Debunked: Particulate crimes: Chemtrails [Mist Under Bright Light]

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
20140818-074630-prc0u.jpg

Back in the early days of the "chemtrail" theory, in July 2001, Clifford Carnicom wrote an article about how he noticed some particulate matter swirling around in the air, visible when you shine a bright light. He accompanied it with the above series of photos, and the following text:

This looks exactly like light mist to me.

It's not uncommon for a light mist to form at night as temperatures drop. This won't even necessarily feel wet, or even condense on things. It depends on the humidity

It's fairly foggy right now here in Venice, so I took the following photos. The flashlight is a Fenix PD20, 200 Lumens. The Q-Beam used in Carnicom's video stills is 500 lumens, so quite comparable given this is a narrower beam.









Unfortunately this misconception is still cropping up, such as with this 2014 video:

This particular video seems to show a combination of mist, dust (generally pollen or seeds), and insects.


[Post was updated Aug 18th 2014]
 
Last edited:
U

Unregistered

Guest
Are you saying my photos don't show mist? Or that Carnicom's are showing something different to what I'm showing? Because they look pretty much the same to me.

Can you be a little more specific in your criticism?
"Pretty much the same" LOL.. show me a video of "mist" moving as the ones in the videos i uploaded. until you do.. you are full of it
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The sun is up, sorry, best I could do, however if you watch this vide in HD, you can see the mist swirling around.

 
Last edited:

scombrid

Senior Member
The OP's video dates from 2001.
Carnicom has had 11 years to show more information.
In 2005, he claimed he had done a lab test, but he has never shown it.

So, we've been waiting 11 years for Mr. Carnicom, and all he sent was this silly video??????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob6ykJgJxGE&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXCfVHzv2vM&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQg2WD4IFs


These people claim to have had filaments tested.
Is Carnicom taking samples for a fee and then returning bogus results to string them along?
Are they sending them somewhere else.
Are they lying about having had the filaments tested.

Or are these youtubers lying when they state that they have fibers, webs, etc... tested?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
A common refrain from the Carnicom believers is that tests on the fibers say they are "unidentifiable, artificial plant life". Such a bizarre claim on several levels. If they were able to say that it's artificial plant life, isn't that an identification? How would one distinguish between artificial plant life and natural plant life? Why isn't the lab publishing about the first ever find of an artificial life form?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Now compare... looks nothing like the videos i posted. you can barely even make it out... every single video shows these objects as extremely bright white... sorry, not mist
When I talk about mist, I'm referring to the Carnicom post.

The Youtube videos (and I've not looked at all of them) seem to just show normal particulates like dust or pollen. Maybe you could pick one in particular that you think is most inexplicable?

Here's a good example of pollen in sunlight:
http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-337624-stock-footage-pollen-glows-in-sunlight.html

Pollen can be pretty extreme in some parts of the country:



It builds up in the trees during calm weather, then when a bit of wind picks up you get lots of it.


This does not happen round here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's another couple of videos I made of aerosols lit by the sun, just for visual reference. These are "extremely bright white"





It's all about the lighting. Unfortunately I have nothing producing pollen, so can't really replicate the other videos. The air is very clean here.

I used small apature setting on the second one, so the particles appear very small as they are in focus. Best viewed full screen.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Here's another couple of videos I made of aerosols lit by the sun, just for visual reference. These are "extremely bright white"





It's all about the lighting. Unfortunately I have nothing producing pollen, so can't really replicate the other videos. The air is very clean here.

I used small apature setting on the second one, so the particles appear very small as they are in focus. Best viewed full screen.
Looks nothing like the videos i posted... sorry, you FAIL
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
When I talk about mist, I'm referring to the Carnicom post.

The Youtube videos (and I've not looked at all of them) seem to just show normal particulates like dust or pollen. Maybe you could pick one in particular that you think is most inexplicable?
In case you missed it i will post again...


from 0:00 to 0:07

any thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
U

Unregistered

Guest
It looks like he's mistaking windblown seeds and suchlike that are very close to the camera for "super fast orbs" coming out of a contrail with is miles away. It's a problem with perspective. The white specks he sees are just a few feet away.
"Windblown seeds" seriously? .. look at the SHAPE.. the shape of the object is what i was getting at
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
It looks like he's mistaking windblown seeds and suchlike that are very close to the camera for "super fast orbs" coming out of a contrail with is miles away. It's a problem with perspective. The white specks he sees are just a few feet away.
So.. first you tell me it's mist.. then dust/pollen, then windblown seeds... sheesh dude make your mind up
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Windblown seeds" seriously? .. look at the SHAPE.. the shape of the object is what i was getting at
You mean like this?



it's out of focus and very brightly lit from behind, so what you are seeing is an artifact of the camera, bokeh. Notice how many of the dust specks look like quite large orbs in my videos. Same kind of thing.
 
Last edited:
U

Unregistered

Guest
You mean like this?



it's out of focus and very brightly lit from behind, so what you are seeing is an artifact of the camera, bokeh. Notice how many of the dust specks look like quite large orbs in my videos. Same kind of thing.
First you tell me "windblown seeds" ... now it's BOKEH.. LOL...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solrey

Senior Member
In case you missed it i will post again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbuOO0LRDAM

from 0:00 to 0:07

any thoughts?
I was just out on the back porch with the sun blocked by the porch roof as I was looking out at the garden and saw the same thing that I've seen practically every evening this summer, and countless other times in various settings and conditions throughout my life... a plethora of bugs, dust and tiny seeds backlit by the sun and flittering about. It boggles the mind to know people truly believe they're seeing orbs instead of bugs, dust and seeds.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
First you tell me "windblown seeds" ... now it's BOKEH.. LOL...
In this case I suspect it's both.

But why does there just have to be one explanation for everything? Sometimes people film mist, sometimes pollen, sometimes seeds, sometimes bugs, sometime birds, sometimes balloons. There's all kinds of things floating about in the sky that look odd when out of focus and when the distance is misjudged.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was just out on the back porch with the sun blocked by the porch roof as I was looking out at the garden and saw the same thing that I've seen practically every evening this summer, and countless other times in various settings and conditions throughout my life... a plethora of bugs, dust and tiny seeds backlit by the sun and flittering about. It boggles the mind to know people truly believe they're seeing orbs instead of bugs, dust and seeds.
You should make a video. The air is too clean here, in the city by the ocean.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I was just out on the back porch with the sun blocked by the porch roof as I was looking out at the garden and saw the same thing that I've seen practically every evening this summer, and countless other times in various settings and conditions throughout my life... a plethora of bugs, dust and tiny seeds backlit by the sun and flittering about. It boggles the mind to know people truly believe they're seeing orbs instead of bugs, dust and seeds.
Show me a video of bugs/ dust and seeds behaving as the ones i have posted... Until then, you are ALL FULL OF HOT AIR!
 
The aerosol "specs" are unidentified. Everyone is speculating on what they "might" be. I don't object to your comparative speculations, I object that something that is unidentified is actually "debunked".
 

MikeC

Closed Account
What is unidentified? Long whiet trails that look like contrails, are generated in the same manner as contrails, and behave like contrails are identified as contrails. Taht identification might be incorrect, but thsoe trails are not "unidentified".

What is debunked is specific "evidence" that these trails are something other than contrails - eg they cannot be contails because contrails only last a short period of time - anythwere from "a few seconds" to an hour or so depending upon who is making the claim. that can be debunked because there is no evidene supporting it, and there is plenty of real verifiable evidence saying it is nonsense.

So if that is the only reason you think these linesaer not contrails then you no longer have any reason to think so at all.

What else can be debunked?
- that aluminium/barium/something else levels in water/rain/snow/blood are high? Yes that can can be debunked by showing that they are within normal limits.

- that aluminium/barium, etc in soil can only have come from aircraft spraying?? Debunked by showing that aluminium is part of the makeup of most soils, that barium can and does blow in the wind especially in some areas with known surface deposits, and also by showing that barium is used in the make up of brake shoes, drilling mud and in diesel as an additive.

none of thse "debunks" say that a white trail in the airbehind an aircraft is not a chemtrail - but they show that those particular reasons for believing that chemtrails exist do not actually do anything of the sort.

Even if every single chemtrails argument is debunked, the possibility that some white lines in the air are notcontrails exists - but it seems unlikely to the point of dismissal due to the total lack of evidence, the toal lack of systems required to "spray" anything.

finally - it would only take 1 sample of a "contrail" that shows that it is actually something else to "prove" that chemtrails exist - how come chemtrail believers aer not getting money together to make that effort? IIRC some guy was trying to do so with balloons, but donations were pitiful - where is the commitment to something that would provide the proof y'all keep saying you have but which mysteriously evaporates under any kind of serious scrutiny??
 
What is unidentified?
The evidence presented is not verifiable because we do not have a way to repeat the exact location, time, and other factors of this atmosphere experiment. It could be just normal dust blowing in the desert wind. The author is unknown. No videos or pictures from either side has shown aerosol levels at high altitudes in the atmosphere.

"These photographs extend the earlier body of evidence presented on this site that demonstrates the saturation levels of particulate matter that are now in our atmosphere"

This has not been debunked. It is not substantiated either. More research is needed. I take no side on this specific issue, and neither should you.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But my argument, and the gist of my evidence, is that it LOOKS LIKE regular dust/mist/pollen/seeds

Sure it might be something else, but since it LOOKS LIKE something perfectly ordinary, then the original suggestion that it's not has been debunked.

Carnicom's suggestion has been debunked, because it has been shown that the videos he reference look just like mist.

OF COURSE it could be nanobeings disguised as mist, but then we get into robot cat territory. It's always possible that there's something odd disguised as something ordinary. But that's not what is being debunked. What is being debunked is the assertion that this does not look like something normal. You said yourself that "It could be just normal dust blowing in the desert wind", and that's all that's needed to debunk it.
 
But my argument, and the gist of my evidence, is that it LOOKS LIKE regular dust/mist/pollen/seeds
I don't think that was the authors argument though. He argued that the atmosphere has increased in particulate. So you debunked that it does not look unique, and you showed video of particulate from unnatural sources such as tissue which look similar to it. You debunked your own argument, not his.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think that was the authors argument though. He argued that the atmosphere has increased in particulate. So you debunked that it does not look unique, and you showed video of particulate from unnatural sources such as tissue which look similar to it. You debunked your own argument, not his.
I'm debunking his evidence. The stills from the video. Very specifically I'm debunking the claim that "The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates that the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations."

Since they look like normal stuff, then this claim is debunked.
 
I am going to change my opinion to 50% debunked because if you pick this quote apart, you actually find 2 claims.

"The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates" Debunked. It demonstrates nothing.
"the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations." unsubstantiated. No proof.
 

Danny55

Member
If being picky is your thing

""The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates" Debunked. It demonstrates nothing."

The bold part posted by you does not claim to demonstrate anything as you have removed the object of the statement from that statement. There are NOT 2 claims, there is ONE claim. Splitting it into 2 does not multiply the claim.
I can demonstrate the same with your claim if you like....

"Debunked. It demonstrates..." Claim one...fails because it does not demonstate anything.

".Nothing".Claim two... fails as it does not make any sense.

One must take the statement as a whole, or be forever shown as a numpty.
 
1)
If being picky is your thing
It's really not so don't be picky.

"The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates [their other claim]" Debunked. the photographs demonstrate nothing."
There.

2) Is it the difference between debunked and unsubstantiated that you do not understand?

The thread is particulate crimes. That is what says is debunked. It is not debunked. Claims made to support it have been debunked, but there is no proof that it is not possible. Some things can be proven to be impossible, and particulate crimes have not been debunked. Simple.
 

Danny55

Member
It is the splitting of the statement which was made as a whole, not two different statements, which I found strange. As stated, it was as a whole that the statement was made, not two parts, so why you would state that it was two parts when in fact it was posted as one statement is difficult to comprehend, however,if you wish for other people to decide what the original posters should have meant to say, that is fine.
But, to get back to your interpretation of what the poster was trying to say
""The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates" Debunked. It demonstrates nothing."
Just to clarify, it demonstates NOTHING because YOU have removed the SUBJECT from the sentence. No sentence or statement will have very much sense if you do not include the SUBJECT. Try it and see. eg "I read...." Not very informative because.. I have not included a SUBJECT.
 
The title of the thread is a statement in itself. There is no "debunked" label edited onto the sentence. The "debunked" label is on the thread title.
You are comparing apples to oranges and missing the point.

As for the sentence, I removed nothing, the subject of the first claim was the photographs. The subject of the second claim was not needed as it was implied and I did not add it for redundancy. I did add it last post in brackets, but you have conveniently stripped it off once again. You are being picky. I have explained myself. Listen to what I am saying, not what I said. There was a miscommunication. Ty.

I like to eat apples because they are juicy.

One sentence, two claims. Simple concept.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Some of the content of the thread was debunked, but the subject itself is not debunked.
A "subject" is not something one debunks. [...]
here was the claim:

Clifford Carnyclown said:
the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations.
Operative words of the claim: tragically altered [as a result of] aerosol operations

Evidence given: a video of particles in the air.

The debunk centered on this:
1. No actual measurements were taken
2. No historical measurements were supplied
3. No causal chain of evidence was presented to establish causality with anything
4. No evidence was presented for any "aerosol operations"

There are enough "No's" above to debunk the entire thing. Period.

However, the claim primarily rests it's case on a video which is implied to be extraordinary. Mick showed that what is seen in the video could easily be duplicated by simple ordinary night-time mist. I showed how ordinary particulates are in the air, that there is nothing extraordinary about having them there. I also showed that the claimant has a decades long history of making claims and not supporting them.

The claims were debunked as far as the evidence supplied would let them be.

That is what debunking is, it is not about debunking a "subject".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some of the content of the thread was debunked, but the subject itself is not debunked.
I explained earlier:

I'm debunking his evidence. The stills from the video. Very specifically I'm debunking the claim that "The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates that the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations."

Since they look like normal stuff, then this claim is debunked.
 
Top