That's certainly true with the proposed "evidence" so far. But I would not rule out more convincing evidence in the future.
I don't see any evidence that that's is likely to happen, however.
I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
- Status
That's certainly true with the proposed "evidence" so far. But I would not rule out more convincing evidence in the future.
I don't see any evidence that that's is likely to happen, however.
Well, yes, but it's talking about nirate (NO3-), which forms from that NO2 in the exhaust plume.
You know there is a vast amount of uncertainty about radiative forcing amongst the world's scientists. Which makes your theory even more ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting that some secretive cabal within the US military figured out exactly how the atmosphere worked about 20 years ago, and rather than tell everyone, they decided to fix things by themselves.
Or are you suggesting the military does not actually know how the RF interactions work exactly, so they have been performing large scale experiments on the planet for the last 20+ years, without anyone noticing.
Actually, as you noted, their effects would be lost in the noise. Hence they can't actually be experimenting, which basically means you think they have it figured out.
There really is no good evidence to support this theory.
That's certainly true with the proposed "evidence" so far. But I would not rule out more convincing evidence in the future.
I don't see any evidence that that's is likely to happen, however.
Well, considering how long "chemtrails" have been happening...and how little evidence there is so far, I think I can be quite confident that I will not be changing my position anytime soon.
My statement you quoted is more about the source of the information and not the information itself. If an "advocate" posts something as a fact, it takes very little time to dismiss it as misinterpretation/misunderstanding based on a lack of education in the subjects and a history of accepting BS as fact, like most conspiracy theorists have. If schools with an atmospheric science program start posting articles about an unusual increase of ANYTHING, then it COULD BE cause for concern. But, Let's face it, certain individuals don't need much evidence to run around like Chicken Little.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The only thing that needs to happen is the decision makers believed the expert opinion of crisis and the belief that the mitigating measures are reasonable and appropriate. . . .as I said earlier. . .
"3) I don't know the date of this paper but what was considered conventional wisdom before this possible realization is what would have governed the strategies and actions of the persons deciding what to do or not do. . . .They most likely would have thought the spiking of fuel was the best possible action. . . may still feel that way. . . ."
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The analysis below is why I questioned the AWACS induced trails and Cirrus Cloud Complex in the UK (http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Haywood09JGR.pdf ) . . .I thought is could be testing of countermeasures by the AWACS in restricted air space . . .
From a Thread on GLP . . . http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1097900/pg7
Excellent questions. Seriously.
Now, as to these aerial photos you have - these are air-refueling tanker tracts. In a war, you have to have many gas stations in the sky. Tankers orbit waiting to give gas to returning fighters. That is what those cons are - unless they're photoshopped.
As to the oval cons in a previous post, that is an FCF tract. I was an FCF pilot. FCF stands for "Functional check flight." Whenever a military or commercial jet has an engine change or a flight control change, it has to be tested on a flight before it can be used operationally. Those tests have to be conducted withing a certain airspace. So, the pilot goes out a ways and then turns and comes back towards home base. They have to stay in military airspace. If they get back home and the test isn't complete, they turn away and do it again. There is no conspiracy there.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999293
This NOAA picture was taken 28 Jan 1991 which was about a month before the end of the First Gulf War according to wikipedia . . . so one can assume that :Air Supremacy had been achieved by the allies . . . and possibly no one was overly concerned about Contrail visibility; however, until hostilities were totally suppressed doesn't it seem reckless?
1. Why would you expose the visual location of Tankers, AWACS, etc. for possible targeting?
2. Makes one wonder if some of the persistent Trails over Iraq and Saudi may have other objectives?
NOTE: You suggested photo shopping I cannot confirm or deny but I highly doubt it . . . too easily discovered . . . (I thought I had found it on the NOAA site but when I looked I could not find it . . .
The Persian Gulf War (commonly referred to as the Gulf War) (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991), was the final conflict initiated with United Nations authorization, by a coalition force from 34 nations against Iraq, with the expressed purpose of expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait after its invasion and annexation on 2 August 1990. [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Air supremacy is the complete dominance of the air power of one side's air forces over the other side's, during a military campaign. It is the most favorable state of control of the air. It is defined by NATO and the United States Department of Defense as "that degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference.“ [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
George, given there's no actual evidence that anything is going on, and given that the US military has a function to protect the US. Which of the following two things seems more likely:
A) The military found nothing needed doing with the atmosphere, so did nothing.
B) The military found the US was in danger from climate change, so instituted a massive secret program with no noticeable effect in total secrecy.
Explain your choice.
A) The military found nothing needed doing with the atmosphere, so did nothing.
B) The military found the US was in danger from climate change, so instituted a massive secret program with no noticeable effect in total secrecy.
Explain your choice.
George, are you forgetting what the conclusions about the UK AWAC trail said?
Here, I'll post it for ya..
[44] Of course, it is possible that natural cirrus could have
been generated in the absence of the AWACS and other
aircraft operations. The very high supersaturation with
respect to ice in this specific case study mean that other
meteorological ‘‘triggers’’ causing the downstream evolution
of natural cirrus cannot be ruled out. To establish that
natural cirrus would not have formed in the absence of the
aircraft operations would require very accurate modeling of
processes that are only crudely represented in current
numerical weather prediction models.
DONE!
Here, I'll post it for ya..
[44] Of course, it is possible that natural cirrus could have
been generated in the absence of the AWACS and other
aircraft operations. The very high supersaturation with
respect to ice in this specific case study mean that other
meteorological ‘‘triggers’’ causing the downstream evolution
of natural cirrus cannot be ruled out. To establish that
natural cirrus would not have formed in the absence of the
aircraft operations would require very accurate modeling of
processes that are only crudely represented in current
numerical weather prediction models.
DONE!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) The military does not make such decisions. . .*
2) I would say the Reagan Administration. . . He had a propensity to take covert initiatives without too much hesitation and was one of the most Global Strategists as a chief executive in US history. . .
3) Remember the Star Wars initiative. . . And who's your Daddy? *Edward Teller . . . he was in his heyday. . . .*
4) Remember the think tanks are decades ahead of the rest of us mere humans. . .*
5) As far as we know Star Wars failed also. . . .or did it . . . ?
Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States, serving from 1981 to 1989. Prior to that, he was the 33rd Governor of California from 1967 to 1975 and a radio, film and television actor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am glad you think it is done. . . However, questions remain. . . Like, there was much other aircraft that day over UK . . . Why did this one flight result in such a cirrus cloud complex and others did not?
I have to run . . . Check in later . . .
Really?! You can't see how a plane flying around the same air space for a while would increase the air saturation in that area...but not in the surrounding areas?
I like how you claim it's "one flight" when it's actually one flight...which is completely different than all other flights in that region at the time!
Are you actually concerned with the truth here, or are you more interested in pushing an agenda? I ask because the conclusions about that one flight specifically state that the result of the AWACS flight could have easily created that contrail cirrus cloud without any "chemicals" added to it. Yet, you simply dismiss that point altogether.
It's just another example of a perfectly logical explanation you dismiss because it doesn't agree with what you have already made up your mind about. It's almost as if you don't care about any information which suggests you could be wrong. Why? I read EVERYTHING about this subject and weigh it against the facts as they are known and can't come to any other conclusion than it's all an Urban Legend. But, despite a complete lack of evidence, you rely solely on your hunches and intuition and the supposed fact that you had never been wrong during your working years...so you say.
It just seems so odd..
But my question is why you think there was a need for an initiative. Given that you've no idea about the future of the atmosphere, and all the stuff you've read is from people who are not privy to Regan's inner circle of scientists, then why do you think there was was ever a need for an initiative?
I ask because you keep pointing out that if they are doing something, it's left no measurable trace above the noise. So would not the "they did nothing" explanation fit your observations much better?
Remember...that's what "they" want us to think!
Or maybe they want us to think that that's what they want us to think, as that gives them a reputation of incredible power and wisdom, but without them doing anything, so it's way cheaper.
Could be anything really.
You've got some inexplicable personal animus to contain - and a bone on being outed on above top secret. No?
What seems to be a problem with many contributors to this site? The need for everything to be explicable in black and white. Life just isn't like that Mike - haven't you noticed there are such things as personal interest, greed, deception follows...then some more, converging interests are powerful incentives, money is an even greater one for many....the non-stop lies of 'politics' at every level (populated by...? People, human beings). You appear unable or unwilling to accept any of these incalculable factors in any debate. The only time you entertain 'the human factor' (there's a good story by Graham Greene with this title, but maybe you might try someone like Camus?) is when you tell everyone that it's impossible for people to hold such big secrets, we're just not that well organized - you know the stuff, you write it. but it's not so black and white - there are plenty of 'secrets' you'll never know about, not least in your case because you're not looking for them or even open to the possibility in most cases. The stiffness of your resistance on some kind of apparent 'principle' to such human factors is leaving you a little short of taking account of all possibilities. I think an open mind is essential for progress and understanding. Like I've said before: science isn't everthing. Further to that: when it all gets to the crux - science, religion, it's all philosophy. All of it. They are simply methods we construct and use to try to describe our condition and our conditions. The humanities are in serious trouble....and partly as a result of that - so is humanity.
On AC Griffith - son of a judge, I believe, from a well-to-do establishment background - you'll need to listen to some interviews with him, and then you can speak on it. Like I said, there are three possibilties - either he speaks the truth or he is lying, or it's mixture of the two, agreed? It's 50-50 for all we know. Either way: it's information or disinformation; either way, it's an issue for the establishment. Can you not at least agree on this last?
Hey Mick...didn't I read a thing on the front page asking people to be polite? Why don't you pick up this poster on his frequent ad hominem attacks and general rudeness? I got a ban for what you perceived as the same, didn't I?
Oh yes, and then you went and told the world (having muzzled me and thus prevented any possibility of that lie being immediately corrected) that I called you a Nazi - when what I actually said was 'fascism begins at home'. Bit different, isn't it? I have an exceptional memory. Maybe next time you can ban me for good - then you can say what you want without fear fo the truth being spoken. Play fair. Be honest. It looks very bad when you don't.
Come on, let's have the same rules for everyone - and that includes you.
1 Where on earth was that suggested? Please indicate (and let's not forget that physics - and all science - is a man-made construct and/or discovery of something we want/need to give meaning to)
2 What's arithmetic to do with it? Exactly. Metaphors here are not sufficient, surely?
3 Four questions: Yeah? And? So? What?
Politeness is a little subjective. Noble is on the line, but he and George B know each other, and have been debating for a long time. Since he attacks George far less politely over on GLP, this actually is being polite, relatively speaking. Not incredibly productive though, and I would prefer it would stop.
You (lee) got a one month ban for not making a point. Here's where it happened:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/95...ge-quot-conclusions-amp-recommendations/page9
I was very interested in what your point actually was, which is why I kept trying to get you to make it. You'd posted:
on my personal web site (mickwest.com), which I though meant you had some point you were leading up to. I gave you the option of explaining your point, or being banned. You chose not to explain your point.
I'd also argue that the combination of "Goebbels and Orwell would be impressed" with "fascism begins at home" does at least have some nazi implications. But perhaps I misunderstood you.
(edit) and I'd still like to know where we were going. Perhaps you can explain that now?
You (lee) got a one month ban for not making a point. Here's where it happened:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/95...ge-quot-conclusions-amp-recommendations/page9
I was very interested in what your point actually was, which is why I kept trying to get you to make it. You'd posted:
on my personal web site (mickwest.com), which I though meant you had some point you were leading up to. I gave you the option of explaining your point, or being banned. You chose not to explain your point.
I'd also argue that the combination of "Goebbels and Orwell would be impressed" with "fascism begins at home" does at least have some nazi implications. But perhaps I misunderstood you.
(edit) and I'd still like to know where we were going. Perhaps you can explain that now?
Last edited:
His name is Griffith. Where did I deify Him?
My main question is this, though: What facts are you speaking about when you say:
People will believe what they want..regardless of what the facts...?
Please show me where I used any ad hom attacks or general rudenss.
Seems to me you've been pretty rude to me in a few posts. I don't even know you...or, are you one of the whiners from GLP?
why are you replying to my post...and addressing Mick?
You certainly could PM him if you had an issue with me.
Oh, I guess this is my public spanking...
Ouch...
So, I should have said "Mr Griffith military career...."
Sorry, I forgot the apostrophe.
I have seen it IMPLIED/SUGGESTED that Mr Griffith is a god among the chemtrail advocates. You don't have to say it outright.
Fact, there has been no increased level of ANYTHING associated with any trails in the sky.
Fact, the only trails I see in the sky are contrails...there is no reason to suggest they are anything more. There is no evidence to suggest hey are anything more.
Fact, the chemtrail advocates have already lost the debate.
I was getting worried. Where were you? It upsets my equilibrium when you're not right there, as usual.
Politeness may well be a little subjective, but integrity needs no rules.
I don't need to read old stuff - and if you want the full context of you muzzling me, then you have to read all of it, by definition. How dull that might be! Even you can't really argue that one, though it may hurt to admit.
Point? I make points all the time. Did you have a specific point in mind?
I'd also argue that the combination of "Goebbels and Orwell would be impressed" with "fascism begins at home" does at least have some nazi implications. But perhaps I misunderstood you.
Nice deflection, but no points. What I spoke of was that you said I called you a Nazi (do I really need to find the text before you delete it?).
In the interest of 'putting the record straight', why don't you publish both comments - yours and mine relating to the Nazi accusation you made?
I'd think it was obvious to anyone that Goebbels was a Nazi and Orwell was not. The greater context would be important here - not just the bits you choose to quote - again, do I really need to go back and recover more to show the context? Goebbels was a master of propaganda - no doubt a student of Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays. If you want to attempt to understand the modern world - start here.
However you try to dress it up, the fact remains: I didn't call you a Nazi. You published that I did. That's a fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
in response to my attempt at a metaphor, george said 'well what if i can force you to put wrong numbers in, erase others, etc...' saying the rules of the game would be forcibly changed and broken. well, to extend that thought to the collection of data on chemtrails, he seems to be saying that science cannot be used to make any observations. but science works on replicable laws of the universe, so if science is no longer usable, then the laws of the universe must be being changed. however, he was probably only saying that data would be corrupted, falsified, covered-up. the hyperbole was my own, and yes, i was starting to mix metaphors. i'm not the cleanest thinker around, but i do try to learn.
arithmetic was in the original sudoku metaphor as an example of how one gets to a valid result. one's standards have to be high and one cannot enter guesses. the standards for coming to valid conclusions about reality should be the same. speculation is cool, but has to be followed through and tested to see if it fails (falsifiability?).
it seems this part of things is being left out of the chemtrail story, an advocate will blur their vision just enough to not see the things proven against any particular fact in their case.
if chemtrails are being sprayed, organised, choreographed, budgeted, man-powered, etc, they will have very real effects in this universe. those effects can be observed. that's what 'so what'.
unless the instigators are using a time machine, or an alternate universe device, or have matrix-like inducing technology to get rid of that cause-effect relationship. like they're just lifting up a corner of the universe and sweeping the evidence under it.
Can you back up any of these claims of fact with sources and first hand accounts? How about some evidence for your pretty stout and specific claims
Let's take this one statement for starters.
Mick? Are you there? Don't you want to debunk this? Or do I need to go and find the bits where you already have? I can give you some pointers if you don't remember...
Here's the nazi quote:
He used up his posts in another thread, complaining about how I'm a nazi. He's banned now. I gave him my email address (metabunk@gmail.com) if he want to appeal, but I've heard nothing. He can still read the forums.
I'd still like to know why he was going on about clouds though
You never used the word "nazi", you just mentioned Goebbels and fascism. I'm sorry for any confusion.
So what were you going about with your cloud recipe? Was there ever a point we were coming to?
I have seen no evidence that anything associated with the trails, other than what's expected...such as water vapor and combustion gases, have led to the increase of anything in the atmosphere...which can be directly linked to the trails in the sky. Have you?
About the other facts..
I see no evidence to suggest that any trail I have seen in the sky (or in any video/picture) is anything more than a contrail. I have seen claims to the contrary, but nothing to back up the claims. By default, they are contrails. It will take some VERY compelling evidence to prove they aren't...got any?
I have heard about these supposed "chemtrails" for a few years now, and so far, EVERY bit of evidence presented has been evidence of the ignorance of those who accept "chemtrails" as truth. In general, people don't know much about aviation and/or their own atmosphere. Accepting what is found during a google search for "chemtrails" as fact...is not learning about aviation and/or atmospheric science.
It seems to me that the advocates just refuse to admit they have lost the debate.
I suspect Noble means there has been no unexpected increase in anything, like barium, or aluminum. Jet exhaust has certain known emissions and it creates clouds. But those things are expected. Also other things are sprayed in trails, like insecticide. But those things are not part of the "chemtrail" theory.
Edit: what he said.
Lol! Really.
You started out ok, but then you lost the plot. Sorry mate.
Choreographed!? Do your own science: Look up. Appleman chart. Atmospheric soundings, as many as possible. Look up more. Satellite imagery of incoming weather systems. Learn the physics of cloud formation. Learn the physics of contrail formation. Keep looking up....it's called empiricism and it's available to everyone. Aircraft emissions = clouds. Was it ever thus: no.
Look up, know your clouds.
The universe might need to wait a bit.
Er, yes it was. Unless somehow all the science books and journals for the last 90 years got it wrong.
Maybe George B can debate this with you. He's quite familiar with cloud formation.
I'll have to recap what we were saying - I'm sure there was to be a point, if patience had prevailed we might have passed that point.
How did you get to 'He used up his posts in another thread, complaining about how I'm a nazi.' then? Kafka would be proud! Maybe as much as Goebbels and Orwell!
I'd given you three posts to explain your point.
The last post you made (hence "used up his posts") was the comment about "fascism begins at home".
I interpreted that as you implying I was being somewhat nazi-like, as you'd previously mentioned Goebbels.
Now, can we get to what your point was? Or shall we chat about the nazi comment for a while instead?
I should have been clearer for the sake of the greater context and everyone understanding the nuance. You, Mick, know pretty well what I mean by that from previous discussion. You have at the least agreed, in pages on this site, that the proliferation of aircraft emissions turning to cloud has 'at least doubled in the last ten to fifteen years' (I think - we can look it up if you want).
And Noble said this: Fact, there has been no increased level of ANYTHING associated with any trails in the sky.
This is in direct conflict with your statement and your chat above about aluminium and all that is just guessing, isn't it? Let him speak for himself. What he's saying is wrong. Now that's black and white.
Nope, what I'm saying isn't wrong...
Could there be a VERY small amount of aluminum in the combustion gases because of friction? Sure..
Is there any evidence that it has been accumulating in the atmosphere? Nope..
Is there any evidence that any aluminum is being deposited in the atmosphere intentionally, as part of any spray program? Nope
I can and do speak for myself.
Thank you very much for my three chances boss.
Come on mate. You're a bright bloke, clearly; but maybe you really do need to get out in the sun a bit more...can't be that hard over that way...?
Ok. You said this: Fact, there has been no increased level of ANYTHING associated with any trails in the sky.
I say this: There has been a marked increase in the creation of cirrus-like cloud cover directly from aviation (jet trails).
I'm not really sure why you're now bringing aluminium into it.
How about this: Fact: there has been an increased proliferation of cirrus-like cloud formed as a direct result of passing aircraft.
This is diametrically opposed to your position. And it is true. How many different ways does it need to be said? And remember - aluminium has nothing to do with this.
lee, you are being incredibly pedantic. I get the feeling you are just trolling so you'll get banned again.
Please try to make honest points. We know you can spin, but that's really not the point.
You know full well that Noble said "other than what's expected...such as water vapor and combustion gases", and yet you persist on harping upon this point.
If you persist in this style, I will ban you permanently, and you'll have your victory. Your call.
Please try to make honest points. We know you can spin, but that's really not the point.
You know full well that Noble said "other than what's expected...such as water vapor and combustion gases", and yet you persist on harping upon this point.
If you persist in this style, I will ban you permanently, and you'll have your victory. Your call.
- Status
Similar threads
