (I can't prove there's no kitten in the white house, because they won't let me check)
C) An absence in the past (I can't prove there never was a kitten in my coffee cup)

(C is related to B, but the past is more definitively inaccessible than places are)

Now, regarding your video. Can you conceive of a reason for contrails to form like that? Given that you know that contrail formation conditions can very in a few feet vertically.

I think Mick might have given up. I think you might do well to give up altogether, if you stop to think about what you're doing in context of the above. Particular attention should be given to this bit: What you can't prove is B) An absence in a context you have no access to
Absolutely right. You have, perhaps unwittingly, demonstrated with this truth the absolutely pointless nature of what you're doing here. Maybe that's why it's gone all quiet; you stopped to think.
 
Given up? Given up on what? I don't think you really understand what we are doing here.

It's debunking. It's identifying and removing bunk.

That can be done in very clear, unequivocal, and helpful manner. And that has been done time and time again both here and on contrailscience.com.
 
Sorry but no, that does not wash at all, and its silly. Chemtrailers like to trot out the "its secret so you cant prove its not going on". But then if it it secret, then how do you chemtrailers know?

Oh yeah, its because you saw contrails! And some of them lasted, or there were a lot some morning along the same route, or there were a whole bunch on this cold winter day. NOTHING that you chemtrailers claim, is is sinister, except to you all.

Does it not seem a bit alarming, that those who believe in chemtrails, know little to nothing about aviation, and those who know about aviation, do not believe in chemtrails?
 
Case orange refers to this message board thread:
http://www.airwork.nl/bulletinboard/showthread.php?t=6001

I have seen a machine translation, but would be interested in a more accurate human one.
The tone I got was humorous, and scoffing, yet it seemed designed to lead chemies on.

As I recall, there are some pages of the complete thread quoted in the Case Orange appendix, but there was something fishy about the page numbers and selective use of pages quoted to make it appear less like a bunch of pilots just having some fun with chemtrail believers.
 
Yes, it seems the Case Orange author lacks a sense of humor. One wonders why they didn't simply ask the various people in that thread what was going on. Or actually ask a Dutch pilot to translate.
 
I think they didn't ask because most chemtrail believers actively avoid any possibility that they may experience cognitive dissonance.
It hurts like sunlight to vampires.
This is also why the hard-core usually stick with their own kind and become hostile when they experience contradictory information.
I see it clearly enough at contrailscience.com when you get those hit-and-run responses that run back to the hive.

From what I see in that thread, some of the posters have thousands of posts and still post today.
Most of them likely speak excellent english. But what if they did respond, to the paranoid CT mind that could just be another cover-up.... another way to avoid the issue altogether, except they couldn't help grasping at the straw, so long as most people never actually evaluated what was being said. That is why I'd like to again see the selective quotes that were in the "Case Orange" appendix. I recall something fishy...., something truncated, something left out.
 
In Case Orange the posts are sorted newest first, and they show only page 3 of 4, so they lists posts #32 to #71 in reverse chronological order (#71 first). Other than that is seems like an accurate print-out.
 
Interestingly enough, that group points out how a lot of chemtrail sites post nonsense, and it uses Contrail Science as a reference of good information
 
Yes, Mick, the reverse order and lack of context by not including the first and last pages is what I remember. I just finished reviewing the whole thingmachine translated and as bad as it is, you can see the pilots were goofing around, they saw that some chemtrail believers were reading, and then really started "getting creative", but in a facetious way so that the joke was obvious, even in machine translation. The name Arnold Burlage kept coming up. Turns out he's a critical Aviation writer at the newspaper, and the butt of many jokes.

You know, "Case Orange" is another case where sometimes I wonder if hoaxers from diverse positions play a part.
What if there really is anonymous person(s?) who created this?
Wat if Vereeke really has no idea who wrote it?

If you think about who it really benefits, it is not really the chemmies, nor is it their skeptics, exactly.

Who benefits?

Considering:
a) the fairly accurate portrayal of contrail science in general,
b) and contrailscience.com in particular,
c) and with a bit of anti-geoengineering,
d) yet with enough bunk thrown in to discredit the chemtrail hype

Could be the anti-aviation activists who are against contrails/pollution but don't believe in chemtrails that are behind it?

There are people who stand in exactly that position. I know exactly who some of them are. This was a fairly big job to put together 300 pages.

If they want to come clean, they can.

Time might tell who was behind it, or it may always remain a mystery.
 
radiosonde data

Press Alt Mt Temp Dew RH
hPa C C

247.0 10689 -50.9 -56.9 49
238.0 10929 -52.5 -60.0 40
235.0 11011 -53.1 -61.1 37
231.0 11120 -54.0 -62.0 37
208.0 11786 -59.3 -67.3 35
205.0 11876 -60.0 -68.3 33
200.0 12030 -61.1 -70.1 29
199.0 12061 -61.1 -70.1 29
195.0 12188 -61.1 -70.1 29
191.0 12315 -61.7 -71.3 27

Could somone here tell me what I might expect to see with regard to aircraft trails given this set of radiosonde data? The heights are 35,000ft to 40,500ft, the corridor in which most commercial traffic operates. Thanks
 
Back
Top