Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives & the int'l politics of geoengineering

Jason

Senior Member
Sufficient for what though? The chemtrail theory tends to work on the lines that the trails are all aluminium, barium, strontium, red blood cells, mold, cancer, nano bots......
Sufficient to back up their theories. I didn't know if any of their theories put a number on it, like "x" amount of mass is needed to spray for "x" amount of hours. Knowing "X" allows us to determine if the tanks are even plausible. Not saying they are, just trying to wrap my mind around this...
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
Sufficient to back up their theories. I didn't know if any of their theories put a number on it, like "x" amount of mass is needed to spray for "x" amount of hours. Knowing "X" allows us to determine if the tanks are even plausible. Not saying they are, just trying to wrap my mind around this...

Tricky one that. They can't even decide WHAT is being sprayed never mind WHY so they've no chance deciding how much. :D
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Except.....the Center Wing Tank is where much of the FUEL is!!!

Please also (and this is easy enough to verify, just ask pilots who fly them), the Center Tank(s) (at least for most Boeing models, I presume it's similar with Airbus) can hold the majority of a fuel load, for flights that are fueled for long-range trips (meaning, long hours....over two hours, usually).

The fuel, loaded as it is, MUST be burned firstly from the Center Tank(s)...this is due to structural design limitations, and also the weight & balance factor....the CoG, or C/G, or Center of Gravity concerns.

As we all know, chemtrail believers are not concerned about such minor details. :rolleyes:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks, but I was referring to the chemtrailer theories. How large would the tanks need to be and how heavy would they be in order to make their theories work? I'm trying to understand the CoG obstacle, and if its achievable. My thinking is as I try to understand this is, you would only need a sufficient amount of spray to mix in with the outside water vapour. Let the climate outside the plane do all the work, so to speak.

Getting a bit off topic here. But I think this is illustrating the type of discussion that is not particularly fruitful to have with chemtrail believers.

It's not even very fruitful here, it's just a technical and logistical hurdle that could be overcome one way or the other (move the tanks, shorter flights only, mix with fuel, fill the plane with 50 gallon barrels). It's a minor obstacle to some version of the theory that need only minor mental adjustment to get around.

Best stick with more tangible things, like "contrails can persist" or "soil is 8% aluminum".
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
To return back to the OP, I can see that Metabunk has become a sort of bogeyman for the 'conspiracy community', not just for alleged disinformation but also for perceived arrogance or agressivity against CT believers.

I think it's clear that the latter aspects are much less of a problem here than in other debunking communities, but the impact that Metabunk has achieved is putting us under the magnifying glass.

It's not hard to cherry-pick impolite, denigrating or sarcastic posts made by debunkers on this site. That is an extra hurdle we have to overcome, and self-constraint is the only solution.

We have our rambling corner where we can let loose, but I say let's try and honor Mick's intentions in public posts !!
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
How much extra weight are we talking about? Does anyone know how much weight would be needed in order to spray. Because if its a thousand pounds, then thats like the weight of 8 people which seems easy enough. Just curious

Perhaps it's time to dust off this video?:

Couple of things....yup, a video and sorry for those who cannot watch it. So, point #1:

The concentration of a contrail (not a "chem"trail) as shown in the video's example is less than one one-hundredth of a tablet of aspirin in 7 1/2 gallons of water (this, at about the 3:00 point).

Point #2:

This video used a VERY long observed contrail, for the example. One made by a smallish commuter jet, but one in common usage today, and a type of jet (the Embraer 135/145) that also is known to make contrails, when suitable atmospheric conditions exist.

More (minor) details about the above video: The maker opens with an audio clip which is grabbed from an episode of (the "Big damn heroes" sound-bite) and the above video also takes a whimsical jab at yet another "chem"trail belief that really exists....that of these fictional "beings" called "sylphs".
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I think the reason the chemtrail movement has triggered so much disdain from skeptics and debunkers is not because of it's theorizing, but because of it's reliance on pseudoscience, demonstrably wrong presumptions and its utter failure to do the least amount of fact-checking on own claims (or by application of extreme confirmation bias). How many years can average, intelligent people be expected to keep repeating the phrase: "normal contrail can persist", and have it be ignored, without becoming exasperated? How long can reasonable people be expected to try to reason with a group of people who's central argument is that the trails in the sky "don't look right" or "don't look like they used to look"?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Perhaps it's time to dust off this video?:

Couple of things....yup, a video and sorry for those who cannot watch it. So, point #1:

The concentration of a contrail (not a "chem"trail) as shown in the video's example is less than one one-hundredth of a tablet of aspirin in 7 1/2 gallons of water (this, at about the 3:00 point).

Point #2:

This video used a VERY long observed contrail, for the example. One made by a smallish commuter jet, but one in common usage today, and a type of jet (the Embraer 135/145) that also is known to make contrails, when suitable atmospheric conditions exist.

More (minor) details about the above video: The maker opens with an audio clip which is grabbed from an episode of (the "Big damn heroes" sound-bite) and the above video also takes a whimsical jab at yet another "chem"trail belief that really exists....that of these fictional "beings" called "sylphs".
just for the record. I have no idea how this post addresses Jasons question. in fairness i'm not clicking on any more 8 minute videos on contrails (seen em done that).

**not picking on you (you are my favorite uncle) , just trying to help you fine tune your vast knowledge. and when you add too many tv videos it just confuses the message, unless we're in chat. see^^^^^ <3 :)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
in fairness i'm not clicking on any more 8 minute videos on contrails

Just try skipping...(see what I did there??) to about 3 minutes in. Please.

To give you a "preview"...that first video was made by a pilot, and he shot a video of a contrail FROM the cockpit of his jet, as he flew along the same route (or, "Airway") in the opposite direction, and thus, at a different altitude (because, to prevent collisions, airplanes fly at different altitudes based on the "Compass Rose":


East is considered "odd" (don't ask me why, please!!!) and West (**) is "even".


EDIT: btw...."Mary Poppins"? Oh, I wore out the (back in the day) vinyl 12" record of the soundtrack of that movie!!!! It's seared into my memory......"Thanks, Walt Disney!!"

EDIT (P.P.S.) "Saving Mr. Banks"

EDIT (P.P.P.S.) (**) AND Mick West is very level-headed, so I count that as "even"...not "odd" at all. OK....sorry, but I saw a place to add this, was difficult to overlook the opportunity!! ;)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Just try skipping...(see what I did there??) to about 3 minutes in. Please.
ok, well I already know about the dispersal factor vs crop dusting planes (side track: the crop dusting need to fly low resonates) but his aspirin thing sounds to me like ...I don't know what, is he saying (because he doesn't say it) if I want to shoot aluminum froma plane I would HAVE to dilute it 1/100th in 7 1/2 gallons for it to spray? and david keith says he can kill 10,000 people with only 2 planes (sorry David, just making a point ) .

the bottom line is (as a layman with 'some' knowledge of contrails and planes) spraying from a passenger airliner would be a waste of time. BUT a commercial airliner 'could' in theory spray stuff. I agree its best to avoid the whole argument.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
ok, well I already know about the dispersal factor vs crop dusting planes (side track: the crop dusting need to fly low resonates) but his aspirin thing sounds to me like ...I don't know what, is he saying (because he doesn't say it) if I want to shoot aluminum froma plane I would HAVE to dilute it 1/100th in 7 1/2 gallons for it to spray? and david keith says he can kill 10,000 people with only 2 planes (sorry David, just making a point ) .

the bottom line is (as a layman with 'some' knowledge of contrails and planes) spraying from a passenger airliner would be a waste of time. BUT a commercial airliner 'could' in theory spray stuff. I agree its best to avoid the whole argument.

Well...basically you've 'got it'!! ((Except for the "In Theory" part about a Commercial Passenger Airliner being able to "spray". Sorry, but that is just not acceptable as a concept, for many, many reasons))

Any sort of effective "chemical spraying" program (such as crop-dusting) MUST be done at very low...really, at ground level heights.

As is generally known (at least, I give people the benefit), the Earth's atmosphere at high altitude is complex, and subject to many factors (which include some high-speed winds, aka the "Jet-Stream"), depending on location referencing the person who is observing.

Knowing this fact....well...sorry, another (but mercifully, short) YT video:
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
Any sort of effective "chemical spraying" program (such as crop-dusting) MUST be done at very low...really, at ground level heights.
Not to get too off topic because I think it doesn't do this topic justice, but from a geoengineering stand point it's plausible, Right? I might be mistaken but I thought the majority of chemtrail enthusiast believe they are doing this to alter the weather and even the global climate. So flying low is irrelevant with respect to that part of their theory, Right?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Not to get too off topic because I think it doesn't do this topic justice, but from a geoengineering stand point it's plausible, Right? I might be mistaken but I thought the majority of chemtrail enthusiast believe they are doing this to alter the weather and even the global climate. So flying low is irrelevant with respect to that part of their theory, Right?

No, sorry Jason. NOT from a so-called "geo-engineering" standpoint.

Let's try to use an analogy....the planet Mars. There are a wonderful series of Science Fiction books on this ( A "Mars Trilogy" by author Kim Stanley Robinson which I HIGHLY recommend as a read....although in deference to Stephen Colbert, I choose NOT to buy from Amazon, at the moment...(A whole other controversy!!).

"GEO"-engineering as compared to the concept (never been defined as a "workable" science) of "Terra-Forming". Perhaps one day we, as a species, will possess such a knowledge and a technical expertise....but, such does not yet truly exist. (**)

(**) Except, perhaps, in the imaginations of authors....and THAT is what sometimes drives others to create what has been imagined.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, sorry Jason. NOT from a so-called "geo-engineering" standpoint.

Let's try to use an analogy....the planet Mars. There are a wonderful series of Science Fiction books on this ( A "Mars Trilogy" by author Kim Stanley Robinson which I HIGHLY recommend as a read....although in deference to Stephen Colbert, I choose NOT to buy from Amazon, at the moment...(A whole other controversy!!).

"GEO"-engineering as compared to the concept (never been defined as a "workable" science) of "Terra-Forming". Perhaps one day we, as a species, will possess such a knowledge and a technical expertise....but, such does not yet truly exist. (**)

(**) Except, perhaps, in the imaginations of authors....and THAT is what sometimes drives others to create what has been imagined.

I believe Jason was referring to solar climate engineering, which is quite plausible, and would require high altitude flights (60,000 feet being ideal)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I believe Jason was referring to solar climate engineering, which is quite plausible, and would require high altitude flights (60,000 feet being ideal)

Oh, you are likely correct.

In THAT case then....we can immediately discount ALL passenger airliners as "candidates". Because, there is NO commercial passenger jet that is capable of altitudes of 60,000 feet. (The Concorde, now retired, might if very light, have reached those altitudes).
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I believe Jason was referring to solar climate engineering, which is quite plausible, and would require high altitude flights (60,000 feet being ideal)Click to expand...
Oh, you are likely correct.
In THAT case then....we can immediately discount ALL passenger airliners as "candidates". Because, there is NO commercial passenger jet that is capable of altitudes of 60,000 feet. (The Concorde, now retired, might if very light, have reached those altitudes).
so just say that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Oh, you are likely correct.

In THAT case then....we can immediately discount ALL passenger airliners as "candidates". Because, there is NO commercial passenger jet that is capable of altitudes of 60,000 feet. (The Concorde, now retired, might if very light, have reached those altitudes).

60,000 feet is only the ideal height. You could do it lower, it's just a lot less efficient due to the high turnover of the troposphere and lower stratosphere.

David Keith's proposal specifically calls for limited testing at 60,000 feet, using modified bizjets with bigger engines.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
60,000 feet is only the ideal height. You could do it lower, it's just a lot less efficient due to the high turnover of the troposphere and lower stratosphere.

David Keith's proposal specifically calls for limited testing at 60,000 feet, using modified bizjets with bigger engines.
my personal (outsider) opinion, is if they are going to hijack the term geoengineering, you should stick them to it. and if its inefficient under 60,000 feet for climate change then its inefficient. *

if they are spraying aluminum to sell Monsanto seeds then the planes need to be lower to have any effect.

* its also ridiculous to suggest America would spray for climate change (sun screening) OVER AMERICA. you'd think people would know our reputation by now. we would do it over another country.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
my personal (outsider) opinion, is if they are going to hijack the term geoengineering, you should stick them to it. and if its inefficient under 60,000 feet for climate change then its inefficient.

No matter how many times I point out that real geoengineering would not produce visible trails in the sky, chemtrail believers refuse to understand that. At least, I have NEVER had one of them respond when I explained that to them.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
PS: The entire problem is exacerbated due to people like Tanner continuing to pump out ridiculous notions which are WAAY off-center, scientifically. Seems like you/we have no choice but to find a way to directly confront people like Tanner, not to convince him, but to be able to show how his claims(which form much of the basis for general chemtrail belief) are blatantly false.
I'm late to the party but Hama is right. The end game will always be to take down the claims of the leaders in a public enough way that the take down can't be ignored or hidden. That can only happen by forcing their engagement or undermining the movement from within in some way to neutralize the control of information the leadership exerts. Tragically, this may not happen until the whole thing implodes during media attention subsequent to a loss of life from one of them acting violent.
 
Specifically: is there something we can to to counter the feeling people get that they are being casually dismissed as irrational or stupid? Can we get them to see that "we are not so different, you and I"? And can you do it without them thinking you are playing some kind of mind game?
I know this is kind of an older post I'm addressing, but I thought I'd like to chime in on this based off my previous experience as a CTer. My info only applies to the experience I have, and I don't mean to tar all people who believe in CTs with the same brush.

Right now, I feel like I can trust that Mick or anyone else posting here is not a government agent. I can't bring up proof that MB is or isn't a government-run site, but my worldview is not one that allows that to be a plausible viewpoint. It is much much more likely to me that Mick was a former game designer, whose interests shifted toward the conspiracy realm because he found the theories fascinating and he enjoys discussions of science. Perfectly plausible and nothing unreasonable sounding at all to me. Lots of people are able to have huge amounts of knowledge about things outside their profession. I don't find that suspicious.

Yet, in the worldview of those more entrenched in CTs, there are government agents everywhere, the government works hard to suppress things they believe to be truths, and in their heart, they feel what they believe is already true...for whatever reason, so anyone going against that must be part of the bad guys. When one spends time in the CT world, it's easy to get your personal desires and identity wrapped up in the outcomes of fighting off the shadow government, that it is difficult to let that go and see that people can disagree with you and have interests in debunking conspiracy theories without being paid by the government. Anyone with an interest in debunking can only be someone who is trying to hide the truth, otherwise why would anyone be interested in this stuff?

I guess my main point is that if you are more paranoid, it is going to be difficult to trust anyone, especially on the internet where no one can pick up on nonverbal communication. I dismissed opposing viewpoints for various reasons because I didn't want to listen, and I don't think anyone would have changed my mind by continuing to poke and prod at me. I remember dismissing perfectly unaggressive people and arguments as being overly aggressive just because I wanted a reason not to believe them. I'd make up any reason not to.

I believed what I did and wanted to give myself a chance to see if it was right. When I got tired of it or saw my worldview was leading me nowhere, I was more ready to listen to opposing viewpoints.

Imo, the more you try not to make it a mind game, the more you sorta turn it into one. Being genuine can usually allow a less is more approach, where you don't try too hard to gain trust, which can be viewed as being deceptive.

Honestly, polite debunking and personally trying to see the human side of the CTer in a debate, is probably the best you can do. Those on the fence respond positively, and those further entrenched may have a seed planted in them where one day, they'll maybe see that their worldview isn't helping them or that it isn't leading anywhere.

I just think keeping an effort on being polite is the best thing to do. There are lots of aspects of interacting with people that you just can't control, and conversations with CTers are no exception. If they're willing to listen, they will. If they don't want to, do what you can politely, and then leave it at that. Keep it simple, imo. Trying to make the process more and more efficient (even through trying to appear less threatening than you already are in debate) sorta turns it into a game of trying to persuade the other person, but in a more subtle way.

I think the most that can be done is being done, except for maybe making sure that CTers that post here don't get dogpiled on by everyone. But other than that, I think what is being done here is as effective as it can be.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West GeoengineeringWatch Chemtrail Posters fly-posted in Sydney Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Do Polls and Google Trends show Chemtrail Belief Declining? Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
StratMatt777 How to effectively talk to chemtrail folk Practical Debunking 9
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
cmnit Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West A Conversation with "Chemtrail" activist Patrick Roddie Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Explained: Vatican "chemtrail spraying" coin [part of set depicting Pope's travels] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
JRBids "Chemtrail off your left wing": Air Traffic Controller Contrails and Chemtrails 18
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Why "Chemtrail" Tests on the Ground Find Metals That Don't Occur Naturally Contrails and Chemtrails 14
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tapir-mâché Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form? Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Another photoshopped chemtrail poster: Michael J Murphy Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Chemtrail Believers' predictions of "years left" before disaster Contrails and Chemtrails 6
A Augie Snyder's contrail/chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Debunked: Rise In Respiratory Mortality from 4th to 3rd Cause of Death. "Chemtrail Flu" General Discussion 13
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Trailblazer Photoshopped "chemtrail" images on Geoengineeringwatch.org Contrails and Chemtrails 76
JFDee New fuel dump "chemtrail" video [Munich, Thai Airways Flight 925] Contrails and Chemtrails 33
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
Trailblazer Identified: Chemtrails Project UK's "chemtrail plane" (Air France A340) Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail Meme Tweet Contrails and Chemtrails 54
S Contrail shadow Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Trailblazer Video of helicopter leaving "chemtrail"? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
TEEJ Chemtrail Fleet - Peter A. Kirby Contrails and Chemtrails 10
cmnit Chemtrailists articles on Las Vegas Tribune (in 2005) Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Critical Thinker San Diego Chemtrail group to 'educate' & Protest Scientists/Doctors Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
S Black exhaust, contrail, or chemtrail? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West The Best Book for Explaining Contrails to Chemtrail Believers Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Husband of chemmy Help me! Wife is Chemtrailing... Contrails and Chemtrails 69
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
A Dr. Kirkby 2009 CERN presentation: "Clouds Seeded by Jets" [Misunderstanding by Chemtrail Theorists] Contrails and Chemtrails 28
TWCobra Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Whitebeard Claim - 'Orbs Killing Chemtrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 29
Trailblazer Debunked: "The Snake" non-commercial chemtrail plane (China Eastern A330) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 33
Chemtrail_Follower Chemtrail Follower Escaping The Rabbit Hole 70
Peter How 'alive' is the topic of chemtrails nowadays? Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Homeopathic chemtrail detox formula Health and Quackery 25
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
Gundersen Debunked: Australian Rainwater "Chemtrail" test Contrails and Chemtrails 11
M Four Jets in Formation, Leaving Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top