Max Bliss debates chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you hear the words "proof" or that they evidence proven by an "expert" or "scientist" it can mean a lot of different things.


Arguing with his followers is useless, they all come at you with the same arguments, all drawn from the same pot, among others:

1) "What in the World are they Spraying?"
2) HR2977
3) Weisbach Patent
4) HAARP
5) Videos of normal contrails, fuel dumping, skywriting, the Evergreen Supertanker; anything is fair game to be passed off as a "chemtrail operation."
6) Pictures of the ballast tanks in test airliners
7) KC-10 Sprayer video
8) "Look up!", "The skies didn't used to look like that!" etc..

It is sort of like a vicious cycle that keeps repeating itself. When you reason with them they call you names in the hopes of shouting you down, and when that fails they just block you or delete your posts. Reading all those posts from the members of the movement, who are fully ready and willing to shoot down commercial airliners filled with innocent men, women and children, should be an indication of their maniacal obsession.
 
And it's usually on point 8 most discussions get stuck because you cannot refute a believers emotional experience with facts they believe is disinformation.
 
Last edited:
mrfintoil said:
And it's usually on point 8 most discussions get stuck because you cannot refute a believers emotional experience with fact they believe is disinformation.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's certainly been my experience. You can explain all the science, but it's very hard to get past "you can't tell me what I saw".
 
Mick West said:
Yes, that's certainly been my experience. You can explain all the science, but it's very hard to get past "you can't tell me what I saw".
Click to expand...

That is exactly the end response I would get from people who thought the sun had set in the wrong place. They think you are trying to get them to disbelieve their own eyes. They just don't seem to to grasp the concept of interpretation of what they see.
 
KC-10FE said:
When you hear the words "proof" or that they evidence proven by an "expert" or "scientist" it can mean a lot of different things.


Arguing with his followers is useless, they all come at you with the same arguments, all drawn from the same pot, among others:

1) "What in the World are they Spraying?"
2) HR2977
3) Weisbach Patent
4) HAARP
5) Videos of normal contrails, fuel dumping, skywriting, the Evergreen Supertanker; anything is fair game to be passed off as a "chemtrail operation."
6) Pictures of the ballast tanks in test airliners
7) KC-10 Sprayer video
8) "Look up!", "The skies didn't used to look like that!" etc..
Click to expand...

Don't forget "Owning the Weather by 2025"...
 
upload_2014-2-24_13-21-6.png

Max still ranting at the sky! His latest analysis/update on how the spraying is being accomplished is contained within the first 2 minutes 30 seconds.

upload_2014-2-24_13-24-2.png

 
So, an additive is mixed with fuel, stored in a central wing tank and can then be injected (as an aerosol) into the exhaust stream to produce smoke which creates trails to dim the sun. This a clandestine operation to combat global warming except it's not, the governements have been hoodwinked by the NWO into carrying out this clandestine operation to actually decimate life on the planet in order to enslave it.
 
Max isn't happy. Back in August he was claiming that the figure was 50!

upload_2014-2-24_16-18-11.png

https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss

upload_2014-2-24_16-19-0.png



Even the helicopter fly over is a conspiracy for Max outside the Met Office!



Maybe they were checking that he hadn't deployed a mobile Chembuster in his Chugaboom vehicle?
I reckon that he had added white vinegar to the fuel!

upload_2014-2-24_16-36-1.png

 
66% of people fobbed him off yet 50 people still spoke about chemtrails. So that's around 150 people he approached,with a third success rate. I understand he is a little strapped for cash. Greenpeace are always wanting street canvassers. £8 an hour.
 
TEEJ said:
upload_2014-2-24_13-21-6.png

Max still ranting at the sky! His latest analysis/update on how the spraying is being accomplished is contained within the first 2 minutes 30 seconds.

upload_2014-2-24_13-24-2.png

Click to expand...


Max Bliss is posting on FB that TurboFan engines cannot produce contrails?!?

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think we need to be commenting on every little thing Max says, or speculating about his thought process. That kind of things leads to entrenchment and suspicion.

Just explain his major mistakes, if needed.
 
Major mistake by Max. Claims that trails are coming directly from the engine.

upload_2014-2-25_18-8-1.png

upload_2014-2-25_18-14-28.png

A quick snapshot and invert highlights the reality.






Yet another major mistake.

upload_2014-2-25_18-17-48.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2014-2-25_18-11-24.png
    upload_2014-2-25_18-11-24.png
    17 KB · Views: 331
Quick comments on Max's talking points:

•Contrails require temps below -40 C We shouldn't expect any contrail at temps of -15C in the video.

•We don't claim contrails start from hot exhaust cone with no gap.

•The vid shows an engine with afterburner. Fighter planes have afterburners. Transport and passenger jets don't have them.

•Max's snap shot with darkness inverted does not show trail right at engine. White areas of image are shown as dark and the dark band on RHS engine is inverted brightness of specular sunlight reflection on engine housing and pylon, same as dark band/ inverted sunlight specular reflection on fuselage.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/u13l1d.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_highlight
Sun is shining from RHS of picture which is why Contrail on LHS appears closer to engine. The contrail and engine and pylon on opposite side is in shadow from the plane itself and so is less illuminated
 
GregMc said:
Quick comments on Max's talking points:

•Contrails require temps below -40 C We shouldn't expect any contrail at temps of -15C in the video.

•We don't claim contrails start from hot exhaust cone with no gap.

•The vid shows an engine with afterburner. Fighter planes have afterburners. Transport and passenger jets don't have them.

•Max's snap shot with darkness inverted does not show trail right at engine. White areas of image are shown as dark and the dark band on RHS engine is inverted brightness of specular sunlight reflection on engine housing and pylon, same as dark band/ inverted sunlight specular reflection on fuselage.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/u13l1d.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_highlight
Sun is shining from RHS of picture which is why Contrail on LHS appears closer to engine. The contrail and engine and pylon on opposite side is in shadow from the plane itself and so is less illuminated
Click to expand...

I find this sort of intellectually dishonest "analysis" of photos of modern, and verifiable normal and ordinary contrails quite similar to how those who have for many decades tried to use the same tactics, to de-construct photos from the Apollo era, specifically to attempt to "prove" (in their minds) the 'fakery' of the Apollo Lunar landings.

Although this comment of mine may seem off-topic, I think it's important to consider, when dealing with individuals who have a particular mindset, from the start (i.e., "chem"trails are real, or the Moon landings are faked)...when dealing with those who have a pre-determined "conclusion" already established in their minds, then just exactly how much science and evidence is needed to disabuse them of their pre-conceived mistaken mindset?

This thread is about the "debate", and I realize this. But, cannot this thread be a vehicle to 'continue' that debate? If for no other reason, than to allow those who come to read it the opportunity to realize more science, and further their education on the topic.
 
WeedWhacker said:
This thread is about the "debate", and I realize this. But, cannot this thread be a vehicle to 'continue' that debate? If for no other reason, than to allow those who come to read it the opportunity to realize more science, and further their education on the topic.
Click to expand...

Nobody reads page 9 of a thread, nor does Google often find it.

Anything useful needs to stand alone.
 
GregMc said:
•Max's snap shot with darkness inverted does not show trail right at engine.
Click to expand...

Hi Greg,
Good analysis. Apologies, I thought it was clear. The snapshot is mine from Max's video. The un-inverted snapshot.



I posted the two images on Max's video comments section so that he can see the error of his ways!
 
Mick West said:
Nobody reads page 9 of a thread, nor does Google often find it.

Anything useful needs to stand alone.
Click to expand...

Well...I read it! (lol). But, I concede your point about a 'Google' search.... hmmmm...perhaps there may be a remedy for that?

(I say this from my experience at ATS, as example).

EDIT: And your excellent post, with the photo just reveals what I suggested...when it comes to the topic of so-called Apollo "fakery", or so-called "chem"trails....the tactics used are very, very similar.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Well...I read it! (lol). But, I concede your point about a 'Google' search.... hmmmm...perhaps there may be a remedy for that?

(I say this from my experience at ATS, as example).
Click to expand...

You are a participant, 99.9% of readers are not.

The remedy is to have new topics in new threads. I try to split threads where possible.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Max Bliss is posting on FB that TurboFan engines cannot produce contrails?!?[...]
Click to expand...

I just came across this post https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1409646232627215&id=400145150082028&stream_ref=1

An interesting development. I did ask before if we're seeing the start of "chemtrail wars" where the key players begin to fight for topdog authority status. Could be the beginning of the end.


Skydentify Chemtrails Who in the world is spraying? via Jonathan Gould
This video has been posted on this page by the disinformation troll Jonathan Gould. He has refused to discuss the content no doubt aware of the inaccuracies it contains. The maker of the video attempts to show that modern high bypass ratio engines cannot create condensation trails because A. The majority of air passing through the engine is not involved in combustion. B. The temperature and pressure at the point of exhaust are too high for condensation to occur and C. Relatively little fuel is burned. While all of these have some basis in fact they all ignore some basic and glaringly obvious facts. A. The majority of the air does indeed get passed through the engine without being involved in combustion, it is compressed though and then decompressed after it leaves the engine. This decompression cools the air rapidly and condensation occurs. This air passing around the engine is used to cool it and produce cooler exhausts which means that these engines are actually MORE LIKELY to produce contrails. B. The temperature and pressure at the point of exhaust for condensation. This is true but how long are those gases going to remain hot and compressed? This explains the gap between engine and trail. C. The amount of fuel burned is RELATIVELY low but modern engines are much bigger and more powerful than older engines and still burn a lot of fuel producing around 1.3 kg water vapour per kg fuel.
Content from External Source
 
Balance said:
I just came across this post https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1409646232627215&id=400145150082028&stream_ref=1

An interesting development. I did ask before if we're seeing the start of "chemtrail wars" where the key players begin to fight for topdog authority status. Could be the beginning of the end.


Skydentify Chemtrails Who in the world is spraying? via Jonathan Gould
This video has been posted on this page by the disinformation troll Jonathan Gould. He has refused to discuss the content no doubt aware of the inaccuracies it contains. The maker of the video attempts to show that modern high bypass ratio engines cannot create condensation trails because A. The majority of air passing through the engine is not involved in combustion. B. The temperature and pressure at the point of exhaust are too high for condensation to occur and C. Relatively little fuel is burned. While all of these have some basis in fact they all ignore some basic and glaringly obvious facts. A. The majority of the air does indeed get passed through the engine without being involved in combustion, it is compressed though and then decompressed after it leaves the engine. This decompression cools the air rapidly and condensation occurs. This air passing around the engine is used to cool it and produce cooler exhausts which means that these engines are actually MORE LIKELY to produce contrails. B. The temperature and pressure at the point of exhaust for condensation. This is true but how long are those gases going to remain hot and compressed? This explains the gap between engine and trail. C. The amount of fuel burned is RELATIVELY low but modern engines are much bigger and more powerful than older engines and still burn a lot of fuel producing around 1.3 kg water vapour per kg fuel.
Content from External Source
Click to expand...


Oh, dear. Someone called this person "Jonathon Gould" a 'troll', when in fact he (probably) presented some very factual statements. Or at least, I presume that "Jonathon Gould" did, because all I see is someone tearing him apart. AND, what I read is incredibly incorrect. Especially part "B" in that paragraph. Oh and part "C" as well.

Oh, dear.

EDIT: And part "A" is incorrect too. Really shows a terrible lack of understanding of how a High-Bypass Turbofan engine works. I could type thousands of words, but instead, I have found these videos that help to explain, visually:



That one ( ^ ^ ^ ) is a GE promotional video, a series of segments all in one video.

Here's one to show the CFM-56....one of the most prevalent engines on so many smaller narrow body airliners today:


EDIT: to add...in the past, I used to be able to tell whether an engine was a Rolls Royce, or a GE or Pratt & Whitney, based on the direction of rotation of the Fan...(called "N1"). When looking AT the Fan, facing aft....if the direction of rotation is counter-clockwise, then it was usually a GE or P&W...if clockwise, then a RR. This new GE 90 engine, even though a two-spool (unlike the RR 3-spool designs), has the Fan rotating, viewed from the front, clockwise. This is unique.

Keep in mind for any pilots out there, when you sit in the cockpit, the propeller usually is turning CLOCKWISE from your perspective, behind it. Hence the need for right rudder, at high pitch attitudes and high power settings, to counteract the "P-factor", or left-turning tendency. Of course, ducted Fans (i.e., airline engines) do not incur the "P-factor" force. This is just something to know, for the pilots in the audience.
 
Last edited:
Capture.PNG
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/today-in-weather-history-1947-1/56408

Always this vague connection to the "chemtrail" mythology.
I wonder if Bliss actually read the article in detail, because what can be found within it is not really so much in support for the things Bliss claims.

For example:
Langmuir was a chemist who sought to weaken hurricanes by seeding them with dry ice.
Content from External Source
So already here there was no sinister motive behind the experiment.

The hurricane, which had been drifting in a northeasterly direction, also made a turn. It then picked up speed and raced towards the Atlantic coast. It made landfall as a Category 1 storm on Oct. 15 near Savannah and tracked well inland.

The $23 million of damages in Savannah would equate to nearly $220 million today.

The people of Georgia read of the actions of the B-17 in newspapers and began threatening lawsuits. The only thing that deterred them was learning that a hurricane in 1906 had taken a similar path and caused just as much damage.

According to Hurricaneville.com, ten years later, a scientist named Mook determined the seeding had not caused the hurricane to change course. He found that it was due to the upper level steering winds in the vicinity of the hurricane.
Content from External Source
"Mook" is actually Conrad Mook who 1957 together with Eugene and Robert Hoover published a paper on the 1947 incident. The paper was published in Monthly Weather Review and can be read here http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/085/mwr-085-07-0243.pdf

The conclusion of the paper is that other hurricanes have done similar moves, so the 1947 incident cannot be blamed on the attempt to weaken its activity.
 
Capture.PNG

Bliss is in full blissness (sic) to debunk his former colleague Dane Wignington by attempting to debunk climate change using Robert W Wood's experiment from 1909. Here is a replication of said experiment http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf which some people use to confirm that green house gasses does not work as green houses, and that the green house effect cannot be responsible for climate change.

Here is a rebuttal to this notion http://wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
I'd be happy if any physics guy could explain whether this old experiment is relevant today or not.
 
mrfintoil said:
Capture.PNG

Bliss is in full blissness (sic) to debunk his former colleague Dane Wignington by attempting to debunk climate change using Robert W Wood's experiment from 1909. Here is a replication of said experiment http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf which some people use to confirm that green house gasses does not work as green houses, and that the green house effect cannot be responsible for climate change.

Here is a rebuttal to this notion http://wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
I'd be happy if any physics guy could explain whether this old experiment is relevant today or not.
Click to expand...

I read the "paper" on the replicated experiment and I cannot believe that was written by an academic. There is very little info on Nasif S. Nahle but he does appear to own the instiution the paper originates.

http://www.biocab.org/about_us.html

There is an interesting blog from Stanford when they tried to replicate the experiment
http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
 
mrfintoil said:
I'd be happy if any physics guy could explain whether this old experiment is relevant today or not.
Click to expand...

It is not. It has long been understood that "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer. But it's entirely irrelevant - the papers simply show that greenhouses don't work by the greenhouse effect. "Greenhouse gasses" actually are "radiative forcing gasses" but that does not roll so easily off the tongue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]
Content from External Source
 


Another round with Bliss. Nothing new is presented this time actually.
The only interesting thing worth mention is that Max is correlating weather changes with "spraying", essentially saying that "spraying" makes it rain.
I often see this erroneous assumption, but at the same time it's easy to see why it is easy to make. You often see various forms of cirrus before a pressure drop, because of increase in humidity. Increase in humidity equals greater potential for contrail persistency. But it's easy to assume that the increase of contrail persistency is causing the cirrus to form. I know most you already know this, but I'm writing it down just to exercise my own thoughts ;)

Fun fact: "disgusting" is uttered only four times in this video.
 
I saw that video this morning on chemtrails global. I took a screenshot. I can't believe he can't answer his own question. He's been told enough times.

maxScreenshot (1142).png
 
Balance said:
Cell phone towers are now being woven into the chemtrail/haarp theory
Click to expand...

Perhaps this will finally show his followers that they have hitched their wagons to the wrong prophet of doom? The more outlandish his claims become, the better for many people to begin to take a second, more critical look at the previous assertions. One would hope so, at any rate.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Perhaps this will finally show his followers that they have hitched their wagons to the wrong prophet of doom? The more outlandish his claims become, the better for many people to begin to take a second, more critical look at the previous assertions. One would hope so, at any rate.
Click to expand...
Or he's affirming EMF conspiracy theories and will attract more followers?
 
He didn't mention EMF, he claimed cell towers of "ionising" the atmosphere. Didn't seem to indicate he believed any direct influence on human organisms (except the feeble connection to the mythical "chemtrails" and their "danger").

Of course, this distinction probably will be ignored by those who are pre-disposed to already believe in any unsubstantiated and ridiculous "conspiracy" that exists. Sigh.
 
Balance said:
There is mounting evidence in my investigations...
Click to expand...
Is this the investigations he mentions?
Just been walking my dog Pip Squeak and looked at two towers not 4 km apart... different and one had a small container sized building attached with a lot of cables... different enough to suggest one of the towers was a mobile phone mast and one something else.
Content from External Source
https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss...?comment_id=1795514&offset=0&total_comments=1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

HappyMonday
Max Bliss - Anonymous Chemtrails 'Airline insider' speaks out
2
Replies
54
Views
24K
RF101C
R

Latest posts

Back
Top