How could you prove Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program exists

MikeC

Closed Account
I think I have introduced a few new concepts to ponder . . . I have taken the most popular geoengineering strategy discussed over the last two decades by the leading theorists in geoengineering and created as practical and plausible a scenario as I could for you to practice your debunking . . .

And complained bitterly when we did so!

you should be thanking me not attacking me!!!!!!!

Why?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
1) Since others treated debunkers inappropriately it is OK to treat me without your officially stated courtesy . . .
I didn't mean that, no. Just pointing out the difference. I try to discuss evidence in a chemtrails forum, I get banned immediately after one post. You've apparently been here a few months and I don't see anyone threatening to ban you, so that says something about the board's general willingness to hear out other viewpoints.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I didn't mean that, no. Just pointing out the difference. I try to discuss evidence in a chemtrails forum, I get banned immediately after one post. You've apparently been here a few months and I don't see anyone threatening to ban you, so that says something about the board's general willingness to hear out other viewpoints.

I've been banned several times - once I was given three chances to answer a specific question, when I failed to give the desired answer, I was banned by Mick.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It is certainly not what I consider the case.

speculation is fine - as long as it is clearly speculation nd doesn't become used as evidence of fact. And when speculation runs into real world considerations it shuold be the speculation that needs to be changed to fit the real world not the reverse. although inventing moer speculation is also fine it also neds to be clearly identified for what it is.

Thus it is possible for me to enjoy science fiction, for example, which is celarly speculation and makes no attempt to be presented as fact, while also being dismissive of speculation that is not clearly identifed as such, and which is used in an attempt to jsutify the existence of somethign in the absence of actual evidence.

Here is how I think speculation SHOULD work in any attmpt to identify or uncover a conspiracy:

1/ figure out what it WOULD take to do something taking into account the real world
2/ then go and see if any of that can actually be found
3/ if it cannot be found, conclude that the specualtion was unfounded
4/ if it can be found extent the investigation into looking at factual information

Seems to me that is what I did . . . what did I speculate about that was too far from possible????

I answered every question to my knowledge with a possible explanation . . . what was so unbelievable ??
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Seems to me that is what I did . . . what did I speculate about that was too far from possible????

I answered every question to my knowledge with a possible explanation . . . what was so unbelievable ??

In respect of which thread??

In this one, for example, in post #23, you stopped asking a reasonable question and went to:

Hmmmmm. . . do you have some DoE published findings that eliminated the possibility of ICAAIP . . .???

At that point you are no longer speculating at all - you are not arguing from ignorance.

In another thread you ignored real world information that showed that the conditions you prescribed did not exist. Indeed in some cases exactly the opposite was the case! Then instead of concluding that your speculation is unfounded you just kept adding more speculation along the lines of "well what if (something was done) that meant that (the evidence) was jiggered or falso or something..." - that is avoiding the evidence and manufacturing more speculation in order to support the original speculation.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I've been banned several times - once I was given three chances to answer a specific question, when I failed to give the desired answer, I was banned by Mick.

Well I'm new here, but so far I've seen you mainly complaining about the board, rather than discussing the topic.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I've been banned several times - once I was given three chances to answer a specific question, when I failed to give the desired answer, I was banned by Mick.

Yeah, I'm sure there was no other reason.

You seem quite reasonable.

/sarcasm
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And complained bitterly when we did so!



Why?
I have never complained about debunking . . . I have complained about the lack of adherence to your courtesy policy and argued against my thread being removed to thread purgatory . . . Please cite one response from me which you consider a protest to a debunking . . . I have responded as one person to many interrogators at one time . . . I may have missed some questions but it was not intentional . . .

Why?!!

It gives you the opportunity to practice debunking . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Like I said - post 23 in this thread, a post in another thread, also resorting to argument from ignorance in another thread, which yo commonly do and which I consider equivalent.

And personally your complaints about my "lack of adherence to your (sic) courtesy policy" have always been thinly veiled complaints that you are being contradicted and have no answer

Aalso personaly, I'd much rather debunking was not required.
I personally don't get your objection to #23 . . . I reviewed the cited article and have scanned many of the articles from DoE and find nothing in them that would prove a long term sulfur injection program was not possible . . . My question was and still is . . . do you know any DoE publication that contains evidence that would convince someone ICAAIP is no possible . . . ???

And I don't understand the rest of your comment at all . . . I don't consider I have been contradicted . . . LoL!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I aoplogize to George for some of my comments........... After well over decade following this hoax, I've maybe developed a thicker skin than most of you.......
having been banned so many times............Ive developed a shorter temper than some..........plus I think I may have run across him in a previous incarnation......George is at least 50% less of the perverted attenion seeking whore than I said he was.......There, that's me being as nicey nice as I can.........As for Lee........Stop whining and RIDE THAT JACKASS!
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I personally don't get your objection to #23 . . . I reviewed the cited article and have scanned many of the articles from DoE and find nothing in them that would prove a long term sulfur injection program was not possible . . . My question was and still is . . . do you know any DoE publication that contains evidence that would convince someone ICAAIP is no possible . . . ???
I don't think anyone has said that it's impossible. But there is no evidence that it has occurred. For those who base their beliefs on facts and evidence (rather than trusting "intuition"), that's pretty much the end of the story. As I recall, you began this thread by asking what it would take to convince doubters that it was occurring. You can keep dancing around it for ages, but really it's very simple: you need empirical evidence.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I aoplogize to George for some of my comments........... After well over decade following this hoax, I've maybe developed a thicker skin than most of you.......
having been banned so many times............Ive developed a shorter temper than some..........plus I think I may have run across him in a previous incarnation......George is at least 50% less of the perverted attenion seeking whore than I said he was.......There, that's me being as nicey nice as I can.........As for Lee........Stop whining and RIDE THAT JACKASS!
Thanks for coming part way . . . that took guts . . . I would have to say part of my motivation is tied to my nature . . . I have always been attracted to the ungerdog . . . I sympathize with the chemtrail advocates . . . I think they are treated poorly by people who should have more patience and understand . . . many advocates are reacting emotionally to the ugly trails in the sky . . . I think it is an almost instinctive reaction to something primeval . . . and after studying for three years now . . . I DO believe what I post . . . and I try to communicate to the advocates the only plausible possibility is some type of geoengineering experimentation . . . some military experimentation on weapon system countermeasures and of course my favorite . . . slow roll on persistent contrail mitigation . . . poor man's geoengineering experimentation through policy . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't think anyone has said that it's impossible. But there is no evidence that it has occurred. For those who base their beliefs on facts and evidence (rather than trusting "intuition"), that's pretty much the end of the story. As I recall, you began this thread by asking what it would take to convince doubters that it was occurring. You can keep dancing around it for ages, but really it's very simple: you need empirical evidence.
Well, I have presented my evidence . . . which are hints . . . if the program exists it is by definition covert . . . no one is going to hand me a briefcase of verifiable, concrete evidence . . .

What I consider evidence . . .


1) NOAA's press release about higher than expected stratospheric aerosols over the past decade. . . sure there are alternative explanations but ICAAIP cannot be eliminated as a potential source . . .
2) decades of scientific discussions, models, cost analysis of exactly what I built a scenario around . . .
3) The construction and attempted launch of a satellite which could have gone a long way to identify the stratospheric aerosols . . . an admission we don't have a definitive way to determine such sources . . .
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Well, I have presented my evidence . . . which are hints . . . if the program exists it is by definition covert . . . no one is going to hand me a briefcase of verifiable, concrete evidence . . .

What I consider evidence . . .


1) NOAA's press release about higher than expected stratospheric aerosols over the past decade. . . sure there are alternative explanations but ICAAIP cannot be eliminated as a potential source . . .
2) decades of scientific discussions, models, cost analysis of exactly what I built s scenario around . . .
3) The construction and attempted launch of a satellite which could have gone a long way to identify the stratospheric aerosols . . . an admission we don't have definitive way to determine such sources . . .

These are just things that you use to feed your gut-feeling "intuition" about it, cherry-picked bits that make it plausible in your mind, not evidence that it's actually happening. You're preaching to your own choir of one. Covert conspiracy or no, you'll need concrete evidence to convince the doubters. You asked, that's you're answer.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
These are just things that you use to feed your gut-feeling "intuition" about it, cherry-picked bits that make it plausible in your mind, not evidence that it's actually happening. You're preaching to your own choir of one. Covert conspiracy or no, you'll need concrete evidence to convince the doubters. You asked, that's you're answer.
That is the issue is it not . . . advocates believe this evidence is worthwhile and you dismiss it . . . advocates continue to search for additional proof and add to the list . . . the search continues . . .
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
. . . advocates continue to search for additional proof and add to the list . . . the search continues . . .

Alas, you let your bias lead the way...

The evidence your presented is by no means "proof"- by any stretch of the definition...only by the stretch of your imagination.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Well, I have presented my evidence . . . which are hints . . . if the program exists it is by definition covert . . . no one is going to hand me a briefcase of verifiable, concrete evidence . . .

What I consider evidence . . .


1) NOAA's press release about higher than expected stratospheric aerosols over the past decade. . . sure there are alternative explanations but ICAAIP cannot be eliminated as a potential source . . .
2) decades of scientific discussions, models, cost analysis of exactly what I built a scenario around . . .
3) The construction and attempted launch of a satellite which could have gone a long way to identify the stratospheric aerosols . . . an admission we don't have a definitive way to determine such sources . . .

So nothing that actually consists of evidence that there is anything happening in the first place at all - just a lot of peripheral things that happen to be about atmospheric aerosols.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I personally don't get your objection to #23 . . . I reviewed the cited article and have scanned many of the articles from DoE and find nothing in them that would prove a long term sulfur injection program was not possible . . . My question was and still is . . . do you know any DoE publication that contains evidence that would convince someone ICAAIP is no possible . . . ???

And I don't understand the rest of your comment at all . . . I don't consider I have been contradicted . . . LoL!!!

Amazing - I have provided you with links to wh argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, others have pointed it out, we have said "yes it is technically possible there's just no actual verifiable evidence to show it is happening (more or less), and you still don't actually understand any of that??

OK - well - that's up to you to fix - horses and water and all that - sorry, but he problems with your argument HAVE been laid out in excruciating detail here and in other threads, and you either choose to ignore them or they are simply too complicated for you - I guess you are at a dead end here.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Anyone else feel that this thread has degenerated (as expected) into circular nothingness?

Time to bury it in the forum bin??
 

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?????


Before you go any further the Thread was to ask what was needed to convince you . . . not what was evidence from advocates point of view . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Also, how did the Thread title get changed?? I did not change it nor was I asked???

A few of you have ventured an answer . . . mostly about 'in situ' slampling but that is about it . . . my question about sampling is . . . how to target sulfur injection in the stratosphere when one does not know which aircraft or if it would be leaving a contrail at all??? . .and I have not gotten an answer really . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Anyone else feel that this thread has degenerated (as expected) into circular nothingness?

Time to bury it in the forum bin??

I'll reiterate my points........GeorgeB speaks as if chemtrail "advocates"........bunk promoters really.......were a third party.......but he is one of them.......

I don't want to see them as he does .......... as "underdogs".......I want to see them as "winners"......

By stating bunk over and over........they are not helped to win..........helping them get the bunk out is the only way to win..... "stop whipping the dead horse of bunk"......

By inaction they are not helped to win..........all of our suggestions for solutions require ACTION..... se them above....I say "get on a REAL horse and ride"

GeorgeB if there is a message for you it is above......... and for all your comrades........

The bunk has been laid out.........courses of action have too.........

The choice is yours........keep losing by allowing bunk.......keep losing by inaction........

Or

Win by ruthlessly eliminating the dead horses of bunk within your ranks......all of it......whoever promotes it.......wherever it comes from.... stop them.....whip them.....bunk is your enemy.......not your friend......

And

Win by action to identify what they see......end the mystery.........the method is easy.......not difficult at all

YOU need to

Build a consensus to follow this course within your ranks.......and you will no longer be the underdog.......the jackass......

You will finally be the winner of this horse race......

Taking neither suggestion is also a choice.......the choice of remaining a perpetual "underdog"
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
my question to that is how to target such activity and I have not gotten an answer really . . .
Formula for a winner.....how to make chemtrails disappear faster than a contrail on an August afternoon

Start here. AND.......Get the bunk out, whatever.......wherever.........whomever.....or be a loser......
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Formula for a winner.....how to make chemtrails disappear faster than a contrail on an August afternoon

Start here. AND.......Get the bunk out, whatever.......wherever.........whomever.....or be a loser......
1) I see you have invested a vast amount of your time and emotional energy in debunking chemtrails . . .
2) I do not disagree with some of your analysis . . . however, I am not sure your approach is all that effective . . .
3) Demonstrating persistent contrails are persistent contrails is I agree part of the emotional baggage but . . . the real baggage IMO is a distrust in the authorities, coupled with a predilection to be attracted to and believe in conspiracies . . .
4) I have tried to study this over the three years I have been involved with the debate . . . and now feel these two factors are really the main drivers . . .
5) Your task is a very uphill battle . . . there will always be a residual of people who will never believe the system is there to protect and defend . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
U

Unregistered

Guest
1) I see you have invested a vast amount of your time and emotional energy in debunking chemtrails . . .
2) I do not disagree with some of your analysis . . . however, I am not sure your approach is all that effective . . .
3) Demonstrating persistent contrails are persistent contrails is I agree part of the emotional baggage but . . . the real baggage IMO is a distrust in the authorities, coupled with a predilection to be attracted to and believe in conspiracies . . .
4) I have tried to study this over the three years I have been involved with the debate . . . and now feel these two factors are really the main drivers . . .

There is a VERY fine line between distrust and paranoia.

Especially when coupled with the predilection to be attracted to and believe in conspiracies.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
As you stated before, George.......you are a confirmed dead horse whipper....... not a REAL horserider.

Keep on riding that jackass........you will remain a loser.......You aren't ready for any battle.......you conceded defeat already.......

by choice and consent........
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I'll reiterate my points........GeorgeB speaks as if chemtrail "advocates"........bunk promoters really.......were a third party.......but he is one of them.......

I don't want to see them as he does .......... as "underdogs".......I want to see them as "winners"......

By stating bunk over and over........they are not helped to win..........helping them get the bunk out is the only way to win..... "stop whipping the dead horse of bunk"......

By inaction they are not helped to win..........all of our suggestions for solutions require ACTION..... se them above....I say "get on a REAL horse and ride"

GeorgeB if there is a message for you it is above......... and for all your comrades........

The bunk has been laid out.........courses of action have too.........

The choice is yours........keep losing by allowing bunk.......keep losing by inaction........

Or

Win by ruthlessly eliminating the dead horses of bunk within your ranks......all of it......whoever promotes it.......wherever it comes from.... stop them.....whip them.....bunk is your enemy.......not your friend......

And

Win by action to identify what they see......end the mystery.........the method is easy.......not difficult at all

YOU need to

Build a consensus to follow this course within your ranks.......and you will no longer be the underdog.......the jackass......

You will finally be the winner of this horse race......

Taking neither suggestion is also a choice.......the choice of remaining a perpetual "underdog"
I didn't and don't identify with chemtrail promoters . . . I don't go to their sites unless directed by a question from a debunker . . . I have only recently learned their names through interaction on MetaBunk . . . my research has been almost 100% from mainstream sources . . . scientific papers, congressional testimony, GOA reports, geoengineering symposia, my own experiences, Wikipedia because I can quote without fear of copyright issues. . .

My conclusions are my own . . . I do not agree with anyone 100% . . . except myself . . . never have and never will . . .
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Also, how did the Thread title get changed?? I did not change it nor was I asked???

A few of you have ventured an answer . . . mostly about 'in situ' slampling but that is about it . . . my question about sampling is . . . how to target sulfur injection in the stratosphere when one does not know which aircraft or if it would be leaving a contrail at all??? . .and I have not gotten an answer really . . .
Well, it seems that you've been trying to re-define the "chemtrails" idea into something that's progressively less testable and falsifiable (a neat way to maintain your belief in the absence of empirical evidence). And, I'd add, less relevant to "chemtrails" as they are claimed and believed to be by advocates.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
As you stated before, George.......you are a confirmed dead horse whipper....... not a REAL horserider.

Keep on riding that jackass........you will remain a loser.......You aren't ready for any battle.......you conceded defeat already.......

by choice and consent........

You simply don't understand . . . your approach is no different than Noble's . . . and just as ineffective. . .
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
You simply don't understand . . . your approach is no different than Noble's . . . and just as ineffective. . .

Hypocrite...

I don't have an "approach".

All I'm doing is pointing out your lack of evidence.

Sorry if the truth bothers you so much.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, it seems that you've been trying to re-define the "chemtrails" idea into something that's progressively less testable and falsifiable (a neat way to maintain your belief in the absence of empirical evidence). And, I'd add, less relevant to "chemtrails" as they are claimed and believed to be by advocates.

Which is why the thread title was changed. This discussion is not about the broader topic of proving if "Chemtrails" exist, it's about proving if George's covert geoengineering scheme exists.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
georgeb said:
You simply don't understand

I understand.....just another chemmie....won't help others......won't help himself.....an underdog by choice...victim of his own folly... another member of the sob story of chemtrails........
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, it seems that you've been trying to re-define the "chemtrails" idea into something that's progressively less testable and falsifiable (a neat way to maintain your belief in the absence of empirical evidence). And, I'd add, less relevant to "chemtrails" as they are claimed and believed to be by advocates.
No I am proposing activities based on the prevailing geoengineering advocates' mind think at the time a program could have been implemented . . . if one's desire is to adhere to a belief that aerosol injection is possible . . . people will . . . I am one of them . . .
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
No I am proposing activities based on the prevailing geoengineering advocates' mind think at the time a program could have been implemented . . . if one's desire is to adhere to a belief that aerosol injection is possible . . . people will . . . I am one of them . . .


We ALL think it's possible.

It's just not probable.

There is no evidence that it's happening. But, you are able to misunderstand and misinterpret and manipulate truths that you find and mold them to fit your beliefs.

Pointing that out is all we are doing here.

I'm sorry you have failed to even remotely prove your case.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And since the original question has been answered several time, and the thread has degenerated somewhat, it's going to get moved to a more appropriate location.

And a word of warning: since you all "know" each other, I've been less stringent on enforcing the politeness policy. While the insults on both sides are not without merit, they reflect poorly on the site and I'm going to be taking a more aggressive approach in the future. I may also attempt to add an "on topic" policy to the site rules.

 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J Claim sun paths prove flat earth Flat Earth 41
Mick West Satellite ADS-B Data in FlightAware24 - Blue Planes Prove Globe Earth Flat Earth 1
Dan Wilson Vaccine compensations do not prove that vaccines are dangerous Health and Quackery 1
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
M Do Ibiza and Mallorca prove a Flat Earth? [No, they demonstrate the curve of the globe] Flat Earth 24
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 23
Dan Page Claim: Mobile app uses atmospheric data to prove chemtrails vs contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
eon_flux How to prove chemtrails are just contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 52
Asylumkid Conrad Michael's $10,000 reward to prove him wrong about contrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 53
MikeG Debunked: Crime Scene Photos "Prove" Sandy Hook was a Hoax Sandy Hook 107
Bruce Lansberg Claim: Jeroen Akkermans: Framents prove MH17 was shot down by a Russian made BUK Flight MH17 34
derwoodii any help to prove or disprove this quote or claim Quotes Debunked 22
CaptainBeefheart Debunked: Ottawa Shooting Hoax/Shadow's Prove Wrong Times Conspiracy Theories 13
Redwood Claim: Blood Types Prove Ebola Victims Are Fake Conspiracy Theories 4
MikeC New Zealand cannot prove the PM is not reptilian! Conspiracy Theories 3
MyMatesBrainwashed Research can only prove that something exists Conspiracy Theories 0
Spongebob How to prove Chemtrails don`t exist (via ICCTOI) . . . the believers' dilemma???? Contrails and Chemtrails 29
George B If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program Contrails and Chemtrails 430
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
Mick West Explained: Head Of The Army Admits to "Little Green Men" [Covert Russian Agents] Conspiracy Theories 7
George B Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations Contrails and Chemtrails 289
Mick West Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings? Contrails and Chemtrails 503
Related Articles






















Related Articles

Top