Discussions with chemtrailers on facebook

tryblinking

Senior Member.
God, I've been pulled in to debunking on her "chemtrails kill' page.

Oh, wait, update, I just got banned.

It was posting the 'contrail gaps and other questions' link that did it I think. Marked me as 'one of them'.

So I posted this on Roxy's wall, to explain why normal people like to explain misunderstandings about the atmosphere on chemtrail forums:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
From Roxy
Basic science is a plane/jet/tanker cannot turn off it's engines without falling out of the sky. THAT is as basic as we can get. Period. "nuff said.

This is a surprisingly common misconception. Many people who are afraid of flying think this is true. In fact you can turn off the engines for several minutes, and people aboard would probably not notice, they would just descend in altitude. Of course though jets DON'T turn off their engines. She's kind of doubly wrong.

But I would not say that combustion producing water is "common knowledge". It counterintuitive to most people. Much like flying. Russ's problem is that he's taking his intuition, and calling it science.
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
From Roxy


This is a surprisingly common misconception. Many people who are afraid of flying think this is true. In fact you can turn off the engines for several minutes, and people aboard would probably not notice, they would just descend in altitude. Of course though jets DON'T turn off their engines. She's kind of doubly wrong.

But I would not say that combustion producing water is "common knowledge". It counterintuitive to most people. Much like flying. Russ's problem is that he's taking his intuition, and calling it science.

Indeed, it's laughably wrong.
A normal descent in a 747 has the engines at idle power (almost no thrust) and so gliding for nearly 200 km.
I was also captaining a flight from Dammam in Saudi Arabia to Manila a few years ago and an engine quit (long story) but we got it going again a few minutes later. The cabin crew never even knew about it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Related:

A 747 is crossing the ocean. The pilot announces on the PA system, "Ladies and gentlemen, we've had a little problem with our #4 engine and we've had to shut it down. Not to worry though, because this aircraft is perfectly capable of flying along on three engines. Unfortunately, this will delay our arrival by half an hour."

After a short time, the pilot makes a similar announcement about the #2 engine. This time he says that their arrival will be delayed by an hour..

Soon, the pilot is on the PA again. Yet another engine was lost; but the aircraft will fly one one engine. He announces that their arrival at their destination will now be delayed by 90 mintues.

One exasperated passenger turns to another and says, "Jumpin' Jesus on a raft! If that last engine quits, we'll be up here all day!"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So I posted this on Roxy's wall, to explain why normal people like to explain misunderstandings about the atmosphere on chemtrail forums:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

I don't think I'd use that word, as "pleasure derived from the misfortune of others" is rather negative, implying malice - or that you are somehow causing their misfortune. Although certainly some people do get pleasure from correcting other people's mistakes. That word just creates the wrong impression.
 

tryblinking

Senior Member.
I think you're right.

After all, I would rather she learnt what was right and didn't stay ignorant, which wouldn't be true if her ignorance was what I enjoyed.
I guess I enjoy correcting someone with fundamental logic and information which I am 99% certain is right, and always more correct than what they thought previously.

The chemtrail hoax seems to provide an eternal source for this, a fact I must admit a strong ambivalence about.


Also, it's Roxy's birthday today, in case that matters somehow.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
This exchange with a caller (Carl from Columbus Ohio) on NPR's Science Friday last Friday made me think of chemtrailers like Russ Tanner:

CARL: Before I ask about the Baghdad Battery, I'd like to point out that it's nice to have a real scientist as opposed to a lightweight promulgator of fluff making up... (Alan Alda had been the guest on the first half of the show http://www.npr.org/2012/03/23/149231680/alan-alda-asks-scientists-what-is-a-flame )


FLATOW: You have - do you have a question for this person here?


CARL: I do. Alan Alda was something of an offense to science. But my question in this context to a real scientist is the Baghdad Battery, apparently, a couple of - maybe one to 2,000 B.C., the Iraqis had electricity in the form of a wine, vinegar, iron, perhaps, copper solution. It was a primitive battery that might be use to electroplate. Was that found? Was that - is that in the possession of the authorities these days and when was it?


STONE: I'm trying to remember the Baghdad Battery. My recollection of it is that most people don't think it was a battery. I think it was found and it resembles other clay vessels that are probably used for rituals in terms of having kind of multiple mouths to it. And I'm truly trying to remember.


FLATOW: What would they have done with the battery like that?


STONE: I think it's not a battery. I mean, I don't think anybody who's, I mean, I think the people who argue it's a battery are not, you know, are not scientists basically. That it - there is some metal that is attached to it, but that happens when metal corrodes and is in contact with ceramics under those circumstances. So I don't know anybody who thinks it's a real battery in the field.


FLATOW: So it was just a piece of fluff comment there about it being a battery. OK
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
Just had to add this. From the "Report Smoking Aircraft" FB page

" [h=6]Report Smoking Aircraft[/h]Sunday

Hi there. Frustrations growing due to equipment failures. I have been spending lots of time recently gathering footage of the total dis-regard for human health (heavy geo-engineering). Its insane, the amount of activity in Reno, Nevada Lately. Oh yeah tons of footage only to find 1 frame that lasts hours. This has happened 3 times and im frustrated. Its likely the web-cam is taking a shit. Im curr...ently using a Logitech 610, it worked well for a short time, but now, if it doesnt completly drop thousands of frames, it produces shit quality. i will be posting 1 successful video with what i think is horrible quality today or tomorrow. and i would gladly accept donations in the form of a USB web cam. So if anyone has recently upgraded their usb webcam, and is having trouble figuring out what to do with the old, drop me a message.
Thanks all, and i hope i can deliver new footage soon, but till then
ill just do PhotoShop stuff. :)See more


LikeUnlike · · Share


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Des O

New Member
And he thinks that "they" are tampering with his hi tech $10 made in china webcam in order to hide the truth.
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
Glad to see that you are being allowed to participate on the Lawsuit FB page, and surprsed to see Roxy agreeing with you on the subject of persisting trails, even though it was a very short period of agreement.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, after a sunday of facebook debating, I got banned from "Chemtrails Kill" (Roxy Lopez) group. Russ Tanner was particularly insistent about banning me. He's also trying to get me banned from the "Chemtrails" group.

Here's his contributions to the conversation over a 30 minute period:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/40556352568/permalink/10151006914272569/

Russ Tanner Mick west is a shill and should be banned immediately. Do not tolerate disinformation in your groups.
Russ Tanner over $100 million has been allocated in the U.S. for people to create fake identities (or real ones) and spread disinformation: http://urlbam.com/ha/M003u
DON'T TOLERATE SHILLS.
Russ Tanner Coosfoos Coos is also a supporting shill. I do hope the admins of this group ban shills. They cause discord and confusion. Do not give shills a voice.
Russ Tanner I request that the people in this group contact the admins and ask them to ban all shills. Do not let them have a voice here or anywhere.
Russ Tanner Ban Mick West and Coosfoos Coos. Please don't let shills invade and have a voice in legitimate chemtrails forums.
Russ Tanner‎ Suzanne Holmes is exactly right. They are both shills. Don't feed them. Don't waste your time arguing with them. Simply ask the admins to ban them immediately.
Russ Tanner Click on "6328 members" in the upper right. Then click "All Members" In the list that drops down, select "Admins". Those 2 people are the admins. Message them and ask them to remove shills from their group.
Russ Tanner Thanks for making my point. Disinformation and discord. Slandering members. Raising arguments. Ban shills. Do not give them a voice.
Russ Tanner I just hope the people in this group wake up to the disinformation that is being spread here. It's not like TV because I am personally suffering from chemtrails and many other are along with me, and disinformationalists are trying to convince the public to accept the poisoning that is going on.
Disinformationalists are murderous liars and will be found out and lawfully prosecuted because under law, aiding and abetting crimes are the same as performing them. If you study history, you will learn that disinformationalists are among the first to fall out of favor with their employers because they are recognized as a liability... Shill would do well for themselves to learn this quickly and get out of the disinformation business.
Russ Tanner All plumes - long or short - are chemtrails. Contrails are a con to attempt to convince the public that they are harmless so the public will allow the illegal poisoning to continue. My account of the day I saw the trail changed from long to short: http://urlbam.com/ha/M003p
Content from External Source
Unfortunately he ignored all the actual scientific discussion.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
She doesn't understand that Russ Tanner is a terrible liability for her group?
What a pack of lies!
Russ Tanner said:
Since the writing of my series of articles exposing contrails, multiple professional airline pilots have contacted me and thanked me for my stance against the contrail deception.

All of them told me personally that they have never seen trails come out of jet engines and that they appreciate my work exposing the disinformation about contrails. Every one of these pilots knew that contrails are so rare that most people will never see one in their lifetime, and if they do occur, they are at high altitudes that cannot be seen from the ground.
http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/chemtrail-information/plumes-change.html
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
Towards the end of your participation on Roxy's group, I got the impression she was word searching docs and just pasting when she found matches. I, too, wondered what the hell she was posting with talk of centrifuges etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes that was interesting, she started reasonable, but then got angry and random.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/chemtrailskill/permalink/10150999385411889/

Roxy Lopez Airplanes are designed with FUEL DUMP capabilities and happen all the time. Now to address Mick WestSaturday at 12:52pm


Roxy Lopez agreed Mick West that fuel dumps happen less than contrails. Correct.
Saturday at 12:52pm


Roxy LopezMick West, indeed there is condensation, ice crystal, and contrails that can sustain. If you wish to learn more about the MILITARY, and what they are dumping, then you will have to dig deeper than pop mechanics....or contrail science.
Saturday at 12:54pm · 1


Mick West So the real question is how you can tell the difference between a chemtrail and a persistent contrail.
Saturday at 1:02pm


Sharon Gallagher There is a big difference the vapors from the fuel are hardly seen . They do disapate fast the chem douds do not and form so different and funnel down . Many pics to see the difference.
Saturday at 1:09pm · 1


Mick WestSharon Gallagher, the fuel will evaporate very quickly. But Contrails don't because the air is ice-supersaturated. They can't evaporate because it's too humid, so they persist, the ice crystal grow in size, and the trail spreads out.
Saturday at 5:10pm


Shawn Gandee http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html Bill HR2977 read the bottom of this bill it says Chemtrails


Space Preservation Act of 2001
www.fas.org
H.R. 2977, introduced by Rep. Kucinich, October 2, 2001
Saturday at 6:06pm


Russ Tanner http://urlbam.com/ha/M006z


Chemtrail Information - The Great Contrail Con
globalskywatch.com
Those spreading disinformation about chemtrails would like nothing more than for...
See More
Saturday at 8:53pm


Roxy LopezMick West, that is the question of a shill come on man, how are we really supposed to take you seriously at this point? lol!
Saturday at 11:21pm


Roxy Lopez bla bla ba bla bla
Saturday at 11:21pm · 1


Roxy Lopez Thanks Russ Tanner
Saturday at 11:21pm


Mick West It's a serious question. If contrails can persist, then how can you tell what is not a contrail?
Yesterday at 2:47am


PalmtreeQueen Lampworks Glass Beads By being a serious sky watcher, now go wag your tail somewhere else Mick!
Yesterday at 6:21am


Russ Tanner You need to know about Mick West... He runs the contrail science website (a chemtrail disinformation website) and metabunk which is another disinformation website that debunks everything else. He also posts on YouTube as Epoxynous and provides much chemtrail disinformation there. He is not your friend.
Yesterday at 8:35am · 1


Russ Tanner http://contrailscience.com/about/


About - Contrail Science
contrailscience.com
ContrailScience.com is just a place where I write about both contrails and scien...
See More
Yesterday at 8:35am


Mick West That's me. I'd be happy to accept any corrections for anything posted on any of my sites. Russ, can you point out any errors on contrailscience.com?
Yesterday at 8:37am


PalmtreeQueen Lampworks Glass Beads Thanks for the info Russ!!
Yesterday at 9:31am


Roxy LopezMick West, in my opinion (just mine and research) There are most likely errors on both sides of the fence. It however does not matter. Bottom line is this,the environment is being attacked....and to get into a sticky argument about which persisting contrails are the problem or not, is really not the point because none of us are scientists.
Yesterday at 9:41am


Roxy Lopez LOOK at the PATENTS: very telling
Yesterday at 9:41am


Roxy Lopez LOOK at the GLOBAL WARMING Propaganda , again, very telling, especially because most scientists believe that we are headed into a mini ice age
Yesterday at 9:42am


Roxy Lopez Notice that the propaganda machine is now telling us that our skies were covered in big X grids, checkered board paters, etc. as far back as the 50's. LIE. Not truth
Yesterday at 9:43am


Mick WestRoxy Lopez, I'm not sure that patents tell you much. There are lots of patents for mining on the moon, but nobody is actually doing it. Patenting a thing does not mean either that it works, or that it's being used.
Yesterday at 9:43am


Roxy Lopez Look at the NASA C>A>R>E projects dumping MILLIONS of tons of Aluminum into the atmosphere, why?
Yesterday at 9:44am


Mick West I don't think there were big grids in the 1950s, except perhaps during military exercises. But there were certainly individual contrails. There's just a lot more now.
Yesterday at 9:44am


Roxy Lopez Look at what Bill Gates is funding, the Keith Caldera's etc. another hoax, to mitigate RADIATION? In the 1800's we had bigger X-Flares as well as longer drought periods, and we did not even have planes back then.
Yesterday at 9:45am


Mick West Keith is actually against doing SRM geoengineering. I think his main motivation in researching it is so that people will be aware of the dangers and not do it.
Yesterday at 9:46am


Roxy LopezMick West what you stated has been a consistent shill comment as well...it is not "there are just a lot more now". Check into HAARP, radar, satelite images, NATO, the age of NANO tech and smaller
Yesterday at 9:47am


Mick West Roxy, the CARE rockets only dumped a few kilos of aluminum.
Yesterday at 9:47am


Roxy Lopez Sulphur Oxide, ask why dump Sulpher Oxide, look at the resoning and ask your self it if makes sense?
Yesterday at 9:48am


Roxy Lopez Look again Mick West, not truth again.........I could put links here for your parousal Mik, but I think it is you that needs to do the homework in order to challenge me on this argument , with all due repsect.r
Yesterday at 9:49am


Roxy Lopez Take a look at what Livermore Labs has been doing, I am on the inside of that one, ad you cannot convince me otherwise.
Yesterday at 9:50am


Mick West They are investigating sulpher dioxide because it's essentially what nature uses. When a volcanoe erupts, it send a lot of sulpher dioxide into the air, cooling down the earth for a few years. So they are looking at duplicating the process. Of course there are lots of downsides, which is why nobody has done it yet.
Yesterday at 9:50am


Roxy Lopez Look at the Venus-mirror project, and the millions spent nearly 20 years ago with the Venus "mirror" project, you cannot dismiss any of this
Yesterday at 9:50am


Roxy LopezMick West, you DISMISS all FACTS, and I have been open for the past 4 years ...very open minded, have been in scientific think tanks where I played the devils advocate (so to speak)...hoping and intending that science was doing something to HELP the earth. They are NOT doing any such thing.....
Yesterday at 9:52am


Roxy Lopez Sulfur dioxide is an intermediate in the production of sulfuric acid, being converted to sulfur trioxide, and then to oleum, which is made into sulfuric acid. Sulfur dioxide for this purpose is made when sulfur combines with oxygen. The method of converting sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid is called the contact process. Several billion kilograms are produced annually for this purpose.
Yesterday at 9:54am


Roxy Lopez It is in our food as well used as a preservative: POISON
Yesterday at 9:54am


Roxy Lopez Sulfur dioxide is also a good reductant. In the presence of water, sulfur dioxide is able to decolorize substances. Specifically it is a useful reducing bleach for papers and delicate materials such as clothes. This bleaching effect normally does not last very long. Oxygen in the atmosphere reoxidizes the reduced dyes, restoring the color. In municipal wastewater treatment sulfur dioxide is used to treat chlorinated wastewater prior to release. Sulfur dioxide reduces free and combined chlorine to chloride
Yesterday at 9:55am


Roxy Lopez Same compound used in the cloud whitening expirements going on right now....what do you mean that they have not used it? Of course they have!
Yesterday at 9:56am


Roxy Lopez Sulfur dioxide is a major air pollutant and has significant impacts upon human health, period, and is not solely coming from volcanos.
Yesterday at 9:57am


Roxy Lopez In addition the concentration of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere can influence the habitat suitability for plant communities as well as animal life
Yesterday at 9:58am


Roxy Lopez Inhaling sulfur dioxide is associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death.
Yesterday at 9:58am


Mick West Roxy, all the issues you raise are good reasons why it's not been used. There's no actual evidence that anyone is spraying sulphur dioxide for geoengineering.
Yesterday at 9:59am


Roxy Lopez PLEASE don't try to tell the people on this thread that they have not experimented on us with SULFER DIOXIDE. NOT TRUE and there is obvious PROOF.
Yesterday at 10:00am


Mick West Sorry, I've not seen this proof. Also I though the chemtrail geoengineering theorists were claiming it was aluminum?
Yesterday at 10:01am


Roxy LopezMick West there is PROOF. It is in our food for christ sake.......plants and humans have DIED and there is also proof. Please ....
Yesterday at 10:01am


Negativity Destroys i want to share this...
Yesterday at 10:01am


Roxy LopezMick West at what length have you gone to to see this PROOF????? Are you a scientist ? So you are on the inside? If you are not on the inside, what are you studying, who are you calling, what letters have you written, have you spoken to EPA and other such agencies, have you gone to the colleges, have you spoken with many scientists and chemists? NO, you are on a FB thread claiming to LOOK for evidence.........and you REFUTE it all. You are an obvious gate keeper. I have enough proof and do not even get sidelined by this kind of conversation. Have a great day.
Yesterday at 10:04am · Edited


Roxy Lopez really really? there is PROOF everywhere. In the United States, the Center for Science in the Public Interest lists the two food preservatives, sulfur dioxide and sodium bisulfite, as being safe for human consumption except for certain individuals who may be sensitive to it, especially in large amounts
Yesterday at 10:05am


Roxy Lopez http://www.cspinet.org/


Center for Science in the Public Interest
www.cspinet.org
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advo...
See More
Yesterday at 10:06am


Roxy Lopez PLEASE the above agency reports to the FDA and we know the Food & Drug is not doing there job either....come on .
Yesterday at 10:06am


Mick West I'm sorry, this Sulphur Dioxide theory is new to me. I don't understand how you can say there's PROOF, and yet nobody is suing anyone?
Yesterday at 10:06am


Roxy Lopez Stop changing the subject Mick West, you brought up sulfer D.
Yesterday at 10:07am


Roxy Lopez http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_01/


Nutrition Action Healthletter - Genetically Engineered Foods: Are They Safe?
www.cspinet.org
CSPI, Nutrition Action Healthletter, FDA, food, healthy eating, diet, safe food,...
See More
Yesterday at 10:09am


Roxy Lopez there is your aluminum Mick, go down that rabbit hole yourself.
Yesterday at 10:09am


Mick West No, I think you brought up sulphur. I was responding to you.
Yesterday at 10:10am


Roxy Lopez Corundum is the most common naturally occurring crystalline form of aluminium oxide.
Yesterday at 10:10am


Roxy Lopez and there are your freaking ice crystal in the sky.
Yesterday at 10:10am


Roxy Lopez Aluminium oxide is an electrical insulator but has a relatively high thermal conductivity (30 Wm−1K−1[1]) for a ceramic material.
Yesterday at 10:11am


Mick West You know the soil is 8% aluminum, right? And up to 30% in hawaii.
Yesterday at 10:11am


Roxy Lopez As a catalyst and catalyst support
Alumina catalyses a variety of reactions that are useful industrially. In its largest scale application, alumina is the catalyst in the Claus process for converting hydrogen sulfide waste gases into elemental sulfur in refineries. It is also useful for dehydration of alcohols to alkenes.
Yesterday at 10:11am


Roxy Lopez Proof: Planar chromatography is a separation technique in which the stationary phase is present as or on a plane. The plane can be a paper, serving as such or impregnated by a substance as the stationary bed (paper chromatography) or a layer of solid particles spread on a support such as a glass plate (thin layer chromatography). Different compounds in the sample mixture travel different distances according to how strongly they interact with the stationary phase as compared to the mobile phase. The specific Retention factor (Rf) of each chemical can be used to aid in the identification of an unknown substance.
Yesterday at 10:13am


Mick West I'm sorry Roxy, I don't understand why you are quoting this stuff. What does it relate to?
Yesterday at 10:14am


Roxy Lopez Centrifugation is a process that involves the use of the centrifugal force for the sedimentation of mixtures with a centrifuge, used in industry and in laboratory settings. More-dense components of the mixture migrate away from the axis of the centrifuge, while less-dense components of the mixture migrate towards the axis. Chemists and biologists may increase the effective gravitational force on a test tube so as to more rapidly and completely cause the precipitate ("pellet") to gather on the bottom of the tube. The remaining solution is properly called the "supernate" or "supernatant liquid". The supernatant liquid is then either quickly decanted from the tube without disturbing the precipitate, or withdrawn with a Pasteur pipette
Yesterday at 10:15am


Mick West Are you just posting random stuff as some kind of general point?
Yesterday at 10:17am


Roxy Lopez Read it Mick, and go down the rabbit hole please. I have...and I have written papers on this stuff. Read it, and make your own observations, but lastly, do your homework and stop trying to tell me that non of these compounds are being used in the atmosphere. THEY ARE all being used....it requires a lot of reading, conferring with Boeing (I would say would be a great start for you) see if you can get the engineers to speak to you, look at the compounds in Jet 8 fuel and rocket fuel, distinguish the DIFFERENCE between EXHAUST and AEROSOL SPRAYING...then go to STEP 2.
Yesterday at 10:19am · Edited · 1


Roxy Lopez and NO non of what I have posted is random. AT ALL.
Yesterday at 10:20am


Mick West The centrifuge stuff? That seems entirely unrelated to contrails. It seems like you are speaking in riddles.
Yesterday at 10:26am


Roxy Lopez If you study it, you will find it is all related.
23 hours ago


Mick West So why can't you simply explain how it is all related? You can't go into a court and tell the judge to do his own research. You need to lay out the case.
22 hours ago
Content from External Source
 

Danny55

Senior Member.
Looks like this bit did it
"which the stationary phase is present as or on a plane. The plane can be a paper,...."
She has done a word search for "Aluminium" and "Plane" and just cut and pasted without reading it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Looks like this bit did it
"which the stationary phase is present as or on a plane. The plane can be a paper,...."
She has done a word search for "Aluminium" and "Plane" and just cut and pasted without reading it.

I like how she prefaces that bit with "proof:"

She got the Chromatography reference as it's mentioned in the Aluminum Oxide wikipedia article, which is what she started out randomly quoting. I still don't know how she ended up with Centrifugation though.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think many conspiracy theorists view science as some kind of evil magic. Scientific literature has no actual meaning to them, but is a collection of significant words of power. When the words of power appear close together, or are linked via some intermediate words of power, then that's proof.

Google is the problem. You can just google for two random words, like Acesulfame + Neurons, and BAM, diet Sunkist causes Alzheimer's
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Looks like this bit did it
"which the stationary phase is present as or on a plane. The plane can be a paper,...."
She has done a word search for "Aluminium" and "Plane" and just cut and pasted without reading it.

This is so sad. I think she got angry when she mistakenly claimed that "millions of tons" were released by the CARE experiment. The rocket only has a payload of 400 Kg and much of that was not aluminum oxide.

So, then she went off on sulfur and blamed you for it, and got madder when she realized she had brought it up.

Then she went straight to quoting wikipedia about aluminum oxide. Further down the page she clicked on chromatography, then on that wikipedia page she clicked on centrifugation. From each page she just posted a random set of words that I suppose she felt would look impressive to her clan.

I understand that Facebook isn't a very good format for well thought out discussions, but her style of response, just copy/pasting irrelevant random stuff from wikipedia and claiming it to be proof is very strange.

I think she absolutely blew a mental fuse.
Sad, very sad to think this sort of person is influencing others.
Sadder yet that they feel so low as look to her for information.

In the end she begged you to follow her down the rabbit hole into wikipedia wonderland.
When you wouldn't, you got banned.
The Truth Denied. Ain't that the truth?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I think many conspiracy theorists view science as some kind of evil magic. Scientific literature has no actual meaning to them, but is a collection of significant words of power. When the words of power appear close together, or are linked via some intermediate words of power, then that's proof.

I'll have to think about that one, Mick, profound insight for some of them. "Significant words of power" that using the Majick of Google can find the proof of the Truth always Denied you.

Maybe in Roxy's case it was just a blown fuse.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'll have to think about that one, Mick, profound insight for some of them. "Significant words of power" that using the Majick of Google can find the proof of the Truth always Denied you.

Maybe in Roxy's case it was just a blown fuse.

Look at the "patents = proof" argument. They think any patent that mentions "aerosols" or "spraying" is proof of chemtrails. And if you get "aerosols", "spraying", and "plane" all together, then that's absolute proof. The actual meaning of the words in context is irrelevant - and unfortunately not often understood (like Keith's "free riding" comment).

Then there's when you have nice strings of power words like "aerosol direct radiative forcing"
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Speaking of "power words".

I never got around to checking it out with him, but in WITWATS @ 7:00, David Keith speaks about making alumina in a "jet". I think he is actually speaking of a nanofabrication sputtering process using a vacuum plasma jet suitable for a laboratory making tiny amounts of alumina, not a "jet" aircraft, and they cut the clip to blur his voice into unintelligibility.

Edit: I used a high quality pair of headphones to listen closer, he says:
"The little picture is from a nanofabrication study, which shows you can make a very high quality, and do this in just a jet in a very simple way, make very high quality aluminum particles by spraying aluminum vapor out which when sprayed out just oxidizes. So, its certainly, in principle, possible to just do that."

Then, they cut back in with a separate clip in which Keith says, " And you could do that by building new versions of these aircraft or by reengineering existing aircraft, so there's some ideas about, if you go to an engineering firm and you say get this done, they don't say, "This is hard or unusual, they say, OK, yes we could do it."

I think that, at a minimum, Murphy & Co looked for the power words "jet", "aluminum", and "spray", and put them all together to form the majick spell, like Harry Potter was taught to do.

Or, they cynically and maliciously cut and pasted Keith's remarks to suit their needs, the truth be damned.....
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
I understand that Facebook isn't a very good format for well thought out discussions, but her style of response, just copy/pasting irrelevant random stuff from wikipedia and claiming it to be proof is very strange.

I think she absolutely blew a mental fuse.
Sad, very sad to think this sort of person is influencing others.
Sadder yet that they feel so low as look to her for information.

People like

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

and

http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperDeltaBravo1

Takes a special sort of paranoia to connect unrelated dots like Roxy and company.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Cajunmiracle often states on in the video summary:

THEY ARE KILLING US! DAY 148 SINCE DEC. 1, 2011, OF CHEMTRAILS & JETS! (7)FRIENDS HAVE DIED IN 2 MONTHS & MANY HAVE RECENTLY BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER & RARE AUTOIMMUNE DISORDERS. ALSO, SUDDEN DEMENTIA! WHAT IN THE HECK IS GOING ON?

She posts "chemweb" videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9klFpt_unG0&feature=plcp

PART 1 OF 2! Just watch this video. It was so TOXIC that it made me ill & I had to detox for 2 days. STOP THIS INSANITY NOW OR WE WILL ALL DIE! EVIL, EVIL JERKS ARE DOING THIS! (DAY 143 OF JETS & TOXIC CHEMTRAILS, SINCE DEC. 1, 2011)

I'd say Roxy and Clifford are substantial influences on this lady.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Irony of the day, from the chemtrails global skywatch group:


  • Open Group
  • NOTE: In this group, you will not be irritated or inundated by people who claim that chemtrails don't exist. We know they exist and we ban chemtrail deniers, debunkers, debators, or disinformers.

(I can't even look at this group unless I use a family member's facebook account)


 

solrey

Senior Member.
I'm looking at that group with my gf's facebook account and saw a comment that came from a copy of the Discovery Channel "Chemtrail" program on youtube:

I am an airline pilot. I have been briefed on the Chemtrails Project, coded as "Arcturus." I have witnessed the tanks being filled in the mornings. I have turned on the pump that injects the chemicals into the fuel manifold. The high heat of combustion oxidizes the base chemicals into the active form, generally oxides of exotic transition elements.
I will probably be killed for coming out like this, but I can no longer stand by...
kurtbjorn 3 days ago

Bull-freakin'-shite! Injecting transition elements into the fuel manifold would destroy the combustion chamber and turbine section of the engine. Not to mention the extensive installation and maintenance of lines, pumps and tanks that would be required and noticed by mechanics during routine maintenance and inspections. Of course there's the claim that chemtrails contain Aluminum, Barium and Strontium which are allegedly causing elevated levels of those elements in water, soil and human blood. However, Al, Ba, and Sr are NOT TRANSITION ELEMENTS!

According to the rules of the facebook group, the above information is verboten.

Essentially kurtbjorn's hoax debunks the alleged evidence of the main chemtrail hoax yet, no surprise, the chemtrailers are eating it up without question.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
After Roxy banned me, one of her followers posted this on her site:

(The quotes below are from the "Chemtrails" FB page, not the "Chemtrails Kill")

http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/...trailscience-lies-once-again-please-be-aware/

I consider this proof of another chemtrails debunker inconsistency. The story started when I posted to facebook about: “Anyone who says that contrails are made only of water vapor is shill.”Then came a response from Mick West, 4 August 2012:
“But there’s lots of aerosols in the atmosphere anyway, that’s how natural clouds form.
Contrails would form even if there were no soot in the exhaust. The main thing is the water in the exhaust.”

Screen shot:

In response to my response of:
“My reference mentions that aerosols are required.”

He answered:
“No it does not. It says aerosol is important. The large amount of aerosols in the exhaust does change the properties of contrails, but it is not required. A contrail would form anyway, just one with different crystal density.

Consider a pure hydrogen engine. It would produce no aerosols, just water. And yet a contrail would still form.
Aerosols MUST be in the air already otherwise there would be no clouds.”
Screenshot:

He claimed that all the articles in contrailscience are his thoughts:

He provided link to a new article dated of July 31st, 2012.


Unlike the article with similar theme from TheTruthDenied, this article states that contrails avoidance is not something to be done.
However, the reason I mentioned this article is because of this quote bellow:
“Contrails also require condensation nuclei. Often this comes from soot and sulphur and other byproducts in the engine exhaust.”

He denied my statement about “My reference mentions that aerosols are required.”, when a few days before he wrote on his website: “Contrails also require condensation nuclei.”
This is not the truth.

Then he give me a graph for reference:

Which is:

I then posted a different graph with the same topic:

His response:
“My graph came from your link. It seems pretty similar to the second one you posted, but with an additional set of estimates.”

Screenshot:

The graph posted by Mick West is supposed to be similar the red bar on the graph posted by me. However, note his graph shows contrails have a lower warming property than CO2, when mine shows almost the same thing. Then another chemtrails debunker also posted a graph on David Icke’s forum, similar to the one posted by Mick West.
I consider this proof of manipulated data. This is obvious game playing going on , and I thought the public should be aware.


The Truth Denied
staff writer
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Barely worth responding to, seeing as I'm actually banned from responding on the facebook page, and presumably Roxy's site, and the objections are of the straw-grasping variety, but for the record.

A) The source quoted did not say that aerosols are required. I was talking about what the source actually said. The reality is complex - contrails require condensation nuclei, which can be ambient aerosols, aerosols in the exhaust, or even in some conditions nano-scale ice crystals formed from homogenous nucleation, without aerosols being present.

B) The graphs are similar, they are not the same. The "graph posted by Mick West" was a graph that I took from a link that Sucahyo has JUST posted. If anything it was Sucahyo's graph. So the claim that it was data manipulation is ridiculous. How can I manipulate something that YOU just posted.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Mick, I see that after they banned you, Roxy's people banned another dude who came along. They are trying to start a campaign to get ten people to make a complaint about his FB page, and falsely claiming it has porn images. They aren't interested in the truth at all, it seems, just maintaining their mystery and the bunk myths that support it.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Wow. The one guy filed a false report of porn images and Roxy Lopez thanked him? Ethical folks there.

Shouldn't there be consequences for such false allegations? Possible legal?

The elements of a defamation suit; whether slander or libel, are:
1. A defamatory statement;
2. Published to a third party;
3. Which the speaker knew or should have known was false;
4. That causes injury to the subject of the communication


Defamatory statement: Porn accusation
Reported to Third Party: Reported to facebook
That the speaker should have known was false: It's either there on the page or not.
Damage: Will facebook take action?

If facebook takes action against Mick based on the false allegation that would constitute a harm. Not worth the trouble to litigate I reckon but the fact that these people will lie and smear like that without a care for their own appearance or the legal ramifications of their statements...
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Wow. The one guy filed a false report of porn images and Roxy Lopez thanked him? Ethical folks there.

Shouldn't there be consequences for such false allegations? Possible legal?




Defamatory statement: Porn accusation
Reported to Third Party: Reported to facebook
That the speaker should have known was false: It's either there on the page or not.
Damage: Will facebook take action?

If facebook takes action against Mick based on the false allegation that would constitute a harm. Not worth the trouble to litigate I reckon but the fact that these people will lie and smear like that without a care for their own appearance or the legal ramifications of their statements...

I could say somebody should return the favor and report them for something similar, but i won't.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I think I have dealt with KurtBjorn, Virtual airline pilot. He made the mistake of thinking 600 gallons of anything on a 737 could and would be ignored by a professional pilot.

The APU panel is in the RIGHT wheel wheel and AUX outlet is on the lower wall. But none of that matters. 600 gallons doesn't sound like much does it? Enough to ignore for performance calculations, Hank? 600 Gallons of fuel weighs about 4000lbs. the same amount of water is 5000lbs. HAFnuim and Ruthenium have 13 TIMES the density of water. Therefore a solution of 600 gallons would weigh in the order of 75000lbs or almost half the MTOW of a 737-800. Still ignoring it "airline pilot" man?

Not only that but one 75000lb tank load would account for one and a half times the ENTIRE annual production of Ruthenium. Ruthenium and Hafnium are hard heavy metals which would destroy a jet engine in seconds, simply by abrasion, not to mention the heat of combustion. Go away you fraud and play with your model engines elsewhere.

From the Hafnium MFDS (you know what that stands for don't you, Hank? "Explosive in powder form, either dry or wet with less than 25% water." You happy for that to be mixed in with your fuel, Hank Scorpio? What airline do you fly for so I know to avoid it and sue. Bet it starts with V for "virtual
"


TWCobra 5 minutes ago
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
TWCobra, the GE industrial gas turbines I've worked with had flow dividers downstream of the fuel pump to meter identical fuel flow to each combustion chamber. These were gear driven metering devices which were ganged together on a common shaft so that each combustor got identical fuel flow to avoid cross-firing between combustors. The running tolerances on these flow dividers was exceedingly small, on the order of some ten-thousandths of an inch. Filtration pre-flow divider was 1/2 micron, so I don't see any way that fuel containing any solid whatsoever could ever work.

Here is what I have worked with, don't aircraft turbines have something similar to these?
http://www.pondlucier.com/Company/Components/roper_2528.htm
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Jay I worked on fuel systems for RR Dart and GE JT8D engines in the 70's and early 80's, and no, they didn't :)

IIRC (it was 30 or so years ago now!) the fuel flow for those was put into 1 or 2 manifolds that fed each burner - the JT8D had a 2 stage burner/atomiser, so had 2 manifolds, teh Dart had only 1.

And it was the atomisers themselves that controlled the fuel flow through the clearances they had. The required fuel flow was set up on the test bench at a given PSI supply, and was adjsuted by lapping parts to reduce it (lapping = very, VERY light abrasion using writing paper), or the edges of channels to increase it.

The changes in dimensions that resulted were too small to be measureable - but there were some parts in fuel pumps where dimensional changes were measured in "light bands" - the interference patterns from monochromatic light - so angstroms rathe than fractions of an inch! Again those were altered by lapping using lubricating oil on writing paper as the "abrasive"!

Mor modern engines, especially larger ones, may well be different - they usually have multi-stage injectors, and al eth work done on reducing pollution and increasing efficiency would probably require better monitoring.
 

Tim TheToolman Coles

Senior Member.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/che...=10151026941826889&offset=0&total_comments=22

Danny55 suggested that you folks might like this small true story that I shared in the Chemtrails Kill group on FB in response to another group members question. Here is a photo of question and my response.

SeaanResponseStory.jpg

and my full response with story tat my wife climbed all over for me doing to our neighbors.....

Tim TheToolman Coles - Well, Sean, you have touched on an important concept and one that would require a full page to present. There is without any doubt a huge change in the way people perceive things. I am not sure that I could classify it as dumbing down, but the ability for most folks to use critical and logical thinking has been lowered to such a level that it is effecting a percentage of the worlds population. Unfortunately much of it has come from the internet, and media outlets such as YouTube.

Modern day communication can be an awesome tool for researching and finding facts there is no doubt, but it is also fraught with danger as well. In a world where the untrained person can just put up whatever on the internet, in text or video form, people have lost much of their ability to discern truth from fiction. And it is very apparent that if you claim anything long enough even if untrue, many people will believe it because others have got wrapped up in it and it appeals to the emotional side of their being.

But, once carefully studied in depth, well past the first 10 -20 pages on google one can start to find the truth. Many people in today's world seem to think that if it is in the top rankings on google, then it has to be authoritative and correct information. When in fact many many times it is just the opposite. Many. So yes there has been a lowering of what people are willing to except as fact. The ability or want for many people to truly fact check claims has gone by the way side, and we now live in the YouTube instant gratification world. I have conducted experiments on this and it is amazing.

For instance, and I will not bore you hopefully. I noticed some time ago that one of my neighbors, like many had some ants in their home. I have had this as well, but they seemed not to have notice the little creature in and around their window seal. No biggy really, but I had to see. I told the wife that there was a new species of ant that was reddish in color and walked slightly different than normal ants and that they carry disease, and that she should watch out for them. SO having never noticed their ants before suddenly they were finding ants every where and collecting them, as well as bringing them to me for my analysis so that they could confirm if or not that these where that new really bad ones. Now after a couple of weeks of this I explained that it was all just a joke. They did laugh, and also admitted that now at least they had worked to remove their ant problem.

So, as you see, just the suggestion that something may be wrong or nefarious will cause some people to suddenly start noticing things that that they once were oblivious too. Even though it is perfectly normal. I have also run these experiments on folks that I assume like most of the population rarely if ever look up in the sky, and for most of their life have not. It is amazing to see how people are easily manipulated into believing things. Shockingly so at times.

If they were to go that one step further and actually not listen to what others say and truly check it out for themselves, and most importantly, insisting on using referenced and fully understood material as their guide to either excepting supposed evidence or throwing it away, due to the fact that it falls into misconception or mis-correlated data that really has no tie to anything except for the made up connection that someone else or themselves have made.

It is truly sad, and tells much about the state that society is in now.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yeah, I just posted this on the comments on her site:

sucahyo
August 13, 2012 at 6:50 PM | Reply
I see. Then why you deny this:
“My reference mentions that aerosols are required.”

Which you answer with:
“No it does not. ….”

But still, you still never post scientific reference for this:
“Contrails would form even if there were no soot in the exhaust.”


0 0



  • http://contrailscience.com/
    Mick West
    August 18, 2012 at 2:50 PMYour comment is awaiting moderation.

    You reference did not say they were required, which was my point.
    At some point ice crystal formation requires a condensation nuclei. This is USUALLY an aerosol in the exhaust or the ambient air. However it can also be “homogeneously nucleated ice ” – i.e. tiny ice crystals that formed without an aerosol. Source:http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm
    “Ice particle nucleation occurs either through homogeneous nucleation (when pure water droplets or liquid aerosol particles freeze) or through heterogeneous nucleation, when freezing of the liquid is triggered by a solid particle or surface that is in contact with the liquid or suspended within the liquid.”
    Of course jet engines all create nuclei in the form of aerosols, so there’s no need for this. However some rocket engines burn hydrogen and oxygen, and produce only water, and still leave a very solid contrail.

Content from External Source
And I see Roxy keeps mentioning the graphs like I forged them. The problem here is THIS WAS YOUR GRAPH!!! I got it from the link you just posted. You then posted another one, and I said they looked similar. They do look similar, but they are not the same.
Content from External Source
The thing is that anyone (anyone reasonable) reading the original thread should be able to see all this.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've just popped home for a rest from the chemtrail conference. Some very interesting people there - it's a whole different way of thinking. Pretty much impossible to reason with - much like Roxy.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So, as you see, just the suggestion that something may be wrong or nefarious will cause some people to suddenly start noticing things that that they once were oblivious too. Even though it is perfectly normal. I have also run these experiments on folks that I assume like most of the population rarely if ever look up in the sky, and for most of their life have not. It is amazing to see how people are easily manipulated into believing things. Shockingly so at times.

I've often considered waiting for a day when there are lots of short contrails that quickly dissipate and telling people: "remember when we were young, and contrails would go from horizon to horizon? Now they are always short, it must be the new emissions standards", and seeing how many people agree.
 

Tim TheToolman Coles

Senior Member.
I've often considered waiting for a day when there are lots of short contrails that quickly dissipate and telling people: "remember when we were young, and contrails would go from horizon to horizon? Now they are always short, it must be the new emissions standards", and seeing how many people agree.

I bet you would get many that would and quickly. Most folks never even look at the sky. I ask folks all the time. And those that do frequently check it out will say, I have seen those all of my life. I am 47, and I clearly remember watching the lines as a child and being fascinated by the planes and the lines as they criss-crossed in the sky. It is really simple ignorance of some facts and the power of suggestion.

Another thing that really gets me when speaking to these folks is the quick way in which they except what they also, to quickly believe is true. Cornicom was smart in the way that he made up the very unreal and total Falsehood that contrails do not persist. By making his completely hilarious model and formula for his pitch, he made it so that most folks would not be able too look at it and have any understanding of the math, therefore they would just say, "see it is scientific", Sorry pause here for a moment......ROFLMAO!,,, Ok back!,,,,,,,, and no one bothers to see or check if he was correct......Genius for a modern day snake oil salesman.

And so this completely false information gets spread around long enough and in sufficient quantities that it is just excepted as fact now... Crazy world. But ask one of them where they heard it and what there source was, and most will not even know, and most certainly not ever tried to see if it is true or not. And some of them will respond, "well everyone knows contrails cannot and do not persist"..... It is hilarious at times... I also find it very sad at times as well, when it comes to Critical Thinking Skills, that many of our citizens of the Earth simply no longer have. I wander why this is often. Is it TV, our education system or what?

Of course those of us that actually fact check claims found very quickly that he completely ignored well know physics, and just made it all up.........."But, it is scientific"...........Looking......LMAO!
 
Top