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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, sorry. but you still have not debunked what the objects are in the videos i posted. not mist/dust


But it's been shown that there are a number of things such videos could be: mist, dust, seeds, insects, spider silk, pollen, etc. Now while you can't identify exactly what each one is, there's no real reason to suspect it's not one of those, or something similar.
 

Nessa Celery

New Member
Quote from the OP: "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. [.....] 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."

Surely this has been debunked. There's zero evidence from those pictures of anything being "tragically altered", let alone as a result of aerosol operations.
And that was before Mick showed the same kind of thing in his videos. There's simply no evidence.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Bull crap. A "subject" is not something one debunks. You just don't want to understand what debunking is, SD, or else you think you can use sophistry to obfuscate the real issue. I'll take you by the hand and lead you through it since you insist on pretending to be ignorant.

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".

"Unregistered", if you disagree with what I wrote above, explain why it is incorrect, or supply the missing evidence for 1-4 above.
If you will not or cannot, the matter has been debunked.

It is not up to us to describe what you show in your video. You can claim it is pixie dust for all that is worth, but until you show it is not ordinary dust or fog droplets, your claim is worthless.

Don't blame us for not collecting whatever you show and getting it analyzed. Carnicom made the original claim a decade ago, he "set you up" by not following through to collect actual evidence as in 1-4 above. Get after his ass and ask him why he sent you out unprepared and doomed you to fail so easily.

Again, the burden of proof rests with the claimant, the claimants are you, and Carnicom.



Bring it on and show yourself approved, otherwise your whole claim is ridiculous. This is prima facie evidence of why Clifford Carnicom will never get real scientists behind him. He doesn't do science.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
But it's been shown that there are a number of things such videos could be: mist, dust, seeds, insects, spider silk, pollen, etc. Now while you can't identify exactly what each one is, there's no real reason to suspect it's not one of those, or something similar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9X3cCqmuw

Why is it that so many people are seeing these objects as orbs then? Are they all wrong?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9X3cCqmuw

Why is it that so many people are seeing these objects as orbs then? Are they all wrong?

What are "orbs"?

They see things that seem orb shaped, but the most reasonable explanation for them is that they are just ordinary objects that that found in the sky. Being unexplained does not mean it's inexplicable.

Of course it MIGHT be an alien spacecraft or an elemental spirit soul, but there's no evidence to suggest that it is.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Why is it that so many people are seeing these objects as orbs then? Are they all wrong?

Yeah, they're at least wrong and I'll reserve further comment in that regard due to the politeness policy. I think one of the dynamics with these "orbs" is people that never paid attention to mundane everyday things like dust in the air are suddenly made aware of them by some youtube video claiming it's something unusual. If what's being claimed fits into their belief system they suddenly start seeing orbs everywhere.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I would add that anyone can look up and see that they're not seeing "orbs" flying around when they look at persistent contrails with the naked eye. They only see them when looking at camera footage. That's probably because they are just out-of-focus specks of various sorts, floating near the camera (which is what they look like anyway).
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
unregistered, where is your Carnicom now? He is not your friend. He has done nothing for you. Do you realize this now?
He knows me quite well, have him come over and we will have it out.
Tell him to come and discuss his claims. He won't, because he knows what he has done and he is ashamed of it.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Yup, same type of thing - very small objects relatively close to the camera, brightly lit by the sun, mistaken for alien spacecraft.

very small objects... which you have failed to identify. alien spacecraft? where was any type of "craft" mentioned?...


Plus some larger ones that are clearly birds (1:56) and insects (e.g. 1:09 for a classic "rod"). Unregistered, have you ever wondered why they only look strange through your camera, and not with the naked eye (assuming your vision is good)? Do you think it's more likely that your camera is able to see things that are invisible to you, or that it is recording things that are out-of-focus and blurred?

"They only see them when looking at camera footage"

WRONG.

If you want to see these things for yourself, go outside when the sky is clear blue and the suns shining and block it out with something.. I can assure you.. they look just as strange

street lights work nicely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3xlF1lYSgYs
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Yup, same type of thing - very small objects relatively close to the camera, brightly lit by the sun, mistaken for alien spacecraft.

Plus some larger ones that are clearly birds (1:56) and insects (e.g. 1:09 for a classic "rod"). Unregistered, have you ever wondered why they only look strange through your camera, and not with the naked eye (assuming your vision is good)? Do you think it's more likely that your camera is able to see things that are invisible to you, or that it is recording things that are out-of-focus and blurred?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Unregistered (and it would work better for you if you registered), nobody is saying that are not all identified. Some of them ARE "unidentified" flying objects. But there's a large range of very reasonable things that they might be that need to be eliminated before more esoteric explanations are applied.

The problem with the "orb" or "lots of stuff in the air" folk is that they immediately skip over all the reasonable explanations and go for the least reasonable (but most interesting) explanation.

Let say I feel I have something in my pocket. It's an unidentified thing in my pocket. UFTIMP. I don't know what it is, but I theorize it some coins, or keys, or a flashlight - things that are usually in my pocket. I can't tell what it is. I can't prove it's one of those things. It might be something else. What I don't do is start theorizing about how it might be a miniature robot, or a leprechaun, or the Hope diamond.

There's many things that can reasonably found in my pocket. There are many things that can reasonably be found floating around in the sky. Just because we can't identify something does not mean it's not one of those things.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Unregistered (and it would work better for you if you registered), nobody is saying that are not all identified. Some of them ARE "unidentified" flying objects. But there's a large range of very reasonable things that they might be that need to be eliminated before more esoteric explanations are applied.

The problem with the "orb" or "lots of stuff in the air" folk is that they immediately skip over all the reasonable explanations and go for the least reasonable (but most interesting) explanation.

Let say I feel I have something in my pocket. It's an unidentified thing in my pocket. UFTIMP. I don't know what it is, but I theorize it some coins, or keys, or a flashlight - things that are usually in my pocket. I can't tell what it is. I can't prove it's one of those things. It might be something else. What I don't do is start theorizing about how it might be a miniature robot, or a leprechaun, or the Hope diamond.

There's many things that can reasonably found in my pocket. There are many things that can reasonably be found floating around in the sky. Just because we can't identify something does not mean it's not one of those things.

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

solrey

Senior Member.
If you want to see these things for yourself, go outside when the sky is clear blue and the suns shining and block it out with something.. I can assure you.. they look just as strange

I do that all the time. I love fluid dynamics so watching stuff flying around on air currents is kind of a recurring pastime while taking a break when working outside. I enjoy cloud spotting so I'm often blocking the sun with my hand to look at clouds so I also inadvertently see stuff flying around in the air. What I see are a variety of airborne seeds, insects, dust and pollen. When they're shining in the sunlight the glare can make identifying the specific seed or insect a bit difficult but otherwise it's obvious what I'm seeing.

What if the following video were entitled "Chemweb season in Erie, PA" with the videographer ranting about chemwebs and chemtrails like that James Mulholland character? Would people like unregistered be duped by it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhijhaV-tvo
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
"They only see them when looking at camera footage"

WRONG.

If you want to see these things for yourself, go outside when the sky is clear blue and the suns shining and block it out with something.. I can assure you.. they look just as strange

street lights work nicely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3xlF1lYSgYs

Do they look like "orbs" without the camera? I think not. I see specks floating around all the time. They look like dust, bugs, pollen, seeds, etc.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Do they look like "orbs" without the camera? I think not. I see specks floating around all the time. They look like dust, bugs, pollen, seeds, etc.

Yes.. they do. go see for yourself
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
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.
The argument that particulates have increased in Earth's troposphere is bound to be true. The Earth's human population is increasing, and particulates created by it (this population) will have increased commensurately.

However the Earth's method of removing these particulates (by nucleating water droplets from water vapor) is well up to the job, with 99% to spare. The world's largest explosive eruption (Tambor) put 300 million tons of nano-materials into the air in an instant, and all that resulted in were a slight drop in temperature and more frequent glorious sunsets for a year or two, because the force of the eruption threw a significant quantity into the higher stratosphere.

Pan evaporation tests over the last fifty years have shown a 15% reduction in insolation due to increased particulates in the troposphere. Considering we're burning 12Bn tons of carbon annually (increasing), that too is very little to show. More stringent controls would soon regain that lost insolation. The globe would then continue to warm at an accelerated rate. Warming will increase atmospheric water vapor.

Stratospheric saturation can only exist in perfectly clean air.

The Earth's stratosphere is 17% fully saturated (1992 research) which means at least 17% of it is absolutely pure. That fact will only change if the oceans disappear.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The argument that particulates have increased in Earth's atmosphere is bound to be true. The Earth's human population is increasing, and particulates created by it (this population) will have increased commensurately.

However the Earth's method of removing these particulates (by nucleating water droplets from water vapor) is well up to the job, with 99% to spare. The world's largest explosive eruption (Tambor) put 300 million tons of nano-materials into the air in an instant, and all the rest of us experienced were a slight drop in temperature and glorious sunsets for a year.

Considering cloud condensation nuclei at Mauna Loa, you can see the increase and wash out from two eruptions, and the return to the persistent variation over the last 30 years.

Mauna Loa CCN.jpg
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
James Mulholland, one of the YouTube people claiming "chemwebs" were real, has removed his entire profile from YT. I don't know what this means; my last few contacts with him were messages claiming irrefutable proof of one thing or another. At least he was starting to debate using science. I think James is fairly intelligent, just a bit misguided. I wonder if he had some sort of epiphany?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
TCSW - that video has been discussed (with its creator, Dave Dahl, attending) here: Debunked: Artificialclouds.com claims silver iodide causes chemtrails & global warming! Dave did adjust his claims somewhat after that discussion, but still left in most of the original bunk. There is no evidence that cloud seeding with silver iodide has any effect on contrail formation, and many reasons to think that it wouldn't.

I checked, BTW - no cloud seeding activities have been permitted in Florida in recent years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GregMc

Senior Member.
James Mulholland, one of the YouTube people claiming "chemwebs" were real, has removed his entire profile from YT. I don't know what this means; my last few contacts with him were messages claiming irrefutable proof of one thing or another. At least he was starting to debate using science. I think James is fairly intelligent, just a bit misguided. I wonder if he had some sort of epiphany?


Hi Mike. He said he was busy working on his masterpiece video, a debunking of one of my long debunking letters as he was upset that he had made a fool of himself over his previous video attempt disputing the amount of water in engine exhaust. I think a centrepiece of his refutation was going to be the argument from Energysupply2008 that the QF64 flights must use trimethylaluminium in the fuel. He believed the reason that there are gaps before a trail starts is that the trimethylaluminium can't get access to any oxygen to combust with in the combustion chamber because the kerosene will somehow use up every last molecule of oxygen first and leave none for the TMA .

I'm sure he was busy trying to address issues you were raising with him too.
He had unblocked both of us from his page as he was so confident he was on the verge of defeating us with his arguments.

It was pointed out to him that TrimethylAluminium is Pyrophoric, meaning it spontaneously and instantly combusts when exposed to air and produces an orange fireball and white smoke even without an ignition source. Kerosene on the other hand has a high activation energy, meaning a large amount of energy must be added to it with just the right mixture ratio of oxidant , fuel droplet size, kinetic energy and ignition source before it will even begin to burn at all.

He was under the impression that in the furiously energetic , oxidising environment of a combustion chamber at 2000C, a highly reactive pyrophoric substance will not react whatsoever and a far less reactive substance will complete all reactions first before the other material even begins.

He was provided with some basic chemistry and logic to check such as:
Jet engines in airliners burn a LOT of fuel .
4litres of kerosene a second is quite typical.
Kerosene is a blend of hydrocarbons of different lengths of carbon chain but it's convenient to simplify to just decane for an instructive calculation.
A mole of decane in kerosene is 142grams, so
4litres per second means about 28 mol of decane per second reacting with 434 mol oxygen gas

A mol of decane means 6.02214179(30)×10to the power23 or 16,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of decane combusting with 260,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of oxygen ( O2 ) stripped into reactive oxygen ions in the combustion chamber at temperatures of around 2000C

All those oxygen ions in a furious combustion plasma and supposedly not a single one of them reacting to TMA....


He was also asked to explain how an airliner like a Qantas 747 that had refueled in Johanesburg & had flown for over 9 hours non-stop over the indian ocean with over 200 passengers with 23kg checked baggage each could possibly have sufficient spare carrying capacity for material OTHER than fuel in sufficient quantity to make dense trails hundreds of kms long.
He had also made the claim that The sky at altitude had almost no water in it and that the water in jet exhaust vastly outnumbered water in the sky by many orders of magnititude. I suspect he had tried to use the paper by Knollenberg to support his claims and it backfired when he actually read the paper more carefully whilst trying to quote mine it.
http://ciresweb.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdfHe had tried to use the Appleman chart to claim it proved that contrails could never exist in most conditions . I suspect he might have finally grasped how it should be properly read, only after he had been making embarrassing misguided comments .

He had suggested that a contrail could never form any closer than an airliners horizontal stabiliser because he Had read that a contrail usually forms within 2seconds.
He took that to mean a contrail cannot ever form UNTILL after 2 seconds when in fact it means they will generally form before two seconds. It was pointed out he was misinterpreting the word "within" and tending to latch on to expressions like "usually" or "about" and treat them as if they meant "exactly"
I think he possibly finally had an epiphany that he was believing absolute nonsense as he wrote it all down, and what he initially thought would be a coup de grace turned out to be aimed at himself.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I think he possibly finally had an epiphany that he was believing absolute nonsense as he wrote it all down, and what he initially thought would be a coup de grace turned out to be aimed at himself.

"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".
~ Hamlet
 
J

Joe

Guest
TCSW - that video has been discussed (with its creator, Dave Dahl, attending) here: Debunked: Artificialclouds.com claims silver iodide causes chemtrails & global warming! Dave did adjust his claims somewhat after that discussion, but still left in most of the original bunk. There is no evidence that cloud seeding with silver iodide has any effect on contrail formation, and many reasons to think that it wouldn't.

I checked, BTW - no cloud seeding activities have been permitted in Florida in recent years.
yea like we would need more rain here in Florida :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Thanks for that Greg. It was me who pointed out to James his false assumptions regarding contrails being the result of water contained in the fuel. To his credit he admitted the error in the video.... grudgingly, but he did admit it.

He is an interesting character though. I gave him a list of reasons why pilots aren't involved in "chemtrailing", one of which was the slew of laws to which we would be personally liable if we did, to which he was totally dismissive. His last video was another "total proof" as he filmed the QF63 contrailing and compared the atmosphere soundings taken an hour and a half beforehand from Melbourne Airport to attest that it was impossible for the aircraft to be contrailing. To give him credit he had a working hypothesis but failed to take many variables into account, such as the aircraft not flying through that particular parcel of air.

he had quite a following particularly down in Melbourne. Peekay has gone semi quiet as well... he seems to be branching out into other areas. Sandy Hook was a copy of Port arthur apparently...... :rolleyes:
 

MikeC

Closed Account
All those oxygen ions in a furious combustion plasma and supposedly not a single one of them reacting to TMA....

Did you mention all the oxygen in the engine core that does NOT go through the combustion chamber, so cannot be "used up"??

I know - it's just adding to the heap of evidence where it is not required, but I thought it worth mentioning...:)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 12
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 47
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top