Australian Science: Chemtrails – Conspiracy Theory?

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
Can´t believing what this magazine wrotes about the topic:

http://www.australianscience.com.au/chemistry-2/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory/

It´s mostly a critical description about "What in the world..." but the conclusion in the last phrase is getting me facepalmed:

Over and over there are references that scream sensationalism tactics. Presenting one side of the story as this film does, makes it a bit difficult to really ascertain what the perceived harm is and if chemtrails are really a ploy by governments the globe over to decrease the human race. If it is true, than we should start tracking the whereabouts of aluminium and barium in relation to scheduled flight plans and requesting that our elected officials work with our national scientific organizations to find the answers, while looking for real solutions to climate change that works for the populations and the planet.

Nothing about the physics of contrails in this article. Just a "Who is who" of the people presented in Murphys Video.

Is this "Australian Science?!?"
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
This kind of thing is really irritating to me. The site appears to be generally respectable, but this article is awful. The author basically wrote an article which repeats the claims of the movie, and at most expressed some mild skepticism about some aspects. There was one "thumbs up" comment already posted, I just submitted the following:

Belfrey
December 29, 2012 at 3:15 pm ·
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The primary premise of the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory – that ordinary contrails can’t persist for long periods of time, and thus any trails that do are evidence of chemical spraying – is provably false. Contrails can indeed persist for hours when a plane travels through the right atmospheric conditions. This has been documented both in popular media and in the scientific literature for as long as there’s been high-altitude air travel. Do a literature search for the term “persistent contrails”. Plenty of papers on this topic from the 1950s to today.


Aluminum is the most abundant metal, and the third-most abundant element in the earth’s crust. It is naturally 7-8% of soil on average, much higher in some areas. It has always ended up in air and rainwater via airborne dust. Even the link you give in the article states that “Aluminum occurs naturally in soil, water, and air.” Indeed, it is so commonly found in samples that it is often used by scientists as a reference element, to determine what proportion of other elements in samples comes from the earth’s crust as opposed to other sources – the “crustal enrichment factor”. Barium and strontium are also naturally-occurring in soil and dust, as shown by decades of results reported in scientific journals.


The makers of this movie made no attempt to establish what are “normal” levels of these elements, and instead assume that any results are abnormal (and further, assume that they must have been released aerially). The only really high-sounding results they present came from dirty summer snowpack and pond sludge – both of which naturally have a lot of soil, and thus a lot of aluminum.


Aluminum toxicity has always been a problem with crops in some areas. This is primarily due not to the amount of aluminum in the soil (again, there is normally a lot), but rather the soil pH; when the pH is very low (acidic), aluminum becomes more soluble as Al+++ ions, and that’s when Al toxicity can be an issue for some plants. Some parts of the world have very acidic soil on otherwise good agricultural land, thus the push for aluminum-resistant varieties. Ironically, this film claims that the “spray” is increasing soil pH (making it more alkaline), which if true would make Al toxicity LESS of a problem.


This leaves the geoengineering proposals. Scientists are indeed discussing and studying the possibility of solar radiation management (SRM) programs for the future. However, nowhere is there any evidence that there is an SRM program currently ongoing. In fact, the very same scientists who are misrepresented in this film are on record saying that we should NOT start such a program now.


Rather than writing an article which just describes the claims made in this film, why not do just a little bit of background research into whether those claims are accurate?
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
This must be a kind of april-fools-day article or something simular...

...filed under "Chemistry" :)

...tagged with aluminium, chemtrails, climate change, conspiracy theory, contrails,genetic engineering, geoengineering, government, Monsanto, weather control
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I made a comment, awaiting moderation probably because of links.

Jay Reynolds said:
Kelly,
Google "Mt. Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests" and at the metabunk.org site you will find two pages explaining that the claims made by Michael J. Murphy's film about aluminum being sprayed are not supported by the tests as claimed. When it was found that the Murphy&Co. tests were showing ordinary aluminum levels, the tests were repeated and only the expected levels of aluminum bearing the signature of mother earth were detected, not some mysterious geoengineering spraying.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/137-Shasta-Snow-and-Water-Aluminum-Tests

Also, you can google "Historical Aerosol Thickness Debunks "Chemtrails are Geoengineering"" and you will find that data compiled over the past 50 years shows no increase in aerosols as would be happening if geoengineering were taking place.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/11...bunks-quot-Chemtrails-are-Geoengineering-quot

Furthermore, you mention a common sense approach to actually identify the planes seen. That was my suggestion as well to Mr. G. Edward Griffin, co-producer of the film. When he did this he found that they were ordinary commercial jets. You can view the exchange by googling "Debunked: Only Four Airliner Flights/Day over Mt. Shasta, CA" for the details.
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/10664

Lastly, the hallmark of science is when data is fully disclosed and openly discussed. All of the above information showing the gross errors in Murphy's film has been received by him, but he refuses to discuss those matters or correct his errors. You can view details on this by googling " Proposal for a "Chemtrails Information Freedom Aagreement".
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/26...hemtrails-Information-Freedom-Aagreement-quot

The bottom line here is that the producers of that movie are interested only in maintaining their bottom line, despite being made aware that there is no basis for their claims.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Interesting website... Australian Science but most of the contributors are not Australian.

my comment below was also deleted...

Michael GlynnDecember 29, 2012 at 9:03 pm ·
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
As an airline pilot I find it disturbing that a supposed science magazine even countenances the idea of “chemtrails”. The crucial qualifications that all believers in this silly hoax lack is expertise in either meteorology or heavy jet aviation. Knowledge of either squashes this hoax at the very early stages. Please do not feed this hoax any further as the zealotry of some is beginning to manifest as threats to pilots and aircraft. Feel free to contact me for a pilots point of view.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Interesting website... Australian Science but most of the contributors are not Australian.

my comment below was also deleted...
My comment got in, and probably yours will too. Michael J. Murphy sent Barry Kolsky out for a non-response.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
It looks like Kelly Burnes posted a closing thought that pretty much rebukes the film ...

From http://www.australianscience.com.au/chemistry-2/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory/:
At first glance, the movie “What in the World are they Spraying” seems to be a professionally made film with a genuine concern for the public and contains information that is worth thinking about. However, after examining some of the facts presented in the movie a little more closely, it is readily apparent that information had been twisted or ignored.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It looks like Kelly Burnes posted a closing thought that pretty much rebukes the film ...

From http://www.australianscience.com.au/chemistry-2/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory/:

Unfortunately that was a post by "Arby". Kelly's post was:

It's the old "false balance" problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
If her goal with the article was to "assess the main points on both sides and provide recommendations and links that allow the reader to access more in-depth information should they wish", then I think she failed rather miserably. She did not discuss any science-based information regarding persistent contrails, and the only external links she provided were to the Truth Media blog, an article about cloud engineering, and a link about aluminum exposure and human health.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
But is it worthy of examination and conversation on Australian Science, a website that claims to be a "privately-funded initiative dedicated to advancement of science, technology and education in Australia."? There is no scientific evidence of chemtrails, so there is no scientific evidence to examine or discuss.

If Australian Science is going to give scientific credibility to chemtrails, then I expect they would be willing to publish articles on the Abominable Snowman and hollow earth theories as well.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, essentially it's a popular science site. Not a particular big one (Alexa says it has less traffic than Metabunk), so it's not like nature.com publishing a similar article.

The author is not really a scientist, and it's clear she's not really looked into the science, or even thought much about it, with statements like "aluminium that falls as pellets from the sky". While it does seem like she recognizes that it's probably not good science, she's just not looked into it enough to recognize it's not even science at all, and falls into the trap of giving "balance" to the subject.

It's unfortunate, but probably not a big deal - hopefully the comments there will give people some better perspective.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
She indicates they want to give balance to opposing viewpoints. She doesn't actually give any detail at all to the scientifically supported fact of persistent contrails.
That follows the lazy journalism fad of adversarial drama to get more readers and viewers rather than informative revelation of science concepts and processes.

Throw out to the public unfounded and well founded conflicting concepts with no background discussion of what reality has been determined already by scientific research and let the public guess at what is right .
The public knows best right? Surely they will have the motivation and research skills to look up obscure scientific texts written in detailed scientific terminology and discern what is right.
One half of the folks disseminating the conflicting and WRONG viewpoints featured in the story were incapable of doing that but surely the reader will do better without guidance?

That's a fun easy approach for a lazy journalist.
Think about how that approach works in the case of communication about a subject like ... say... HIV transmission.

We need to give the public equal time to conflicting viewpoints and approaches so how about an article that spends at least half of its coverage detailing how voodoo practitioners in Southern Africa think a man can cleanse himself of Aids by having relations with Virgins.

Briefly compare that with some pesky gobblegook about T cells and recombinant thingamabobs and let the readers experiment amongst themselves to see what works best.
That sure worked great in South Africa didn't it?
http://draust.wordpress.com/2008/12...t-of-political-idiocy-and-aids-pseudoscience/
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
Poor Damo (a friend of Peekay22 ) STILL doesn't know what a heated drain mast is, even though it was explained clearly to him over a year ago, with links sent to him of technical diagrams etc.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=H...BDM_nmAXrrYDIAg&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1168&bih=910


http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lloyd-Aereo-Boliviano/Boeing-767-3P6-ER/0916934/L/


A drainmast is a heated tube that takes wastewater from sinks and galleys on board an airliner and it releases waste water (not the toilets flushes though) out through the belly of the plane.
Because the water is only room temperature and not engine heat, it comes out as liquid and doesn't leave a clear gap of a metre or more before becoming visible.
A sink full takes about a minute to empty sometimes, so at 500mph that makes a white ice crystal trail that could be 8 miles long or so depending on atmospheric conditions if it persists for a while.

The drain mast is only releasing whatever water comes out of a sink through a very small hole and since it is a sink, it often comes out in fits and starts The engines on a 747 are releasing 12 TONS of water per hour through 4 very big holes. That's quite a difference and that is why the trails are very different in size in his vid.
Releasing a small amount of water from a sink makes a small short lived trail like the one seen in Damo's video.
When the flight attendants dump a pot of unwanted cold coffee down a sink, there goes another mysterious "third chemtrail" (of 5th for a 4engine plane) !


The main contrails in his video also exhibit some spiralling crow instability. He does not seem to bother thinking through the fact that the contrails start out straight and begin to distort over time due to turbulence left in the atmosphere by the wings. Most forms of energetic turbulence vortices start out small, fast and tight then increase in dimension as they slow down .
He should have a careful read about wake turbulence.
http://expertaviator.com/2011/04/29...ce-after-the-first-lady’s-go-around-incident/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_instability

http://www.far-wake.org/IMG/workshop/PDF/FWW_10_Delisi.pdf

Damo is then mystified by out of focus insects flying in front of his camera lens.
The so called "giant UFO's " he has never observed with the naked eye, even though if they were at altitude they should be bigger than a jet liner.
He only notices them after studying his videos frame by frame, but never noticed them when viewing in person. He rejects the idea that an out of focus small object close to camera like a bug would look transparent and blurry or spherical.

TheDamo63 asks questions about things he observes but immediately blocks anyone who tries to answer accurately and deletes their responses apparently without reading them.

Treasure, since most of us are blocked from supplying accurate answers to Damo you might care to head him in the right direction.
Don't want the poor chap mystified and bewildered for too long!
 

Joe

Senior Member
Poor Damo (a friend of Peekay22 ) STILL doesn't know what a heated drain mast is, even though it was explained clearly to him over a year ago, with links sent to him of technical diagrams etc.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=H...BDM_nmAXrrYDIAg&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1168&bih=910


http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lloyd-Aereo-Boliviano/Boeing-767-3P6-ER/0916934/L/


A drainmast is a heated tube that takes wastewater from sinks and galleys on board an airliner and it releases waste water (not the toilets flushes though) out through the belly of the plane.
Because the water is only room temperature and not engine heat, it comes out as liquid and doesn't leave a clear gap of a metre or more before becoming visible.
A sink full takes about a minute to empty sometimes, so at 500mph that makes a white ice crystal trail that could be 8 miles long or so depending on atmospheric conditions if it persists for a while.

The drain mast is only releasing whatever water comes out of a sink through a very small hole and since it is a sink, it often comes out in fits and starts The engines on a 747 are releasing 12 TONS of water per hour through 4 very big holes. That's quite a difference and that is why the trails are very different in size in his vid.
Releasing a small amount of water from a sink makes a small short lived trail like the one seen in Damo's video.
When the flight attendants dump a pot of unwanted cold coffee down a sink, there goes another mysterious "third chemtrail" (of 5th for a 4engine plane) !


The main contrails in his video also exhibit some spiralling crow instability. He does not seem to bother thinking through the fact that the contrails start out straight and begin to distort over time due to turbulence left in the atmosphere by the wings. Most forms of energetic turbulence vortices start out small, fast and tight then increase in dimension as they slow down .
He should have a careful read about wake turbulence.
http://expertaviator.com/2011/04/29...ce-after-the-first-lady’s-go-around-incident/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_instability

http://www.far-wake.org/IMG/workshop/PDF/FWW_10_Delisi.pdf

Damo is then mystified by out of focus insects flying in front of his camera lens.
The so called "giant UFO's " he has never observed with the naked eye, even though if they were at altitude they should be bigger than a jet liner.
He only notices them after studying his videos frame by frame, but never noticed them when viewing in person. He rejects the idea that an out of focus small object close to camera like a bug would look transparent and blurry or spherical.

TheDamo63 asks questions about things he observes but immediately blocks anyone who tries to answer accurately and deletes their responses apparently without reading them.

Treasure, since most of us are blocked from supplying accurate answers to Damo you might care to head him in the right direction.
Don't want the poor chap mystified and bewildered for too long!
Thanks for the explanation makes sense but even sink water can be pretty gross :( . I thought it would just been a insect but it did appear to be above the contrail? Blocking anyone even if you disagree is wrong . unless they just mock and insult .
 

A380

Senior Member.
Hi,

a similar trail sometimes can be seen after takeoff in summer:


dscf3733_1000w4dk6.jpg

It is fuel from the overflow valve, when the tank is full and the fuel heats up and expands. The overflow valve is by Boeing in the front of the wing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Last edited:

A380

Senior Member.
Interesting, but is that what your photo is showing? The trails seems to be coming from the body, not the wing. Shouldn't it look like this:

Yes, that is the number 1 wing tank. My example is the auxiliary fuel tank:

fueltankventaux.jpg

(Edit: Sorry, wrong picture)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Auxiliary fuel tanks are not that common though - they go in the front or rear cargo/baggage compartments, and take up valuable space. You would not expect to see them fitted for normal airline ops, unless there was a requirement for considerable rang - eg the 737-700 has a 300 mile range normally, but that can be increased to 5775 on the ER model with 9 auxiliary tanks (Boeing data)

But the 737-700ER has a lower practical seating capacity than the straight -700 - only 126 vs 137 in 2-class. Theoretically it can cram in as many as the -700, but then you can't carry all that extra fuel, so what's the point!

Some more info on auxiliary tanks on 737 up to the "Classics" is here

Anyway - I suspect the shot of the 737 with the "fuselage contrail" is probably just a sink drain.
 

A380

Senior Member.
Anyway - I suspect the shot of the 737 with the "fuselage contrail" is probably just a sink drain.

It seems to come from the right wing base, here is a sector of the picture:

dscf3733_ausschnittn8u9t.jpg

A mechanic says that it could be water, but then it would be on the left hand site. Here is an example for the vent for the auxiliary fuel tank on the right hand site: http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel_tank_vent.htm

The plane was UR-GAJ and started on a very hot day in TXL. On the photo is the plane approximately 6 m behind the airport in the climb. It ascended very slowly.
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
It seems to come from the right wing base, here is a sector of the picture:

View attachment 1382

A mechanic says that it could be water, but then it would be on the left hand site. Here is an example for the vent for the auxiliary fuel tank on the right hand site: http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel_tank_vent.htm

The plane was UR-GAJ and started on a very hot day in TXL. On the photo is the plane approximately 6 m behind the airport in the climb. It ascended very slowly.

APU venting something maybe? The inlet for it is just ahead of there as well.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It seems to come from the right wing base, here is a sector of the picture:

View attachment 1382

A mechanic says that it could be water, but then it would be on the left hand site. Here is an example for the vent for the auxiliary fuel tank on the right hand site: http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel_tank_vent.htm

Yes - he would be right - all the drain masts are on the left of the aircraft because all the ground servicing is done on the right hand side - it helps keep the vehicles away from them. Even the APU drain is on the left side.

The plane was UR-GAJ and started on a very hot day in TXL. On the photo is the plane approximately 6 m behind the airport in the climb. It ascended very slowly.

UR-GAJ is a 737-500 (as an aside an airline I was working for was goign to get -500's in hte late 1980's...then the 1887 crisis hit, and suddenly Fred Packer had 5 years of BAe-146 production he had monopolised for overnight freight in Europe had no market and had to fly somewhere - so all his interests around the world got 146's - Australia, New Zealand & Sth America that I am aware of)

Tte only feature it is definitely associated with is the APU, but I hesitate to say it is an APU trail because if it only 6 miles from the airport then it won't be very high altitude as you say, and all I can think of from the APU is a fuel mist because the APU isn't actually running but fuel is slowing.

My experience with 737 APU's is quite old and minimal, but IIRC they were totally automatic in operation - in the cockpit there was just an start/run/off switch and a warning light! If they stopped burning they would shut down. Likewise the fuel would not run for long before lighting up.

A smokey APU maybe?
 

A380

Senior Member.
Sorry for late answer - much work …

UR-GAJ : I'm not sure why there is a suggestion of the trail coming from the rhs wingbase. Are you guys referring to the long white specular highlight due to paint shinyness visible on the blue tail section?

The plane took off in my direction, and I saw that the strip was left of the fuselage. Unfortunately I had no camera at the moment. When I did, I saw the plane just as seen on the picture.

I know planes from PS (Ukraine International), they came by here very often. I have many photos from this airline, some are here: http://foto-jl.de/bildserie.php?act=flugzeug_gesellschaft&ges=Ukraine International. Reflections look different from this trail, the sun came here from top left. The stripes on the aircraft is the extension of the strip behind the aircraft.

And on http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel_tank_vent.htm is:

This vent is forward of the starboard wing leading edge and is the vent for the auxiliary fuel tank, if fitted.

Condensation can be excluded, because it was too hot and dry.

That all would fit together.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
Gundersen Debunked: Australian Rainwater "Chemtrail" test Contrails and Chemtrails 11
TWCobra Australian and New Zealand Geo-engineering protest posts photoshopped image. Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Critical Thinker Claim: "Australian and US scientists reverse ageing in mice, humans could be next" General Discussion 0
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Sandor Szekely Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any. Flat Earth 1027
Mick West Orgonite Experiments Science and Pseudoscience 38
Inti Presenting the good stuff in Metabunk and Contrail Science in a different way? Practical Debunking 6
Leifer "What on Earth ?" science channel fail ? Practical Debunking 11
Georgie G Debunked: SpaceX Rocket Crash Landing Anomalies General Discussion 21
Mick West 1952 - Condensation Trails From Aircraft - With a 1937 Persistent Contrail Photo - Oldest Ever? Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Balance Met Office - Case Study Contrail-induced Cirrus Contrails and Chemtrails 0
MikeG Debunked: Fukushima Causing Bloody Tumors in Fish [Old Photos] Science and Pseudoscience 15
tadaaa Debunked: The Equator Drain Trick (direction of water flow) Science and Pseudoscience 11
JFDee Child Victim of "Alternative Medicine" Health and Quackery 4
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
Bruno D. Chocolate Diet hoax - interesting case about junk science General Discussion 4
MikeC 95,000 kids, 20 years of science - no connection between Autism and MMR Health and Quackery 1
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
MikeC Contrail Science on Skeptic.com Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West History and Science of Weather Modification Contrails and Chemtrails 11
JFDee "Escaping the Prison of Belief" - Science as a Remedy, by Ex-Scientologist General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Leifer Investigated: "Why are massive numbers of sea creatures dying along the west coast" Science and Pseudoscience 19
Zane O'Neill Is Contrail Science a CIA Disinformation site? Contrails and Chemtrails 51
Leifer What books are you reading ? (conspiracy related, science, etc...) General Discussion 128
Critical Thinker Scientific American: Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior General Discussion 2
Keef Wivaneff Faith v Science General Discussion 4
Gavriel Psychology Is Not a Science Science and Pseudoscience 3
Mick West Bad science in the paper 'Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant GM maize' Science and Pseudoscience 120
Jay Reynolds The Day Italians United for Science Practical Debunking 0
Mick West Paper: Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Critical Thinker Links to science related educational websites Science and Pseudoscience 11
Mick West Closing comments on Contrail Science Site Feedback & News 14
RolandD Deceptive Headlines misrepresenting science Science and Pseudoscience 3
MikeC The Science about not believing Science General Discussion 4
Mick West Contrail Science Interactive Flights Map (beta) Contrails and Chemtrails 18
HappyMonday The science of persistence Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Popular Science 1958: Weather As A Weapon Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science Contrails and Chemtrails 8
P Facebook group dedicated to spamming contrail science Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Part II Science and Pseudoscience 6
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Science and Pseudoscience 16
Skirtz Science aside... Contrails and Chemtrails 74
tryblinking The 'Bad Science' of quackery , and other sterling TED talks. Health and Quackery 0
Mick West Contrail Science and Metabunk on the Critical Wit Podcast General Discussion 0
ThorGoLucky Contrail Science in Skeptical Inquirer Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Celebrities and Science 2010 Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top