Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Mick West, Aug 11, 2016.
actually i just thought it was cute they look like they are reading the posts above me.
Set your Chrome page in Hebrew or Arabic and you'll be all right
Dane Wigington's counter-survey:
Scientists Surveyed Unanimously Refuse To Deny Climate Engineering Reality
From 1518 climate scientists, only 1 was willing to state that geoengineering was not going on, but even that single one has not confirmed his answer a second time.
The survey question was:
A few scientists commented on that:
Two other scientists:
And it sounds like he was the only one who responded with an answer. So 100% of the scientists who responded to a vague question said no " global atmospheric geoengineering programs " had been deployed.
Now he's published all their email addresses, and suggested his followers send them helpful information of geoengineering.
Wow... what a SPIN-job! Even those who didn't even OPEN the document were counted as: "refused to deny...". Sheesh!
It seems to me like publishing information like this might not invite entirely nice, helpful emails... It reminds me a touch of doxxing, when someone publishes another person's personal information (address, phone, etc) online. At the very least this is requesting that hordes of people send busy scientists a bunch of information, at worst the scientists could be receiving threatening emails...
Alright...after the visit from the NSA guys...
well Dane did say to send "Credible" information, so since they still have to find some there shouldnt be emails anytime soon.
I very much doubt they will get more than 0.1 emails each on average.
My avatar was never designed to be an avatar. My image was using the older painting design rule....
......that because most westerners read or scan images left-to-right, my 3/4 view that faces to your left, forces the eye back to the beginning (the left).....which almost makes you see the image twice.
BTW Mick.....will your CSICON lecture be available as a public video ?
I'm going to do a version of the presentation with VO from my desktop at some point, so the slides are readable.
Working on releasing more of the raw data. Here's one set of comments with personal info redacted, very minor typos corrections (like aiirplane -> airplane), otherwise as written.
Answers to the broken trail question. Just one minor edit to remove identifying info, some minor typo corrections, sorted alphabetically for some grouping.
This study debunk nothing
-Every single one of these scientists rejected the hypothesis that the four photos shown were evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). They all identified the trails as contrails, and gave scientific explanations for the effects seen in each photo.
Scientists have a magical eyes ? Chemtrails/contrails have a same aspect, best scientists of the world or no , it's IMPOSSIBLE to say 100% is contrails on the pictures.
-SLAP is THE simple explanation ?
Why just ask if is the simplest explanation ? Give all possible explanations !
If contrails is the simplest explanation, what is the others possible explanations ? The hardest explanation ?
Photo B - ON/OFF spraying is ONE possible explanation ? YES !
-Question: "What is the most likely reason there is a gap in this trail?"
The most likely reason !? Give all possible explanations again ! No just, the "most likely".
And again for the samples, simplest, most likely... explanation but never if SLAP is one possible explanation... You can saying anything you want, SLAP is one possible explanation for all (photos & sample)
The only solution they have is to discredit the samples collect methode but why they don't do a news samples collects of 2016 ? IT'S THAT THE REALS SCIENTISTS DO WHEN THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SAMPLES !
Never they say, IT ISN'T SLAP ! They say, it's not THE SIMPLEST or THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION. They don't say : SLAP is an impossible explanation.
I can't think that the best scientists on the subject can do a work also low level !
The "experts" were not paid for this work, is the simplest/most likely explanation for this bad job ?
Sorry, if my english isn't perfect, i trying to do my best for that you can read it.
That would be an infinite number of explanations.
A basic principle in science is that the simplest explanation should be investigated first.
So until every trail seen in the sky is tested you will say each one COULD be a "chemtrail"?
Ok but here the question is about 2 possibilities not an infinite, and the people they call conspiracy say, it's chemtrails. So the question for the scientists is : SLAP is the explanation or not ?
Not the Simplest explanation, most likely.... Especially if you want to be caught in the serious and coming from "specialists". Don't hide behind a basic principe. It's too easy & don't answer at the question : From where the elements far beyond their maximum contaminant levels ? From the planes or not ? That's the question the peoples ask, not the simplest, i don't need a "scientists" for saying to me the simplest explanation. One child can find the simplest explanation ! The planes don't reject only h2o. Where can i see, what he's the rejected ?
You say : the simplest explanation should be investigated first, i'm ok but when you don't have your answer, you investigate more.
No, but i don't say it's impossible. When i could know from where the pollution contaminants then i could reply if yes or no it's from trails.
We didn't just if they thought SLAP was the simplest explanation, we asked them what they actually thought it was. None of them though the photos were anything even remotely like "chemtrails" or some kind of spraying. Read the posts directly before yours, where the various explanations are listed in the words of the scientists.
What do you mean? Please be more specific.
There are plenty of other threads on Metabunk that address your questions. Please stick to the topic of this thread as per Posting Guidelines.
You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.
But there you are just saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrail experts.
So basically the photos are not evidence of "chemtrails". Which is the point. The study is about the proposed evidence. We show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails because they look and act like contrails.
Like Mick says, the study wasn't intended to disprove the possibility of chemtrails. It was intended to gauge what the consensus of experts is: people who study the atmosphere or soil all the time in their professional lives. If anyone should see evidence for chemtrails, it should be people who study those things. The fact is that they see any evidence for them, nor do they feel that chemtrails are needed to explain what they see in the sky or in water/soil samples.
Yes i saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrails experts. How are the chemtrails photos ? Can you show me for comparison ? Sorrry but Here we need a chemtrails experts, not a contrails "experts".
You don't show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails, you just show that isn't SIMPLEST EXPLANATION !
Quantifier Expert Consensus AGAINST Covert géoingénierie / Chemtrails
- Je vous laisse chercher la traduction : https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasoir_d'Ockham
Une formulation plus moderne est que « les hypothèses suffisantes les plus simples sont les plus vraisemblables ». C'est un des principes heuristiques fondamentaux en science, sans être pour autant à proprement parler un résultat scientifique. Dans le langage courant, le rasoir d'Ockham pourrait s'exprimer par la phrase « Pourquoi faire compliqué quand on peut faire simple ? ». Cependant, la simplicité dont il est question ici ne signifie pas que l'hypothèse la plus simpliste, la plus évidente ou la plus conventionnelle est forcément la bonne.
We show that the experts think they are contrails.
We also show the experts have found no evidence of chemtrails.
There might still be chemtrails, just that these photos are not evidence of it.
That the experts think... with her magical eyes... You turn around... Show me chemtrails photos for comparison !?
No evidence of chemtrails is not an evidence of no chemtrails. A real prove can be but they never given. They just want debunked, it's why the study name "The experts against..."
This is one of the answers that should have been in this study if it had really been serious. And it is all your honor to finally acknowledge it, pity that it did not come from you and that it was necessary to debate so much to have this truth. SLAP is a possible explanation to each element, the one that says the opposite is not credible! I do not assert in any case that this is the explanation and also acknowledges that it might be contrails but until someone does a study worthy of the subject treated, for me the two possibilities remains conceivable.
Now, i see that You delete and edit my answers that seem not to please you, because they are off topic. All my questions, remarks or other are related to what is said in this study. No need to answer more in these conditions. But I'm not surprised, it fits well with the low level of this study ... Hav fun, You can now delete & edit all you want to match your needs.
So if we had titled it:
"Quantifying expert consensus about the evidence for the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program"
Would that have been okay?
No if they have, do a samples 2016 in the con/chem-trails & show an evidence that it's not the reason of high levels of contanimants (far beyond their maximum...), i have been ok
If they have saying also : there might still be chemtrails but that photos are not evidence of it. I maybe can think that this study is a serious work.
I wait again your chemtrails photos for conparison...
If by "chemtrail" you mean some aerial spray that produces persistent spreading trails when contrails would not be persistent and spreading, I don't think that is possible. No matter what you spray in the air, it will not persist and spread unless contrails also persist and spread. But then you can simply use contrails to produce such trails.
What chemtrail photos?
Please read the posting guidelines
If you'd like to discuss other topics related to 'chemtrails' find teh appropriate thread or start a new one.
You seem to be misunderstanding the study.
Actual experts, in atmospheric fields, were shown the evidence that 'chemtrail experts' claim is evidence for chemtrails. The 'chemtrail experts' photos claim that these are chemtrails is ONLY based on visual assessment. "Look up".
'Chemtrail experts' claim that those particular water/soil samples prove chemtrails.
The actual experts opinions were that those particular 'claims of evidence from chemtrail experts', presented to them, did not prove chemtrails.
That's all the study was about.
i added bold for emphasis:
But apparently people who believe chemtrails exist do have such eyes - and while other explanations COULD be possible there are no actual real life scenarios that would enable them to exist.
Exactly this. Go onto a chemtrail website of your choice and chances are it will tell people exactly how to identify chemtrails using only their eyes: because, they claim, chemtrails look different (spreading, persistent) from contrails (thin, quickly dissipating)!
The people claiming to have magic eyes aren't the experts quoted in this study, but the self-styled chemtrail experts who tell people all they have to do is "look up"!
If there ARE no chemtrails, how can there be chemtrail photos to compare with?
If ALL the evidence of chemtrails is visual (i.e looking at trails) but they don't look any different to normal persistent contrails, then there is NO specific evidence for chemtrails.
I'd like to reiterate here that there is only one chemical known to form persistent spreading clouds (including trails) in the Earth atmosphere. It is called water and is already present in abundance at the Earth surface and in the atmosphere in three different states - solid (ice), liquid (water) and gaseous (vapour). Condensation of invisible vapour in the atmosphere creates visible clouds - aerosols of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals. Contrails (short for condensation trails) are the same clouds, their formation is triggered by the pressure drop on the aircraft wing and/or the injection of extra water vapour into the atmosphere - byproduct of hydrocarbon fuel burning.
No other chemical has been shown to have similar properties in the Earth conditions. Although other chemical compounds can be sprayed into the air, they will not hang there for long as a visible cloud; they will quickly dissipate as smoke does after the smoke generator's turned off. Therefore, until it is demonstrated experimentally, in laboratory conditions, that an alleged chemical compound or mixture can imitate the behaviour of water vapour in the atmosphere, the hypothesis of some persistent trails above being "chemtrails" can be dismissed as lacking scientific basis.
It should not be surprising at all that the expert scientists did not consider it seriously.
Which is another major point of course. MOST of the water was already in the atmosphere. There is not enough cargo capacity in ANY plane to be able to spray enough of ANYTHING to make clouds this big (bearing in mind they are foten hundreds of miles long.
Separate names with a comma.