John Massaria
New Member
DID YOU read anything I gave you to read Celtic Symbol lady? READ The Belfort Group Citizens In action published in 2010. Like I said , I will give you some time...
Chemtrails Video with Ballast Barrels
- Thread starter Jay Reynolds
- Start date
DID YOU read anything I gave you to read Celtic Symbol lady? READ The Belfort Group Citizens In action published in 2010. Like I said , I will give you some time...
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Whoa there, partner. There's no need to get agitated. I asked simple question that required a simple answer. A "yes" would have sufficed.
scombrid
Senior Member.
Those are from sources other than airplanes. Mercury and PCBs have declined in many areas since the EPA was created.
Nope.
Your mercury exposure is either due to local pollution or is methyl mercury from your diet. Most mercury in the food chain comes from coal fired power generation and industry and it bio-accumulates. There are also places where munciple trash incinerators are major sources. Bass from the everglades are contaminated and used to be reeaaalllly high in mercury before the incinerators were shut.
Those trails are condensed and frozen vapor.
When you burn petroleum you take O2 and combine it with hydrocarbons. The oxygen atoms bond with the carbon and hydrogen atoms in the fuel and you get carbon dioxide and water as the dominant products of the reaction.
If you do not know that water is a natural product of the combustion of hydrocarbons, I find it odd that you would suggest that I need to do more research.
There's a thread about that. Feel free to point out errors in that thread.
Leaded fuel and its problems/risks have nothing to do with white lines in the sky. Lead fuel has nothing to do with things like PCB and Mercury contamination in the environment.
Why are you conflating these issues?
John Massaria
New Member
I am being asked the same question over and over, thus you and I can't count how many others never read the document I refer to... "Belfort Group-CONTRAIL SCIENCE ... Weather Manipulation programs conducted by The United States and it's allies"
Looking at this thread title, I think it is in accurate since CHEM is short for CHEMICAL and Trail is something left behind... we are not burining water up there are we? Changing H20 in to hydrogen as fuel? It is NOT a condensation trail, it is a "CON" to say Contrail, its not proper terminology. Its A CHEM-TRAIL... so this is not debunked and the thread name is in accurate. Anther fun fact: "de-bunkers in the 1940's-1950's used to say cigarette smoking was actually good for you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz8EQT2LB-w
MikeC
Closed Account
The Belfort "report" was nonsense when it was published, and it remains nonsense now - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/95...e-Orange-quot-conclusions-amp-recommendations
Last edited by a moderator:
scombrid
Senior Member.
The piston driven craft the use leaded fuel aren't leaving white trails in the sky.
The exhaust from a jet liner is no more toxic in its constituents than my car or diesel trucks.
Regarding the piece on toxicology of exposure to JP-5, JP-7, etc...
I can find similar for the fuel you put in your car. The material you provided on fuel toxicity is not any more relevant to contrail formation and constitution than a material safety data sheet on automotive fuel.
Rico
Senior Member.
You need to get your facts straight if you have any hope of achieving a constructive argument.
Truth be told, I could hardly care if you call them a chemtrail or not. There is just insufficient evidence to support a conspiracy notion that they are out there trying to poison us, which seems to be your base accusation. Are airplane exhausts clean? No, not entirely, but I can see by the tone you present here that you have a grind with something more than the cleanliness of it all.
No, we are not burning water. We are burning hydrocarbons, including 100LL Avgas, various Jet fuels, and more recently, mogas (car gas). The product is water vapor. Clouds are visible moisture. When water vapor becomes cooled enough, it becomes visible moisture too. Hence white streaks. So yeah, it IS a condensation trail.
People here aren't here to disprove chemtrails, they are here tearing apart inaccurate facts. That is what debunking is about.
MikeC
Closed Account
Ah - the old chemmie attempt to broaden the definition of "chemtrail" to include every chemical released into teh atmospher - OK - well in that case:
Why just concentrate on the ones that chan be seen - what about all the invisible ones? such as all aircraft when they are NOT making contrails??
Or all cars? Or all peole - by breathing you are making a "chemtrail" by your new improved" definiion - not to mention what comes out your other end!!
Expanding the defintion is a common tactic when chemmies finally realise that htey have no evidence - it seeks validation of the hoax by including "chemical trails" for which ther is actually verifiable evidence - and once it is admiitted that these new style chemtrails exist the chemmie will proudly hold forth - "See - I was right all along, chemtails exist".
all chemicals in the atmosphere are chemtrails in the same way that all tanks are containers for holding liquids, or all planes are woodworking tools or all chests hold pirate treasure.
Trying to expand the definition is just basic dishonesty rathe than admit having fallen for the hoax.
MikeC
Closed Account
In terms of fuel use, aviation uses a small fraction of the fuel used by surface transport
US Statistics in fuel use by different types of transport per-annum since 1960
In 2010:
Aviation fuel: 12,712 million gallons
highway gasoline, diesel & other fuels: 169,769 million gallons (of which 86,666 million gallons are attributed to light vehicles with short wheelbase - ie cars and small trucks - and motorcycles)
Aviation is a long LONG way behind land transport in burning up hydrocarbons!!
Other transport - rail and water: another 11,130 million gallons of liquid fuel, and about 7,000 million kWh of electricity
US Statistics in fuel use by different types of transport per-annum since 1960
In 2010:
Aviation fuel: 12,712 million gallons
highway gasoline, diesel & other fuels: 169,769 million gallons (of which 86,666 million gallons are attributed to light vehicles with short wheelbase - ie cars and small trucks - and motorcycles)
Aviation is a long LONG way behind land transport in burning up hydrocarbons!!
Other transport - rail and water: another 11,130 million gallons of liquid fuel, and about 7,000 million kWh of electricity
John Massaria
New Member
325 pages of Scientific Nonsense! WOW.
You guys are in your world, and I am in mine... have fun... and now a word from your sponsor:
"https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6AE395F07DE9A480"
Hey everyone, did you see, smoking is a ok for ya! No worries. And by the way those plumes of white behind jets, well its all COLD AIR and water... see... no chemicals in there. We burn TOXIC fuel (Jet Propellant) and well expel nothing toxic.
Mystery solved.
Next up... in a recent study, lead, aluminum, mercury are NOT poisonous at all! Yes it's true, all debunked right here on this forum. Thanks for all your efforts folks! No global warming either... yep... it's all in your head... just go back to watching TV and listen to us... and why not sit behind a Jet while its on the run way and breathe those water vapors in, its all WATER condensation after all... all hot air
Last edited by a moderator:
scombrid
Senior Member.
Do you really not know that H20 is a primary product of combustion of hydrocarbon fuel along with CO2?
That there are additives to the fuel to make it more toxic (barium, aluminum, etc...) and that this manifests in white trails that would not be there without the additives is debunked. The white is water.
Nobody here says that airplane emissions aren't pollution. Exhaust from any combustion is pollution. Its just that the white lines aren't what you assert them to be and the trails don't contain what you assert them to contain.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
What devastating sarcastic wit.
So is the formation of a contrail somehow more toxic than when a plane doesn't form a trail?
Why are you focused on aviation fuel? Why not cars? Do you think pollution by aircraft combustion high up in the atmosphere is more dangerous to us than combustion pollution at street level?
Does correcting your misunderstanding of contrails mean we all support pollution?
John Massaria
New Member
I am getting tired of debating, its been a few hours... and well... quite frankly the pictures used in my video are airplane equipment- and never labeled as anything less... the fact is, global extinction is at its highest ever in our recorded history. Our globe is heating up, facts you really can not deny. Our melting glaciers and depleted ozone layers are real concerns... our excessive use of pollutants is out of control. This is the issue I present in my video... I can clearly see we have different ideas on what is polluting our skys at the end of a jet stream... but no matter what you call it, more and more people are sick of being sick... and sick of making the planet sick. Can we all agree on at least that? View attachment 1820
Attachments
Billzilla
Senior Member.
Yes jet fuel is toxic, because if you choose to drink it, it will kill you. (probably) Just like literally thousands of other liquids available.
However, once run through a jet engine the exhaust is actually pretty clean. The fuel is pretty similar to conventional diesel but a bit cleaner even.
As for 'chemtrails' there is exactly zero evidence of them at all anywhere. To say otherwise is complete fiction.
John Massaria
New Member
Your a debunker... I get that... and this 325 page report is bogus from The Befort Group "Weather Manipulation Program Conducted By The United States and It's Allies" got it... can I go now?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Most of the extinctions are from the LOSS of habitat, not from chemicals. Folks are living LONGER than ever before.
I am asking you WHY, AGAIN, did you post pictures of aircraft equipment, in place discussing chem trails and then NOT tell folks what they were for? That seems to me that you meant to deceive them.
I am asking you WHY, AGAIN, did you post pictures of aircraft equipment, in place discussing chem trails and then NOT tell folks what they were for? That seems to me that you meant to deceive them.
John Massaria
New Member
I will not continue my debate... you feel the "con" trails are safe and free of any chemicals and WE all know it contains much more than water vapor... so lets please stop there
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Yes, hostility is tiring.
You are against pollution, that is a good thing - you owe it to your cause however to make sure you have the right targets in your sights - to claim that clouds are toxic because of contrails detracts from your position, because it's not true. Refine your position. Don't spread bunk, use truth.
Are you claiming there is an epidemic of sickness related to aircraft pollution?
(edit)
What percentage of a contrail contains toxic chemicals versus water?
Billzilla
Senior Member.
Weather modification, such as cloud seeding, etc, has been know to be happening for decades. It's not a secret.
I am totally sure that the entire 'chemtrails' thing is complete fiction because I spent 25 years as a pilot, including 10 years as a 747 pilot.
I never saw or hear anything about it, nor has anyone else in the trade.
It's simply pure fiction created and perpetuated by the gullible & ignorant.
MikeC
Closed Account
Yep - a total waste of time - and if you read that thread you will have some chance of understanding why.
HappyMonday
Moderator
....Priceless!
metabunk.org?
Somebody should definitely call the Gish Police for this thread.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
True they don't contain just water. I may be wrong but a breakdown of the emmisions are about 70% CO2 and less than 30% H20. Less than 1% is a mixture of various solids and gases that may or may not be present in the condensation trail. That figure at that atmosphere would have no toxicity.
However semantics aside what a contrail is or contains they don't contain deliberately added aluminium, barium or whatever it is for geo engineering. You show aircraft parts against the background of a geoeingineering interview and you claim to make no comment in their use, yet you do not allow comments or corrections. That is just deception. I wonder as to your motivation for doing that? Are you enjoying the attention while not having to take any criticism? What is your goal with your video?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
You mention mercury levels rising. The mercury comes from COAL fired power plants.
You still haven't explained why you posted pictures of aircraft parts, with NO explanation of what they are for, in a discussion on geo engineering. If you wanted to educate readers, you would have explained them. You didn't.
You still haven't explained why you posted pictures of aircraft parts, with NO explanation of what they are for, in a discussion on geo engineering. If you wanted to educate readers, you would have explained them. You didn't.
John Massaria
New Member
I added a comment in the appropriate section under the video... "Please note: This video contains many images, the ones that have aircraft images in them show 100% Aircraft equipment, the de-bunkers tell me the cylinders are full of water, they also say the contrails are harmless and contain no chem-trail residue. They also say Geo-engineering is real- but also 100% safe... you decide...."
Can I go now?
Can I go now?
GregMc
Senior Member.
John, i'm not sure why you are reposting my letter multiple times. I don't get an impression you carefully read all the included links and understood them with a .
Airliners release the most amount of exhaust gasses on takeoff and climb-out when they do not produce visible trails.
I'm wondering why you don't seem to be upset about the invisible gasses and are very upset about the harmless ice crystals that only form in very cold conditions?
The so claimed "toxic" material that jet engines release is completely invisible and it is released in the most plentiful amounts at ground level.
What you can actually SEE in the sky is non-toxic. It is just ice crystals and is no more toxic than snow.
Some people have an aesthetic concern about cirrus clouds and overcast that form in spreading contrail conditions but then so too may the dinosaurs have had concern about them over 65 million years ago when cirrus clouds also formed.
I'll see if I can find some images of sand bags that were sometimes used in the 1940s as ballast for flight testing.
1940s era German female luftwaffe testpilot FlugKapitan Hanna Reitsch had bad experiences with shifting sand bag ballast in the Fieseler Reichenberg pulse jet aircraft and almost crashed and recommended that water filled ballast tanks should be the future of ballast in flight testing.
Do you think it would be honest or ethical to take old photos of sand bags used in such flight tests and put them in a video and claim they were bags of dangerous chemicals for spraying on the population?
No? Then I'm not sure why you seem to think it's ethical or justified to do the same with photos of airliner water ballast tanks.
Another facebook user MadisonStar Moon does a similar thing, taking existing photos of well recognised test aircraft interiors and claiming they show the interior of chemtrail planes, and when confronted on the deception, claimed it to be justified as it shows what she imagined "chemtrail plane" interiors might look like.
It's interesting that psychological studies indicate that people likely to believe in conspiracies are folks who are often happy to participate in conspiracies themselves, and so can "imagine" that greater conspiracies take place.
Thus conspiracy believers will tend to falsify information, for example knowingly taking a photo of one thing and falsely claiming it to be another etc.
Airliners release the most amount of exhaust gasses on takeoff and climb-out when they do not produce visible trails.
I'm wondering why you don't seem to be upset about the invisible gasses and are very upset about the harmless ice crystals that only form in very cold conditions?
The so claimed "toxic" material that jet engines release is completely invisible and it is released in the most plentiful amounts at ground level.
What you can actually SEE in the sky is non-toxic. It is just ice crystals and is no more toxic than snow.
Some people have an aesthetic concern about cirrus clouds and overcast that form in spreading contrail conditions but then so too may the dinosaurs have had concern about them over 65 million years ago when cirrus clouds also formed.
I'll see if I can find some images of sand bags that were sometimes used in the 1940s as ballast for flight testing.
1940s era German female luftwaffe testpilot FlugKapitan Hanna Reitsch had bad experiences with shifting sand bag ballast in the Fieseler Reichenberg pulse jet aircraft and almost crashed and recommended that water filled ballast tanks should be the future of ballast in flight testing.
Do you think it would be honest or ethical to take old photos of sand bags used in such flight tests and put them in a video and claim they were bags of dangerous chemicals for spraying on the population?
No? Then I'm not sure why you seem to think it's ethical or justified to do the same with photos of airliner water ballast tanks.
Another facebook user MadisonStar Moon does a similar thing, taking existing photos of well recognised test aircraft interiors and claiming they show the interior of chemtrail planes, and when confronted on the deception, claimed it to be justified as it shows what she imagined "chemtrail plane" interiors might look like.
It's interesting that psychological studies indicate that people likely to believe in conspiracies are folks who are often happy to participate in conspiracies themselves, and so can "imagine" that greater conspiracies take place.
Thus conspiracy believers will tend to falsify information, for example knowingly taking a photo of one thing and falsely claiming it to be another etc.
GregMc
Senior Member.
Actually no, that is a misrepresentation.
Your comment implies that we acknowledge that geoengineering of the skies is being carried out. That is entirely wrong.
Your comment is analogous to saying "debunkers say that manned moon and Mars colonies are real but 100% safe"
There are NO moon bases or mars colonies but scientists investigate their possibility at some time in the future. Researching something is very different to actually doing. I've done a lot of research about travelling about Antartica but I've never been further South than Melbourne
We acknowledge that scientific investigation using mathematical modelling on computers into the possibility of conducting geoengineering in the future is conducted by scientists but geoengineering is NOT being conducted and so your statement is misleading and false.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
I work in So. Louisiana, and showed John Massaria's responses to a born Cajun. He said, "Dat guoy really is crawfishin'." What he saw is what all of us and anyone else can see. John has been caught doing something dishonest. He is crawfishin', the term comes from actions a crawfish makes to escape, he moves backwards.
We have seen a performance from John seen time and time again. Once confronted with facts which don't agree with what the chemtrail promoter was trying to say, he starts backpedaling, crawfishin'. He stops claiming anything at all like he did before, he starts complaining about ordinary stuff, not the global conspiracy he did before . He thinks we won't notice. He actually thinks we won't notice. We noticed, John.
Then he acts all innocent, speaking about passenger jet pollution when all the while in his video Dane Wigington is claiming that MILITARY jets are spraying. Dane has NEVER said that passenger jets sprayed anything, to my knowledge. Why did you show passenger jets then, John? Where are all the military jets Dane is speaking about?
You thought we wouldn't notice? We noticed, John.
So then John tries the cigarette smoking gambit, a distraction away from his slide show. Cigarette smoking is bad for you, right? He thins this makes his case stronger, maybe he can at least say something true, huh?
You thought we wouldn't notice? We noticed, John.
So then John brings out the Case Orange paper, written by the anonymous whomever. Yes we read it, John, almost three years ago, probably before you did, John. It tries to use the same stale tactics you are using. It says that "spraying" is happening, but then goes on to speak of almost nothing but ordinary contrails.
It would be very funny to see them crawfish like you do except that they got caught out citing a couple of hoaxes like the "Ontario Weather Service", which is a
joke site run by a 20-something make-believe meteorologist who never got past high school. You thought Case Orange was something new John? No, it is something very old, John. Pointing towards it might seem to give you a veneer of credibility, but once seen in its entirety, it is clear that the Case Orange report contains no support at all for the idea of the white lines as "chemtrails spraying", only for contrails.
You thought we wouldn't notice? We noticed, John.
What is really noticeable about the way you behaved here is that we can clearly see you aren't ready to admit that you were wrong to make the video the way you did. But you did in every way possible dilute down everything in an effort to avoid responsibility for doing it. You weakened it all so far down that it became a farce, a joke, a laugh. Nothing you said here bears any resemblance to support of "chemtrails spraying" If this is the way an "Indigo Child" behaves, you've got a lot of growing up to do.
BTW, Mick's questions deserve answers, because he was always polite to the extreme, and his questions really got down to the meat and bones of the issue.
Give them a try, please.
Just to let you know where Dane Wigington has really gone wrong, here is what you need to know, if you have any dispute withwhat is in these two threads, bring it on:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/61...ot-points-regarding-geoengineering?highlight=
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/89...et-Snow”-Is-Now-Often-The-Norm?highlight=dane
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/137-Debunked-Shasta-Snow-and-Water-Aluminum-Tests?highlight=dane
We have seen a performance from John seen time and time again. Once confronted with facts which don't agree with what the chemtrail promoter was trying to say, he starts backpedaling, crawfishin'. He stops claiming anything at all like he did before, he starts complaining about ordinary stuff, not the global conspiracy he did before . He thinks we won't notice. He actually thinks we won't notice. We noticed, John.
Then he acts all innocent, speaking about passenger jet pollution when all the while in his video Dane Wigington is claiming that MILITARY jets are spraying. Dane has NEVER said that passenger jets sprayed anything, to my knowledge. Why did you show passenger jets then, John? Where are all the military jets Dane is speaking about?
You thought we wouldn't notice? We noticed, John.
So then John tries the cigarette smoking gambit, a distraction away from his slide show. Cigarette smoking is bad for you, right? He thins this makes his case stronger, maybe he can at least say something true, huh?
You thought we wouldn't notice? We noticed, John.
So then John brings out the Case Orange paper, written by the anonymous whomever. Yes we read it, John, almost three years ago, probably before you did, John. It tries to use the same stale tactics you are using. It says that "spraying" is happening, but then goes on to speak of almost nothing but ordinary contrails.
It would be very funny to see them crawfish like you do except that they got caught out citing a couple of hoaxes like the "Ontario Weather Service", which is a
joke site run by a 20-something make-believe meteorologist who never got past high school. You thought Case Orange was something new John? No, it is something very old, John. Pointing towards it might seem to give you a veneer of credibility, but once seen in its entirety, it is clear that the Case Orange report contains no support at all for the idea of the white lines as "chemtrails spraying", only for contrails.
You thought we wouldn't notice? We noticed, John.
What is really noticeable about the way you behaved here is that we can clearly see you aren't ready to admit that you were wrong to make the video the way you did. But you did in every way possible dilute down everything in an effort to avoid responsibility for doing it. You weakened it all so far down that it became a farce, a joke, a laugh. Nothing you said here bears any resemblance to support of "chemtrails spraying" If this is the way an "Indigo Child" behaves, you've got a lot of growing up to do.
BTW, Mick's questions deserve answers, because he was always polite to the extreme, and his questions really got down to the meat and bones of the issue.
Give them a try, please.
Just to let you know where Dane Wigington has really gone wrong, here is what you need to know, if you have any dispute withwhat is in these two threads, bring it on:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/61...ot-points-regarding-geoengineering?highlight=
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/89...et-Snow”-Is-Now-Often-The-Norm?highlight=dane
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/137-Debunked-Shasta-Snow-and-Water-Aluminum-Tests?highlight=dane
Last edited by a moderator:
Met Watch
Moderator
Thankfully, I don't give a flying figglehorn whether you think I've failed in moderating duties or not. Last I checked, you weren't moderating this thread.
Can you go now? No one's stopping you.
The issues you have been bringing up have been addressed in multiple threads in this forum and have been discussed time and time again. You're still bringing very old (and very debunked) issues to the table. Do me a favor - either read through these threads with an open mind and try to understand the science, or at least post something brand new that we can discuss. Otherwise, discussion wise, I can no longer bring anything to the table.
Belfrey
Senior Member.
It's a mix. There's some references to legitimate science contained within it. It does not contain any evidence for the existence of "chemtrails", though.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Here's the original picture...
What they are doing...
Google is your friend.Project Description:
In 1974 the NASA Flight Research Center (later Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California) used a Boeing 747 as part of the overall NASA study of trailing vortices. Trailing vortices are the invisible flow of spiraling air that trails from the wings of large aircraft and can "upset" smaller aircraft flying behind them. The 747 that NASA used was on loan from the Johnson Space Center where it was part of the Space Shuttle Program.
The data gathered in the 747 studies complemented data from the previous (1973-74) joint NASA Flight Research Center and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Boeing 727 wake vortices study.
Six smoke generators were installed under the wings of the 747 to provide a visual image of the trailing vortices. The object of the experiments was to test different configurations and mechanical devices on the747 that could be used to break up or lessen the strength of the vortices. The results of the tests could lead to shorter spacing between landings and takeoffs, which, in turn, could alleviate air-traffic congestion. For approximately 30 flights the 747 was flown using various combinations of wing air spoilers in an attempt to reduce wake vortices. To evaluate the effectiveness of the different configurations, chase aircraft were flown into the vortex sheets to probe their strengths and patterns at different times. Two of the chase planes used were the Flight Research Center’s Cessna T-37 and the NASA Ames Research Center’s Learjet. These aircraft represented the types of smaller business jets and other small aircraft that might encounter large passenger aircraft on approach or landings around major airports or in flight.
Tests without the 747’s wing spoilers deployed produced violent "upset" problems for the T-37 aircraft at a distance of approximately 3 miles. From the magnitude of the problems found, distances of as much as ten miles might be required if spoilers were not used. With two spoilers on the outer wing panels, the T-37 could fly at a distance of three miles and not experience the "upset" problem. The wake vortex study continued even after the 747 was returned to its primary mission of carrying the Space Shuttle.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Massaria
New Member
ok... lets get back to it... DEBUNKERS vs me... all by myself again...
lets agree that they spray clouds for weather manipulation? can we agree on this?
can I get a "yes"? and I guess this is not a condensation trail...
And if they weather create clouds- aren't they in fact spraying??? They call it seeding right?
View attachment 1821
so what are they doing here?
Attachments
John Massaria
New Member
So we don't create clouds in the sky through weather manipulation? Is that your statement? We don't weather generate? We don't seed clouds? Huh? is that what you are trying to say? View attachment 1822
Attachments
GregMc
Senior Member.
You obviously don't understand the difference between cloud seeding and geoengineering. WHY NOT?
Cloud seeding does NOT create clouds. It seeds the water droplets in EXISTING CLOUDS.
You can't get basic facts straight John. You seem intent to deliberately misrepresent anything you can get away with.
Cloud seeding uses pyrotechic FLARES. If you want to call a firecracker going off "spraying" or setting fire to a piece of wood "spraying" then that is your own personal semantics that does NOT match reality, but you seem determined to twist square facts to fit into your circular hole regardless of how much distortion you need to do it.
John Massaria
New Member
I'm sorry are "old articles" (less than 3 years old) NOT relevant to the present? It's a study, an independent study- you say YOU say is de-bunked... please.
OLD Studies used to show saccharine causes melanoma's in laboratory animals- it used to say it right on the pink stuff... and now they took that warning off... I guess saccharine is safe then huh... that old study was bunk too? Those rats never got cancer... or they claimed you would need to ingest too much of it to make cancer, so lets just take the label off... cause you know, it doesn't kill you right away... just slowly by adding up toxins after toxin... so that OLD study is DE-bunked... wow... old articles at three years old... wow 2010 article is OLD! wow... you guys...
OLD Studies used to show saccharine causes melanoma's in laboratory animals- it used to say it right on the pink stuff... and now they took that warning off... I guess saccharine is safe then huh... that old study was bunk too? Those rats never got cancer... or they claimed you would need to ingest too much of it to make cancer, so lets just take the label off... cause you know, it doesn't kill you right away... just slowly by adding up toxins after toxin... so that OLD study is DE-bunked... wow... old articles at three years old... wow 2010 article is OLD! wow... you guys...
Rico
Senior Member.
This one is easy,
Weather modification exists. Weather seeding exists. However, they do not create clouds. Cloud seeding takes place when clouds already exist, and are generally done during thunderstorms for hail/fog suppression. Why do they do this? Minimize damage, improve visibility around airports, and sometimes to induce snow at ski resorts.
The photo you see comes from Boeing 747. This is not a usual occurance, and the particular photo you have taken is a 1974 study of vortexes, which consists of 6 smoke generators, 3 on each wing. They were doing this study to see how different devices and mechanisms on the Boeing 747 can break up or at least weaken such vortices. Because vortices created by large aircraft poses hazards for aircraft travelling behind them, this study was important in understanding and improving on aircraft spacing during the take-offs and landings.
Finally, why do you have to do this "debunkers vs me" thing? Why not just have a civil debate instead of taking sides? It might be worthwhile for you to understand the premise and purpose of debunking before building a stigma for the word.
John Massaria
New Member
and you refuse to look at the docs I attach... you keep beating around the data I provide...
View attachment 1826
What does the document say, lead? oh they don't spray heavy metals John... oh but they did and you said they don't and they didn't
Attachments
Similar threads
