What would be the issue with that? There's thousands of things that don't exist, but for which we have specific language. Like Greek gods, aether, or human teleportation.
Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations
- Thread starter Jay Reynolds
- Start date
What would be the issue with that? There's thousands of things that don't exist, but for which we have specific language. Like Greek gods, aether, or human teleportation.
It's quite simple: I am still yet to witness a 'chemtrail'
is the statement made. From this it can be deduced that the maker of the statement indicates their knowledge of what a 'chemtrail' is. Surely anyone can see that.
Greek gods, human teleportation or Doug McClure all have plenty of explanation for what they are or might be in the future or have been in the past. So they do 'exist' in that we understand what is being spoken about when we refer to them. If you want to get into the nature of existence, you'll be here a while. The question is specific and clear and based upon the statement you made, why don't you tell us your answer?
So, once again: please explain exactly what is a 'chemtrail'? As you have said (clearly indicated above) that you know that you haven't witnessed one, therefore you must know what one is in order to know that you haven't seen it. It's very very simple. Unless, ofcourse, you want to change your original statement?
Superstition exists, mythology exists, folklore exists, horoscopes exist. That's four facts - the evidence for the existence of these things is everywhere, science might have nothing to do with it. Religion exists, doesn't it? Just because you don't believe in what it claims, that doesn't negate its existence.
The question I asked was clear and specific, as was the statement on which it was formed to clarify.
I am still yet to witness a 'chemtrail'
So, what is a 'chemtrail'? You must know, otherwise you couldn't make this statement truthfully.
GregMc
Senior Member.
"I am still yet to witness a 'chemtrail' is the statement made. From this it can be deduced that the maker of the statement indicates their knowledge of what a 'chemtrail' is. Surely anyone can see that. "
No. That does not logically follow.
From the statement made it can be deduced only that the maker of the statement knows of the concept that the term refers to, just as saying ""I am still yet to witness a 'mermaid' " does not infer that a mermaid actually exists.
It does imply that a person knows what is meant by "mermaids" and has never witnessed any real entity that matches the term. It infers no credibility as to the reality of mermaids.
Lee, there is a very specific term "midiclorians" just as credible and detailed in what it refers to as "chemtrails".
The fact that the term has a very specific meaning and refers to symbiotic invisible creatures by which Jedi Knights and Sith Lords commune with the "Force" does not confer any credibility as to their existence either.
Most posters here know exactly what "Chemtrails" refers to just as we know what Mermaids, fairies and goblins refer to.
Attempts to use post modernist semantics to try to win an argument in a vacuum of credible evidence for your belief does not gain you any credibility.
No. That does not logically follow.
From the statement made it can be deduced only that the maker of the statement knows of the concept that the term refers to, just as saying ""I am still yet to witness a 'mermaid' " does not infer that a mermaid actually exists.
It does imply that a person knows what is meant by "mermaids" and has never witnessed any real entity that matches the term. It infers no credibility as to the reality of mermaids.
Lee, there is a very specific term "midiclorians" just as credible and detailed in what it refers to as "chemtrails".
The fact that the term has a very specific meaning and refers to symbiotic invisible creatures by which Jedi Knights and Sith Lords commune with the "Force" does not confer any credibility as to their existence either.
Most posters here know exactly what "Chemtrails" refers to just as we know what Mermaids, fairies and goblins refer to.
Attempts to use post modernist semantics to try to win an argument in a vacuum of credible evidence for your belief does not gain you any credibility.
Actually, yes, it does logically follow. That is the point.
post modernist semantics - really? and what might they be, exactly?
evidence for your belief - and what belief is that, exactly? Please indicate where I shared this 'belief' with you - no semantics, 'post modernist' or otherwise; just a simple, straightforward question...
You have knowledge of what a mermaid is - or is supposed to be - don't you? So do I. So does everyone reading this. If I saw one, I'd know it was one. So would you, wouldn't you? Now apply the same to 'chemtrail'. Can you?
Most posters here know exactly what "Chemtrails" refers to just as we know what Mermaids, fairies and goblins refer to. Now there's an assumption for you. 'Most' posters? Not all then? What about Fairies? Couldn't you confuse a Sprite with a fairy, or a nymph? Or Goblins? What about Hobgoblins, or gremlins? Are they easily distinguishable?
Presumably then, you are one of the majority, according to what you said, who know exactly what "Chemtrails" refers to. Please enlighten us.
And, if the answer is that it's a reference to something which doesn't exist, then why are you expending energy denying the existence of something which doesn't exist? Would you contribute to a thread denying the existence of Goblins, just because some people said they 'believed' in them?
GregMc
Senior Member.
I'm happy to expend energy to debunk nonsense of any kind. You miss an important point. The thing I'm expending energy on is the chemtrail hoax, which does exist, not "chemtrails" for which there is no credible evidence. "chemtrails" involves the deliberate spreading of a hoax by financially motivated snake oil salesmen trying to scare gullible people for financial reward by selling them dvds, chembustoers, organite, cloudbusting vitamins, chembusting vinegar, anti-chemtrai drops, zeolite, numerous other nonsense products and begging their scared victims for money donations.
I have documented numerous threats by People who believe in "chemtrails" to shoot down passenger planes, and attempt to accost airline pilots.
I feel motivated to help people avoid scams and hoaxes like "chemtrails" or even the shell game.
You seem happy to proselytise them. Perhaps you are more interested in argument for its own sake than verifiable reality.
I have documented numerous threats by People who believe in "chemtrails" to shoot down passenger planes, and attempt to accost airline pilots.
I feel motivated to help people avoid scams and hoaxes like "chemtrails" or even the shell game.
You seem happy to proselytise them. Perhaps you are more interested in argument for its own sake than verifiable reality.
That's all very good, but what of my questions? And where exactly have I shown I seem happy to proselytise? For what? And do please indicate where, exactly.
post modernist semantics - really? and what might they be, exactly?
evidence for your belief - and what belief is that, exactly? Please indicate where I shared this 'belief' with you - no semantics, 'post modernist' or otherwise; just a simple, straightforward question...
You have knowledge of what a mermaid is - or is supposed to be - don't you? So do I. So does everyone reading this. If I saw one, I'd know it was one. So would you, wouldn't you? Now apply the same to 'chemtrail'. Can you?
There's four questions which arose as a result of your intervention. Don't you want to answer them? Or are you content with making statements you can't corroborate?
Spongebob
Active Member
Oswald:
"chemtrail" You want to know if I know exactly what a "chemtrail" is and why I state that I am yet to see one?
Like unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, hobgoblins, elves, pixies, mermaids and dragons - I am yet to see any of those either.
I have seen persistent spreading contrails.
I am yet to see a trail which looks identical in every way to a contrail,
that I have illogically assumed must contain some 'thing' other than the standard emissions of a jet engine plus water vapour.
If you type "chemtrail" into Google you will find thousands of images of contrails which have been wrongly accredited the title of "chemtrail" .
You can also read the full list of substances that it is alleged these "chem" trails contain along with the lists of proposed purposes for these trails.
What you will not find, anywhere, is proof of any of these "chem" trail claims.
Therefore - I have to conclude that I have no logical reason to believe that I have ever witnessed a chemtrail. (with reference to all of the many varied descriptions of what a chemtrail is and/or is alleged to contain, as previously set out in the widely accepted common internet chemtrail theory hoax)
If you have some evidence to show that I have witnessed a trail which did contain any of the alleged chemicals/substances as expressed in the common internet hoax of chemtrails then let me know.
Until then I will stay with my original statement that I am yet to witness a chemtrail. Thank you.
"chemtrail" You want to know if I know exactly what a "chemtrail" is and why I state that I am yet to see one?
Like unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, hobgoblins, elves, pixies, mermaids and dragons - I am yet to see any of those either.
I have seen persistent spreading contrails.
I am yet to see a trail which looks identical in every way to a contrail,
that I have illogically assumed must contain some 'thing' other than the standard emissions of a jet engine plus water vapour.
If you type "chemtrail" into Google you will find thousands of images of contrails which have been wrongly accredited the title of "chemtrail" .
You can also read the full list of substances that it is alleged these "chem" trails contain along with the lists of proposed purposes for these trails.
What you will not find, anywhere, is proof of any of these "chem" trail claims.
Therefore - I have to conclude that I have no logical reason to believe that I have ever witnessed a chemtrail. (with reference to all of the many varied descriptions of what a chemtrail is and/or is alleged to contain, as previously set out in the widely accepted common internet chemtrail theory hoax)
If you have some evidence to show that I have witnessed a trail which did contain any of the alleged chemicals/substances as expressed in the common internet hoax of chemtrails then let me know.
Until then I will stay with my original statement that I am yet to witness a chemtrail. Thank you.
Can you?
The analogy with mermaids is not perfect, as mermaid (at least in the commonly understood usage of the term) look different to fish and humans. Chemtrails on the other hand look exactly like contrails (at least based on all the descriptions I've seen).
A better example would be that chemtrails are like dopplegangers (paranormal doubles of living persons). So the claim that one has never seen a chemtrail is equivalent to claiming one has never seen a doppleganager. Or course it's POSSIBLE that I've seen a doppleganger, but there's NO EVIDENCE that I've seen one.
Same with chemtrails.
Oh dear.
I am yet to see a trail which looks identical in every way to a contrail,
that I have illogically assumed must contain some 'thing' other than the standard emissions of a jet engine plus water vapour.
First up _ how on earth do you know that?
And actually, you might like to know, water vapour is a 'standard' emission from a jet engine, at about 1.1 gallons per gallon of fuel burned. Your analysis appears to be based on little knowledge of either the technical or logical elements of (the) argument. So I'll politely decline any further discourse with you and your horrendously formulated 'argument'.
Only a fraction of the water in a contrail is from the jet engine emissions. Most of it comes from the atmosphere. So it's reasonably accurate to describe a contrail as jet emissions + water vapor.
Of course 100% of the visible aspect of the contrail is ice or liquid water.
Spongebob
Active Member
Yes. I read this somewhere...
"Contrail,
streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, andsometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud."
"How do I know" that I have not witnessed an internet hoax which has never been proven to exist outside of the minds of delusional fantasists?
All the same - Goodbye (politely)
Can I? No. That was my point.
Ok. How about this: put aside all your ideas, if you can, regarding the 'chemtrail' hoax, as you call it. If, as has been cited in many reports, over many decades (reports made by scientists on being commissioned to produce those reports), there is a perceived need to perform any act of geo-engineering - what form do you think that act might take? Would it be controversial? What might it look like?
Spongebob
Active Member
That does not sound "horrendously formulated" , it seems concise and accurate to me?
Pity he`s "declined any further discourse..."
If, as you say, Only a fraction of the water in a contrail is from the jet engine emissions then where does that leave your argument on the additional water vapour from 'more efficient new engines' being at least in part responsible for the proliferation of this phenomenon? I can find you plenty of references to you saying this, so what's the deal? It appears to be in direct conflict with those previous assertions.
At risk of being accused of 'semantics', I think you'll find that an emission is something that is emitted - ergot water vapour is an emission from a jet engine
You are implying that geoengineering might look like contrails.
And, so? There's still no evidence that anyone is doing ANY geoengineering, let along geoengineering that might look like contrails.
Of course it's possible that there's a secret conspiracy that has been doing that. But there's NO EVIDENCE OF IT.
The water in the exhaust triggers contrail formation by raising the relative humidity over 100%. So the more water in the exhaust, then the more likely it is that a contrail will form.
Yes it is. So a more descriptive formulation would be that contrails are formed from the water and nuclei in jet emissions plus water vapor and nuclei from the atmosphere.
But it's still essentially just jet emissions plus water vapor.
Greg doesn't appear to want to answer my questions, but is happy to make this claim. Who here agrees with this assertion that the whole thing is about financial gain through fraud?
He didn't say it was "the whole" thing. He said it "involves ...". Obviously there are lots of people who genuinely believe the theory.
Lee, I'm interested that you are expending so much effort in discussing chemtrails, when you clearly don't understand the mechanics of contrail formation. Do you consider that irrelevant?
Lee, I'm interested that you are expending so much effort in discussing chemtrails, when you clearly don't understand the mechanics of contrail formation. Do you consider that irrelevant?
Jet emissions are mostly water vapour. In fact, an engine running clean, burning all hydrocarbons, should have almost nothing but water vapour.
The water in the exhaust triggers contrail formation by raising the relative humidity over 100%. So the more water in the exhaust, then the more likely it is that a contrail will form.
appears to be in conflict with
Only a fraction of the water in a contrail is from the jet engine emissions
The fact of the matter is that without the water from the engine emissions, a visible trail would not form. That's obvious. You are simultaneously arguing that the water from the engines is only a small part of a contrail, and that the water in the exhaust triggers contrails. Can't you see how opposed these descriptions are?
I understand very well the physics of contrail formation - would you like me to give you some links to explain? Given your opposing definitions, I think it might be you who needs to brush up. Considering some of the statements you've recently made about what I've said, I think your judgment might be called into question
Jet emissions are mostly carbon dioxide. Of course burning a gallon of kerosene produces over a gallon of H20, but it also produces about twice as much CO2.
No. Think about it. It only requires a small amount of water to push the RH from 99% to 100%. Then up to 99% of the water in the initial contrail comes from the atmosphere.
Actual ratios will vary with by the humidity, and the ration of RHW to RHI. But in the case of a persistent spreading contrail, over 99% of the eventual ice budget comes from the ambient humidity.
Last edited:
Because I cut to the chase - you were implying that geoengineering might look like contrails.
All the answers to your questions were so obvious that I assumed you were being rhetorical. Geoengineering has been proposed in many forms, some of which involve spraying things from planes. It's obviously controversial. It might look like contrails.
Could you explain the point you were trying to make?
firepilot
New Member
Oh gee, another chemtrailer wanting to play "Let's Speculate". You want us to put aside actual science, to put aside historical accounts of persistent contrails, and play another silly game of speculating, guessing..
These historical accounts of spreading persistent contrails debunk the chemtrail hoax theme that there never were such contrails until recently, so no wonder why you want those set aside.
These historical accounts of spreading persistent contrails debunk the chemtrail hoax theme that there never were such contrails until recently, so no wonder why you want those set aside.
Jet emissions are mostly carbon dioxide. Of course burning a gallon of kerosene produces over a gallon of H20, but it also produces about twice as much CO2.
No. Think about it. It only requires a small amount of water to push the RH from 99% to 100%. Then up to 99% of the water in the initial contrail comes from the atmosphere.
Actual ratios will vary with by the humidity, and the ration of RHW to RHI. But in the case of a persistent spreading contrail, over 99% of the eventual ice budget comes from the ambient humidity.
Excellent. So, correct me if I'm wrong (don't be shy): the single most important factor in the production of a contrail is the amount of water vapour emitted from the engine - take it as given that all the other factors are positive, you know, the ones I don't understand like rh, temperature, atmospheric pressure etc. - then, all we need is an injection of hot moist air, is that right? And bingo: contrail. Have I missed anything?
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. Eventual implies a known initial state. Which was?
That depends on what you mean by "most important". I'd say the most important factors are the ambient temperature and humidity, as they vary a lot. The additional water in the exhaust is pretty much a constant.
The initial contrail immediately after the exhaust has mixed with with ambient air and the initial ice crystals are formed from condensed water passing through the liquid stage. At that point the majority of the water still comes from the ambient humidity. After that point it grows (well, the crystals grow) by accretion of ice, entirely from the ambient humidity.
So what about the particulates from the emissions? Soot, unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen etc - you know, that part of the emission. What's their part in all this?
I don't think the point needs explaining, but if you insist. I wasn't implying anything; I asked you three questions, not rhetorical but theoretical. Here they are again
any act of geo-engineering -
What form do you think that act might take?
Would it be controversial?
What might it look like?
A1: Putting particles into the meteorological process
A2: Oh yes
A3: It might look like 'induced' cirrus, utilizing its (rightly or wrongly) perceived radiation budget to reduce warming
Aren't these likely to be the answers? Can you see why people might think that way? Never believe anything until it is officially denied.
They supply additional nuclei. Mostly from soot. It's not necessary for contrail formation, but it helps.
I can see why people might think that way. People in the conspiracy community are very suspicious, and generally quite accepting of conspiracy theories. But I can't see any evidence that it's happening. I think that most of what people think of as "evidence" is actually entirely wrong.
Obviously if you think that contrails don't persist, and you see some that do, they you are going to think they are not contrails, and with a vast suspicion of the PTB it's quite understandable why people might believe in chemtrails.
Of course their belief is just based on incorrect science, and unusually heightened suspicion.
No. The question is clear. All the other factors are given. They are present - then all that is required is an injection of hot moist air, is that right?
Minor point, but aviation induced cirrus have a net warming effect, unless you can arrange for them to only exist during the day.
So the additional soot helps with contrail formation. Why?
Not according to the only full scale experiment ever held.
Well yes, but that's like saying the most important part of a loaded gun is your finger.
Could you explain the point you are trying to make by your question?
Similar threads
