A challenge to you to discuss this openly

O_O

Member
I didn't make the video
That's swell.
"A challenge to you to discuss this openly"
Discuss what, specifically? Unless you identify a claim, you can anticipate a dismissal rather than a discussion. Point to a particular point (in the above video or not) and it will be addressed, openly.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I listened to the video. He says something about sublimation proving something strange was going on on. He does not say what.

Contrails do not sublimate in ice-supersaturated air. They do when RHi is under 100%. That's all there is to it.
 

O_O

Member
Yeah, I just listened to it. He doesn't say much. Perhaps Truthnow is encouraging someone to debate this fellow? The "challenge" doesn't seem too compelling. Meh.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Unfortunately there is a high level of general ignorance, both of the water content of the atmosphere, and the nature of water itself.

This can never be conveyed in a general discussion about contrails without hours of discussion and evidence production to an intelligent but uninformed person. The time it would take to sufficiently convey this subject to, say, half the population, would be in the order of weeks.

A starting point for you, Truthnow, if you really believe your handle, would be to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor, and to ask us questions.

Anyone fool enough to go on radio would be on a hiding to nothing. IMO.
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Here is the Facebook posting on the video:
https://www.facebook.com/IrishWeatherOnline/posts/717905634892487

I found the whole affair confusing but it looks like Irish Radio Online got tired of having the chemtrails folks promoting the hoax. In return, the video maker has made a challenge for someone to debunk chemtrails. The problem is that the video maker hasn't yet said enough to debunk. That is a cagey tactic, say a word and then challenge someone to debunk it.

I think the person speaking on the video needs to be more forthright, because asking for truth isn't possible when addressing someone who is so vague.
It is almost like the vagueness is intentional, so maybe it is.
 

Sausalito

Active Member
I got the impression that the speaker isn't actually a chemmie. Perhaps he's earnestly wishing for someone to dispel the chem-hoax?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
In the "About" he says
So he's looking for someone to do that, not just talk about sublimation.
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
Bothers me that this guy never states exactly what debunkers are supposed to debunk.

And then some minor comments, not related to this challenge. Yeah, what about sublimation?
Common radio guy, explain to us if you read this.
 

Truthnow

New Member
I'm not a chemmie, however I'm not really sure what a chemmie is. I've no idea what sublimation is, please excuse my ignorance, I am willing to learn. I'm simply searching for the truth and in that search have found two groups of people, simply defending firmly entrenched positions. Do you have to be a chemmie or a debunker? Doesn't help me much. What hope is there for those of us who retain an open mind, due to conflicting information?

Shouldn't we be working together to establish truth? This is why when I saw the challenge, I thought it would be a wonderful opportunity for two people to discuss this openly. Perhaps someone knowledgeable from this forum would be so bold.

I am aware that the mainstream press has reported that the MOD admitted to secretly spraying us with dangerous chemicals including zinc cadmium sulphide and have conducted aerial germ warfare experiments on us in the past, which included micro-organisms, secretly, without our consent, for period of 40 years, so I don't think the idea of them perhaps continuing this sort of activity, also in secret, is as preposterous as many on this forum do.

Had anyone highlighted that before the MOD disclosed it, would they also have been 'debunked' by this forum?

And I must add, that from my brief time on this forum, I do detect a somewhat hostile environment 'Unless you identify a claim, you can anticipate a dismissal rather than a discussion.'

I'm sorry I'm not making any claims. Will I be dismissed?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Probably not if you ask simple questions that can be concretely answered.

Not if you believe reality has limits within which everything operates and objective scientific study of those limits can help make determinations as to whether something is real or false.

Not unless you think objective facts are opinions, and 'quantum fractal potential' something.

Not unless you think data and knowledge obtained by science is suspect because the government agrees with it.

Some people have a strong philosophical objection to anyone claiming to be able to say something is either true or false. Those people tend to get dismissed.
 

Sausalito

Active Member
I'm not a chemmie, however I'm not really sure what a chemmie is. I've no idea what sublimation is, please excuse my ignorance, I am willing to learn. I'm simply searching for the truth and in that search have found two groups of people, simply defending firmly entrenched positions. Do you have to be a chemmie or a debunker? Doesn't help me much. What hope is there for those of us who retain an open mind, due to conflicting information?

Shouldn't we be working together to establish truth? This is why when I saw the challenge, I thought it would be a wonderful opportunity for two people to discuss this openly. Perhaps someone knowledgeable from this forum would be so bold.

I am aware that the mainstream press has reported that the MOD admitted to secretly spraying us with dangerous chemicals including zinc cadmium sulphide and have conducted aerial germ warfare experiments on us in the past, which included micro-organisms, secretly, without our consent, for period of 40 years, so I don't think the idea of them perhaps continuing this sort of activity, also in secret, is as preposterous as many on this forum do.

Had anyone highlighted that before the MOD disclosed it, would they also have been 'debunked' by this forum?

And I must add, that from my brief time on this forum, I do detect a somewhat hostile environment 'Unless you identify a claim, you can anticipate a dismissal rather than a discussion.'

I'm sorry I'm not making any claims. Will I be dismissed?
Forgive my use of "chemmie," I suppose it was not very polite, and certainly might give the impression of a polarized atmosphere. Welcome! I encourage you to delve into past discussions on these forums, and perhaps first www.contrailscience.com

Edit: By "speaker" I meant the guy actually speaking in the video.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
I am aware that the mainstream press has reported that the MOD admitted to secretly spraying us with dangerous chemicals including zinc cadmium sulphide and have conducted aerial germ warfare experiments on us in the past, which included micro-organisms, secretly, without our consent, for period of 40 years, so I don't think the idea of them perhaps continuing this sort of activity, also in secret, is as preposterous as many on this forum do.

You've been misled then. It would have been much easier to conduct those experiments if there'd been nobody around.

Had anyone highlighted that before the MOD disclosed it, would they also have been 'debunked' by this forum?

Depends what evidence had been put forward. In this case the evidence would have been pretty compelling as it was designed to be found.
 

Truthnow

New Member
You've been misled then.

Cloudspotter, you are so entrenched in your position, that you automatically, without looking at the evidence, presume I must have been misled? I merely quoted
I am aware that the mainstream press has reported that the MOD admitted to secretly spraying us

On what evidence you base the fact that
It would have been much easier to conduct those experiments if there'd been nobody around.

I really surprises me that firstly, you are not aware of this fact and secondly, you presume I've been misled! I thought I was the newbie here...

I didn't say I believed the mainstream media, however, had they been lying about the MOD, I presume the MOD would have challenged them by now, would they not?

In this case the evidence would have been pretty compelling as it was designed to be found.

It wasn't designed to be found, someone in the MOD came clean! But I have to ask, did you consent to being sparayed with Anthrax?

I really feel some of you are still defending firmly entrenched positions. This is leading to you drawing false conclusions, before seeing the evidence.

What is your agenda here? Is it to debunk something you don't believe, or is it to search for truth?

I am simply seeking truth

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Getting rather of topic. But essentially the tests were not tests on people. They were just tests to see how far things spread. The people were in the way, but the substances used were thought to be harmless.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
Cloudspotter, you are so entrenched in your position, that you automatically, without looking at the evidence, presume I must have been misled?

See the parts I highlighted. As Micks says these were dispersal tests - not tests on people. There's the truth that you're seeking.
 

Truthnow

New Member
Mick West, I have been encouraged to stick to facts here and have done so.

On what evidence do you base your assertion that
the substances used were thought to be harmless.
?

Anthrax and zinc cadmium sulphide for example? Can you tell me who thought these to be harmless?

Cadmium, for example is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and, during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.

Cloudspotter
As Micks says these were dispersal tests - not tests on people.

Was there a mass evacuation I was unaware of or am I missing something?

I was alive from 1960 and live on the South Dorset coastline!

In another chapter, 'Large Area Coverage Trials', the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii , which mimics anthrax.

Not that I'm expecting answers, not had any yet...
 

Truthnow

New Member
That's right. They don't want to give any clues as to what they might be up to by making ANY comments about what is or isn't going on. Someone could potentially figure out what they're working on by a process of elimination, better just not to make any comments at all.

Please forgive me, I came here with an open mind, but some of you guys scare me with you blind acceptance that it must be safe if our governments doing it to us.

I wish I had your optimism and trust...
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
Anthrax and zinc cadmium sulphide for example? Can you tell me who thought these to be harmless?

Cadmium, for example is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and, during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.

As you've noted yourself it was Zinc Cadmium sulphide not Cadmium and bacillus globigii not Anthrax. How can you be seeking the truth when you change the facts?

Cloudspotter

Was there a mass evacuation I was unaware of or am I missing something?

I was alive from 1960 and live on the South Dorset coastline!

Not that I'm expecting answers, not had any yet...

What was the purpose of the tests?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Cloudspotter, you are so entrenched in your position, that you automatically, without looking at the evidence, presume I must have been misled? I merely quoted

On what evidence you base the fact that

I really surprises me that firstly, you are not aware of this fact and secondly, you presume I've been misled! I thought I was the newbie here...

I didn't say I believed the mainstream media, however, had they been lying about the MOD, I presume the MOD would have challenged them by now, would they not?



It wasn't designed to be found, someone in the MOD came clean! But I have to ask, did you consent to being sparayed with Anthrax?

I really feel some of you are still defending firmly entrenched positions. This is leading to you drawing false conclusions, before seeing the evidence.

What is your agenda here? Is it to debunk something you don't believe, or is it to search for truth?

I am simply seeking truth

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
No one was sprayed with anthrax in these tests.

However this has no relevance at all to discussing chemtrails.
 

Truthnow

New Member
We can start by establishing a scientific baseline such as understanding basic physical properties of the atmosphere such as relative humidity and such.

And how would you propose doing that scombrid?

You obviously don't want to start by answering ANY of the questions I've already asked.

And you guys knock the so called 'chemmies'. At least they answer my questions!
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
However this has no relevance at all to discussing chemtrails.

I believe that Truthnow thinks that the relevance flows from this:

I am aware that the mainstream press has reported that the MOD admitted to secretly spraying us with dangerous chemicals including zinc cadmium sulphide and have conducted aerial germ warfare experiments on us in the past, which included micro-organisms, secretly, without our consent, for period of 40 years, so I don't think the idea of them perhaps continuing this sort of activity, also in secret, is as preposterous as many on this forum do.

In short, if the government conducted secret experiments in the past that affected the public then it is probably doing so again. Therefore chemtrails.

I say, fine, there probably are clandestine programs and aren't for the benefit of Joe Public. But I also say that debunking is a better help at finding those programs than perpetuating a hoax. If "awake" people are chasing around airplane contrails because they have been misled by people like the Chemtrail Promoters then the government has less work to do to hide any secret nefarious activities. There are basic facts about contrail formation that must be understood before one can even begin to look for something abnormal.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
You obviously don't want to start by answering ANY of the questions I've already asked.

Suggest you look back up the page. Your implication that NONE of your questions has been answered is false. Also suggest you take the chip off your shoulder if you are truly seeking facts.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
You obviously don't want to start by answering ANY of the questions I've already asked.

What question of fact would you specifally like answered?

Since the opening post was about chemtrails, do you have a specific question about chemtrails that you feel should be addressed? I can't find one in this thread.
 

Truthnow

New Member
As you've noted yourself it was Zinc Cadmium sulphide not Cadmium and bacillus globigii not Anthrax. How can you be seeking the truth when you change the facts?
What was the purpose of the tests?
Cloudspotter, have you bothered to read the article? Sorry, don't want to add another question for you not to answer.

I don't know what the purpose of the tests were, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS!

Biggerdave, they sprayed Anthrax off the Scottish coast. I believe people live in Scotland.

I thought you guys must be the experts as you would know what's going on and would answer my questions.

Instead of answering my questions, you simply want to argue and pick hole in them.

I came here with an open mind, but as I said, you guys scare me...

I will not be posting again unless my questions are answered
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I didn't make the video

Your thread title is: "A challenge to you to discuss this openly" So what is it that you want to be discussed? The vid is vague, but mentions sublimation. You say you don't understand sublimation. Is sublimation what you want to see discussed openly?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I believe that Truthnow thinks that the relevance flows from this:



In short, if the government conducted secret experiments in the past that affected the public then it is probably doing so again. Therefore chemtrails.

I say, fine, there probably are clandestine programs and aren't for the benefit of Joe Public. But I also say that debunking is a better help at finding those programs than perpetuating a hoax. If "awake" people are chasing around airplane contrails because they have been misled by people like the Chemtrail Promoters then the government has less work to do to hide any secret nefarious activities. There are basic facts about contrail formation that must be understood before one can even begin to look for something abnormal.

Yeah I find an argument is used " Well the government did zyz in the past" but we are not talking past actions. Our government took us into an unpopular war in Iraq ergo we should be attacking Syria. Well we ain't so maybe we did learn from past actions?

In UK law a defendants past convictions are not brought up during trial, unless the prosecution is able to put an extremely compeling argument to the judge, which is rare. The defendant is tried on the merits of the case presented. This is just the same.

So Truthnow. What are the merits for the case for chemtrails?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Cloudspotter, have you bothered to read the article? Sorry, don't want to add another question for you not to answer.

I don't know what the purpose of the tests were, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS!

Biggerdave, they sprayed Anthrax off the Scottish coast. I believe people live in Scotland.

I thought you guys must be the experts as you would know what's going on and would answer my questions.

Instead of answering my questions, you simply want to argue and pick hole in them.

I came here with an open mind, but as I said, you guys scare me...

I will not be posting again unless my questions are answered

How did this thread come to be about that article? I think you should begin again, in a new thread with a different focus than the one you started here. You have flown off onto a wild tangent and expect people to obediently follow along. It's impolite and not productive.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Cloudspotter, have you bothered to read the article? Sorry, don't want to add another question for you not to answer.

I don't know what the purpose of the tests were, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS!

Biggerdave, they sprayed Anthrax off the Scottish coast. I believe people live in Scotland.

I thought you guys must be the experts as you would know what's going on and would answer my questions.

Instead of answering my questions, you simply want to argue and pick hole in them.

I came here with an open mind, but as I said, you guys scare me...

I will not be posting again unless my questions are answered

Grunard was an uninhabited island and it was not sprayed but bombs exploded. No spores reached the mainland. I have seen the films. Fascinating stuff.
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
Gentlemen, I think if we are going to discuss something we first need to define what it is we are trying to establish knowledge about.
As most of you already know the word "chemtrails" can mean a number of different things depending on who you ask.

If we are to have a sound discussion, my suggestion is that we:

  • First, establish what we are talking about. A clear definition of what "chemtrails" is/are. Or at least define some kind of expectation of what it is. Are we talking deliberate spraying program? Or is it unintentional?
  • Who is doing it?
  • For what purpose?
  • How does these trails achieve their purpose? What is the mechanism/process behind them?
  • What proper methods would be useful to detect if they exist as claimed?
  • Have such methods been used to establish any sort of confirmation of said phenomena?
This is more the way things need to be constructed first. Otherwise there will only be gishgallop about historical anecdotes and paranoia.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Gentlemen, I think if we are going to discuss something we first need to define what it is we are trying to establish knowledge about.
As most of you already know the word "chemtrails" can mean a number of different things depending on who you ask.

If we are to have a sound discussion, my suggestion is that we:

  • First, establish what we are talking about. We need to define what "chemtrails" is/are. Or at least define some kind of expectation of what it is. Are we talking deliberate spraying program? Or is it unintentional?
  • Who is doing it?
  • For what purpose?
  • How does these trails achieve their purpose? What is the mechanism/process behind them?
  • What proper methods would be useful to detect if they exist as claimed?
  • Have such methods been used to establish any sort of confirmation of said phenomena?
This is more the way we need to construct things. Otherwise there will only be gishgallop about historical anecdotes and paranoia.
No, WE don't need to do that, and would only be forced to guess or pick one out of many. The PROPONENTS of the story should come into agreement on those details, but they never will, due to the fact that little of what they are talking about actually exists.
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
No, WE don't need to do that, and would only be forced to guess or pick one out of many. The PROPONENTS of the story should come into agreement on those details, but they never will, due to the fact that little of what they are talking about actually exists.

Well, yes of course. I meant we in a more general sense. But of course the ones doing the claim must agree on the definition of "chemtrails", not the sceptics. My point is just that if open discussion is the purpose everyone needs to know the definition. I'll change the first point in my post.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Well, yes of course. I meant we in a more general sense. But of course the ones doing the claim must agree on the definition of "chemtrails", not the sceptics. My point is just that if open discussion is the purpose everyone needs to know the definition. I'll change the first point in my post.

Impossible. There IS no one firm definition and what definition(s) there are change in response to debunking. In the end, and this is already happening, proponents will be reduced to claiming some sort of supernatural attributes- in effect, magic. Saw it happen with the Planet X claimants. Some chemtrail proponents are already in the process of placing their story into a realm where it pretty much can't be touched by debunking. "Invisible planes", holograms and the like. How do you debunk an alleged invisible plane?
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
I understand that too Hama Neggs.

But my experience is that few believers ever spend time defining what they believe. They simply want it to be true to satisfy prior government phobia, without needing to go into detail.
You ask them for a definition and most of them will fail to provide one that is coherent, essentially debunking themselves by exposing their conviction as nothing but blind faith.

But of course there are always those that wander into fantasy land, but I think both you and I know that you can't argue with people on that level. There is no point.
But I also know there are believers that actually can produce more realistic narratives, claims that can be addressed if needed.
 

Related Articles

Top