How could you prove Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program exists

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How to prove Chemtrails (ICAAIP) exist . . . the believers' dilemma???? . . . ICAAIP (Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program)​

Either. . .

1) ICAAIP exist and there has to be evidence to prove such. . . but the evidence is too weak to convince anyone except a believer. Better evidence is lacking because it is so difficult to obtain because of secrecy, vastness of the atmosphere/biosphere, and lack of expertise, financial and technical support.

Or . . .

2) ICAAIP doesn't exist . . . and I don't have to prove a negative . . . however, I will move mountains to prove any evidence used to support such . . . it (evidence) is either misinterpreted, incorrect or has one or more alternate explanations.

Inventory of evidence . . .

1) Environmental testing . . . high concentrations of metals, etc. are easily dismissed as sampling error or contamination. . . why don't you simply do 'in situ' testing?
2) Trails in the sky . . . just persistent contrails and resulting cirrus cloud banks and haze from increased long haul aviation that is flying higher and with more efficient engines . . .just post. . . historical photos of persistent trails decades before Chemtrail conspiracy hatched or post persistent contrail prediction simulations based on atmospheric soundings.
3) Historical evidence of similar activities . . . zinc cadmium sulfide, agent orange, cloud seeding in Vietnam, Tularemia released by aircraft, etc. . . . happened years ago hardly relevant to today . . . if injection by aircraft was being done there would be physical evidence and whistleblowers.
4) Whistleblowers have never sustained critical examination . . . they were either not who thy said they were or did not identify themselves or presented undeniable documentation or proof of their claims.
5) Geoengineering research, historical proposals, patents, computer simulations and models, estimates and cost analysis . . . dismissed as pure speculation . . . Countered by arguments and discussions about the potential negative environmental effects.
6) Fear as a motive . . . Global Warming, Solar Maximum, Weapon development . . . no need for secrecy, no way to keep all those people quiet even if you invoked secrecy, logistics, cost, transportation of personnel and materials impossible to hide.
7) Military Industrial Complex running amok . . . simply no direct evidence ICAAIP exists so misbehavior by the above entity is irrelevant.

Bottom-line . . . the two sides are irrevocably stalemated in a standoff . . . each defending their holy ground . and both have their points and logical arguments . . .

So I ask you Metabunk and your cohorts . . . what would convince you that Chemtrails or ICAAIP (Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program) as I like to call it Exists?????
 

Danny55

Member
An in situ sample of a trail
Undoctored photographs of the spraying apparatus and storage facilities on the aircraft.
Whistleblowers who have names.
Verifiable proof of effects of Icaaip.
I'm sure there are more but can't be bothered typing.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Would it require most of the above or would one be adequate . . .??? If so which one is most convincing!??
 

Met Watch

Moderator
George, I can't name something exact. That page tryblinking linked to outlined everything we are skeptical about. Address those.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
Here we go again. First you put forward a proposition, then at some point in the thread you'll claim it can neither be proven nor disproved.

"there is no evidence available to prove or disporve the premise for this particular debate . . ."

". . . I never thought it possible to prove it to you or others on this forum "

". . I submit . . . we can only speculate"
This thread is doomed to ramble on for 8 pages before dying a slow death in the "Off Topics" section.

PS. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that this is really just an effort to get people to adopt the acronym (ICRAAP) you invented.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, I can't name something exact. That page tryblinking linked to outlined everything we are skeptical about. Address those.
I am simply asking you to identify what would convince you a program exists . . . I am very well versed on what most here are skeptical of. . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here we go again. First you put forward a proposition, then at some point in the thread you'll claim it can neither be proven nor disproved.



This thread is doomed to ramble on for 8 pages before dying a slow death in the "Off Topics" section.

PS. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that this is really just an effort to get people to adopt the acronym (ICRAAP) you invented.
Hmmmm. . . I already stated such on the very first post . . . I want to know what would convince you a program exists . . . call it what you will . . .
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
I did, not a bad approach . . . Yet, I still ask the question . . . what evidence would it take for you to accept that ICAAIP exists??
Danny55 gave a good start in post #2, above. Regarding your list:
1) Environmental testing . . . high concentrations of metals, etc. are easily dismissed as sampling error or contamination. . . why don't you simply do 'in situ' testing?
A bigger problem with the water tests, etc. is that they generally not even show concentrations that are remarkably high for what is being sampled. The chemtrails activists seem to make no attempt to establish a baseline for what is the "normal" range for these elements, which are common in the environment. Frequently, ANY detectable amount is apparently regarded as abnormal, which is clearly false.

If it's not feasible to collect in situ samples of the contrails, then the chemtrails activists could at least make an attempt to correlate the levels of these substances with the alleged "spraying" activity; e.g., is more found in rainfall following times when the contrails are being observed, vs. when skies have been clear.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
I am simply asking you to identify what would convince you a program exists . . . I am very well versed on what most here are skeptical of. . .
You'll have to try someone else George, because all evidence I have seen does not point to the existence of a deliberate spraying program - and frankly, the evidence put forth to SUPPORT such a program is poor and badly misinterpreted most of the time.

I find it amusing that you do mention that the likelihood of you convincing us that a spraying program exists is about the same as us convincing you that such a program does not exist...so why are you trying? If you have something you think is cement evidence - and if you're as well-versed as you claim, then I suspect you would have something - then present it and let us take a look. The list of exact things I want to see is simply too long to post here.

Show me one thing, though. I want an autopsy report from a person who died from the spraying of chemtrails because of such a program. For a theory that claims to be so deadly, it is sorely lacking in dead people.
 

Danny55

Member
"Would it require most of the above or would one be adequate . . .??? If so which one is most convincing!??"

OK, I'll go for........drumbeat....In situ samples of trails.

As we all know, one sample would not be representative of all trails, so 10 samples of trails identified by chemtrail believers as Chemtrails ( believers are convinced that they can visually identify them). For proof, they would have to contain considerable amounts of materials not usually found in the exhaust from a jet engine burning standard jet aviation fuel.
Looking forward to the results George B.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Danny55 gave a good start in post #2, above. Regarding your list:

A bigger problem with the water tests, etc. is that they generally not even show concentrations that are remarkably high for what is being sampled. The chemtrails activists seem to make no attempt to establish a baseline for what is the "normal" range for these elements, which are common in the environment. Frequently, ANY detectable amount is apparently regarded as abnormal, which is clearly false.

If it's not feasible to collect in situ samples of the contrails, then the chemtrails activists could at least make an attempt to correlate the levels of these substances with the alleged "spraying" activity; e.g., is more found in rainfall following times when the contrails are being observed, vs. when skies have been clear.
I agree he gave a good start . . . I just would like to get a personal evaluation on the evidence that is most convincing . . . environmental testing is far beyond all but the most experienced experts . . . the issues are endless . . . EPA standards are generally inadequate, toxic levels are hard to establish for common elements and substances even for experts . .
 

Danny55

Member
BTW, it is perfectly feasible to collect in situ samples from trails. The only apparent obstacle is that most believers do not wish to put their money where their mouth is and pay for it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
"Would it require most of the above or would one be adequate . . .??? If so which one is most convincing!??"

OK, I'll go for........drumbeat....In situ samples of trails.

As we all know, one sample would not be representative of all trails, so 10 samples of trails identified by chemtrail believers as Chemtrails ( believers are convinced that they can visually identify them). For proof, they would have to contain considerable amounts of materials not usually found in the exhaust from a jet engine burning standard jet aviation fuel.
Looking forward to the results George B.
Thank you for your answer . . . seems such evidence would also have to be found in different geographic locations as well??
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
BTW, it is perfectly feasible to collect in situ samples from trails. The only apparent obstacle is that most believers do not wish to put their money where their mouth is and pay for it.
I think chain of custody, verifiable expertise and credentials of tester and equipment, etc, etc . . . repeatable results, ID of aircraft, altitude, elimination of environmental contamination . . . so forth . . . all difficult for novices . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Evidence is something that you weigh, and alter your degree of belief in likelihood accordingly.

To convince me of your theory you'd have to have evidence that could not be explained by other, more likely, causes.

But convincing is way way off, I think you need to lower your sights. Why not look for some evidence that would make skeptical people suspect there might be a covert geoengineering program.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You'll have to try someone else George, because all evidence I have seen does not point to the existence of a deliberate spraying program - and frankly, the evidence put forth to SUPPORT such a program is poor and badly misinterpreted most of the time.

I find it amusing that you do mention that the likelihood of you convincing us that a spraying program exists is about the same as us convincing you that such a program does not exist...so why are you trying? If you have something you think is cement evidence - and if you're as well-versed as you claim, then I suspect you would have something - then present it and let us take a look. The list of exact things I want to see is simply too long to post here.

Show me one thing, though. I want an autopsy report from a person who died from the spraying of chemtrails because of such a program. For a theory that claims to be so deadly, it is sorely lacking in dead people.
I have spent months presenting evidence that makes me believe a program exists . . . no one here accepts it as adequate for the reasons I presented in the first post above . . . I don't believe you would accept an autopsy either . . . there would be no way to connect the cause of death with the source . . .
 

Met Watch

Moderator
I have spent months presenting evidence that makes me believe a program exists . . . no one here accepts it as adequate for the reasons I presented in the first post above . . . I don't believe you would accept an autopsy either . . . there would be no way to connect the cause of death with the source . . .
And there's the difference, George. The evidence you present makes you BELIEVE it exists. The problem with a lot of these guys - and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying you're not one of them - is that what they believe automatically turns into fact. That is why it is nearly impossible to argue sense with these folks, and why I gave up trying to convince the hard-core believers.

The message is, and it is OH-so important - BELIEF is not the same as FACT.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Evidence is something that you weigh, and alter your degree of belief in likelihood accordingly.

To convince me of your theory you'd have to have evidence that could not be explained by other, more likely, causes.

But convincing is way way off, I think you need to lower your sights. Why not look for some evidence that would make skeptical people suspect there might be a covert geoengineering program.
I thought the launch failures of the instrument packages to monitor climate change and one specifically targeting source identification of aerosols would raise a few eyebrows . . . add to that launch failures were rare at the launch facility . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And there's the difference, George. The evidence you present makes you BELIEVE it exists. The problem with a lot of these guys - and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying you're not one of them - is that what they believe automatically turns into fact. That is why it is nearly impossible to argue sense with these folks, and why I gave up trying to convince the hard-core believers.

The message is, and it is OH-so important - BELIEF is not the same as FACT.
I understand your frustration . . . inertia is difficult to overcome no matter which side you are on . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Belfrey

Senior Member
I thought the launch failures of the instrument packages to monitor climate change and one specifically targeting source identification of aerosols would raise a few eyebrows . . . add to that launch failures were rare at the launch facility . . .
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not suspicious at all to those who don't already believe in the conspiracy.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
Hmmmmm. . . do you have some DoE published findings that eliminated the possibility of ICAAIP . . .???
Just a reminder, the burden of evidence is on those making positive claims (that would be the chemtrails believers). From what I can see, most of what you are regarding as "evidence" is only relevant if one first starts with the premise that chemtrails exist. Assuming your conclusion as one of your premises is logically fallacious.

The whole "chemtrails" idea is primarily founded upon the false belief that normal contrails can't persist. Once one realizes that this is incorrect, there is no empirical basis to even suspect that it is true.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Just a reminder, the burden of evidence is on those making positive claims (that would be the chemtrails believers). From what I can see, most of what you are regarding as "evidence" is only relevant if one first starts with the premise that chemtrails exist. Assuming your conclusion as one of your premises is logically fallacious.

The whole "chemtrails" idea is primarily founded upon the false belief that normal contrails can't persist. Once one realizes that this is incorrect, there is no empirical basis to even suspect that it is true.
1) The intent of this thread is to elicit from debunkers what evidence would change their minds . . .
2) I have never supported the idea that persistent contrails are proof of ICAAIP . . . unless one takes the position that all jet exhaust that result in persistent contrails as encouraged by policy and there is no attempt to mitigate them which is a form of geoengineering .
3) You were trying to make a point with the photo regarding in situ sampling . . . I was making the point that it is irrelevant . . . it neither supports nor does it disprove anything . .
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
1) The intent of this thread is to elicit from debunkers what evidence would change their minds . . .
2) I have never supported the idea that persistent contrails are proof of ICAAIP . . . unless one takes the position that all jet exhaust that result in persistent contrails as encouraged by policy and there is no attempt to mitigate them which is a form of geoengineering .
You're asking what it would take to convince non-believers. I'm making the point that none of your existing lines of empirical evidence could logically lead one (who had never been exposed to the idea) to suspect that chemtrails exist. Most believers think that the persistence of the contrails gives them that starting point, but they're mistaken. So, you need to start from first principles, and that goes back to the sorts of things that Danny55 brought up in post #2.

George B said:
3) You were trying to make a point with the photo regarding in situ sampling . . . I was making the point that it is irrelevant . . . it neither supports nor does it disprove anything . .
Sorry, wasn't me who brought up the photo. In any case, it was brought up (I think) to suggest a method by which convincing empirical evidence could be gathered.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Here we go again.

Another irrelevant thread going over the same ground, thinly disguised with a different title...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You're asking what it would take to convince non-believers. I'm making the point that none of your existing lines of empirical evidence could logically lead one (who had never been exposed to the idea) to suspect that chemtrails exist. Most believers think that the persistence of the contrails gives them that starting point, but they're mistaken. So, you need to start from first principles, and that goes back to the sorts of things that Danny55 brought up in post #2.

Sorry, wasn't me who brought up the photo. In any case, it was brought up (I think) to suggest a method by which convincing empirical evidence could be gathered.
I am not asking about people in general . . . I am asking you . . . what would convince you a program exists??
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
2) I have never supported the idea that persistent contrails are proof of ICAAIP . . . unless one takes the position that all jet exhaust that result in persistent contrails as encouraged by policy and there is no attempt to mitigate them which is a form of geoengineering .
.
which you do...especially on GLP...
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
I am not asking about people in general . . . I am asking you . . . what would convince you a program exists??
Samples taken and analyzed from the trails themselves, using sound and repeatable methods, showing results that are inconsistent with ordinary persistent condensation trails would probably do it. Some combination of credible witnesses from within the conspiracy and material evidence regarding the planes, spraying apparatus, and chemicals probably would, as well.

How about you? What would lead you to abandon the idea?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Samples taken and analyzed from the trails themselves, using sound and repeatable methods, showing results that are inconsistent with ordinary persistent condensation trails would probably do it. Some combination of credible witnesses from within the conspiracy and material evidence regarding the planes, spraying apparatus, and chemicals probably would, as well.

How about you? What would lead you to abandon the idea?
Thanks for your response . . . good question? I don't expect there would be data that would prove to me ICAAIP is not possible and likely . . . as everyone points out it is hard or impossible to prove a negative . . . in any event it is primarily my intuition, life experiences and distrust of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex that drives my belief . . . I don't think that will be easy to jettison . . .

The following US Code I found while researching . . . floored me . . . Like nothing else . . . my trust in the system was shattered . . .



OLD CODE: PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375

Section 1520. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-85, Div. A, Title X, Sec. 1078(G), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916, And Pub. L. 105-277, Div. I, Title Vi, Sec. 601, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-886 . . . Repealed http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32


NEW CODE as of 01/05/2009


TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM -HEAD- Sec. 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents -STATUTE- (a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract) - (1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or (2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects. (b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes: (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity. (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents. (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control. (c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject. (d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees. (e) "Biological agent" defined In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro- organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing - (1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; (2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or (3) deleterious alteration of the environment. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Samples taken and analyzed from the trails themselves, using sound and repeatable methods, showing results that are inconsistent with ordinary persistent condensation trails would probably do it. Some combination of credible witnesses from within the conspiracy and material evidence regarding the planes, spraying apparatus, and chemicals probably would, as well.
Ditto.

Plus photographic evidence of any spraying equipment, manuals, weight and balance charts for loading the a/c, etc.

Note that I would not require ALL of these - if the evidence was good enough quality (eg verifiable) then any ONE of them might be enough on its own.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The following US Code I found while researching . . . floored me . . . Like nothing else . . . my trust in the system was shattered . . .



OLD CODE: PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375

<etc>
Already debunked here
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Belfrey

Senior Member
General distrust of the government is understandable, but does not make it reasonable or rational to jump to conclusions such as the chemtrails idea.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Ditto.

Plus photographic evidence of any spraying equipment, manuals, weight and balance charts for loading the a/c, etc.

Note that I would not require ALL of these - if the evidence was good enough quality (eg verifiable) then any ONE of them might be enough on its own.
Good! Thanks for your response. . .
 
Top