I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

Status
Not open for further replies.

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So why don't you??:confused:

I did forget the guy who "outed" Project Cloverleaf of course...



Except I haven't listed any "test for acceptance"!!



Anything that lacks evidence can only ever be hearsay

There is whistleblower legislation all around the world now - and it is probably not too hard to upload it to Wikileaks, or do a dead drop to a known activist, or just post the images anonymously on some public forum such as "Above Top Secret"



There was plenty of real evidence to prove the crime had happened and the link existed.



But the break-in did happen - the evidence for that was real.

And the link to Nixon WAS proved sufficiently for most people - it is not considered hearsay.



Indeed - with no corroborating evidence all it remains is someone's hearsay and suspicions.

I have to say that I find your reasoning here very weak - you don't actually list hte several you say you can list, you assume that people will get killed, you use Watergate as an example despite the break-in being a proven crime, and FDR/Pearl Harbour link remains speculation and hearsay.

Which if these is it you think is either relevant or supportive to your case that there are whistleblowers??:confused:

"So why don't you?". . . .By now you have listed many of them. . . There are a few you have not . . . It would serve no purpose because as I said none have presented any evidence that you would accept. . . That is, their evidence was either first hand without them identifying themselves and without documentation or they were second or third hand accounts. . . none to my knowledge have resurfaced except for your Physician with his own alternative medicine website and radio show Dr D. . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Of course they are. But that does not add validity to their argument. (That's a bit of a paradox in debunking - if you debunk something, then some theorists will always take that as meaning it's real, otherwise why would someone debunk it?).

I'm saying that people believing in something does not make it true. They raise points (like: "contrails fade away in seconds"). Those points have been answered (like: "no they don't. they last for hours depending on the weather"). They keep raising more
points, which are also answered. Does that make them right?

Millions of people believe in all kinds of weird things. This does not lend validity to those things. Actual evidence does. You have as much evidence as for robot cats.

I do not say nor have I ever said that contrails fade after a few seconds . . . And many of the Advocates
understand that fact as well. . . I am asking for time to develop and explain my evidence. . . .the checklist is too superficial to adequately explain my position . . . The checklist is also a brief and terse set of red meat to get the attention of debunkers . . . Which it has . . . Either give me a chance or tell me to move on. . . It is your option. . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe you should come back in one week. That will give you a chance to digest some of the counter points raised here.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Maybe you should come back in one week. That will give you a chance to digest some of the counter points raised here.


My first response is . . I will NOT return in one week. . . That is my freedom and my option. . . You wish to dictate the rules of engagement . . . Since contrail science is your universe, you have the perfect right to enforce your desires here as you see fit. . . I see you and your friends have a cloistered
sense of reality and feel you have the proper set of criteria to dismiss arguments you feel IMO are a challenge to your world view. . . Is it possible you could be deceiving yourselves? No, we have strict empiricism on our side. . . Speculation, Intuition, inference and circumstantial evidence need not apply, though they form the initial basis for ALL scientific investigations. Farewell. . .For now. . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My first response is . . I will NOT return in one week. . . That is my freedom and my option. . . You wish to dictate the rules of engagement . . . Since contrail science is your universe, you have the perfect right to enforce your desires here as you see fit. . . I see you and your friends have a cloistered
sense of reality and feel you have the proper set of criteria to dismiss arguments you feel IMO are a challenge to your world view. . . Is it possible you could be


deceiving yourselves? No, we have strict empiricism on our side. . . Speculation, Intuition, inference and circumstantial evidence need not apply, though they form the initial basis for ALL scientific investigations. Farewell. . .For now. . .

By-The-Way to show you Advocates or GLP are not single minded

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . **36.3% (813)
No, I do not . . . **23.6% (528)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas **17.4% (390)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. **10.5% (235)
Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines **6.3% (142)
Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. **5.8% (129)
Blank (View Results) (407)

Non-Blank Votes: 2237
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Is this the same guy as before?

I have this evidence... blah blah

I can show you... blah blah

It ends up in - "I believe it because I 'feel' it and the nasty government are all baddies anyway so there"

Opinion polls ?? That`s it?:)
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
Polls:

This seems to reinforce an earlier discussion that Chemtrail adherents often seem to be "people focussed" rather than facts and phenomena focussed.
It's mostly about the "boogeyman". Technical or logical discussion about the "boogey" may be just an inconvenience.

Regardless of that observation George you would tend to find that the regular posters here have a particularly wide and eclectic range of interests, knowledge and expertise and are probably far more open-minded than those that repeat assertions from conspiracy sites.
Being interested in atmospheric physics and the other subjects discussed on these kinds of forums requires embracing complex and often counterintuitive ideas that may seem to contradict common sense.

It might be worth watching this simple vid about open mindedness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

This forum is not just about debunking Chemtrails etc. It's also about thought processes, and different approaches to thought.
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
By-The-Way to show you Advocates or GLP are not single minded

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . **36.3% (813)
No, I do not . . . **23.6% (528)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas **17.4% (390)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. **10.5% (235)
Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines **6.3% (142)
Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. **5.8% (129)
Blank (View Results) (407)

Non-Blank Votes: 2237

George, what does a poll from a conspiracy site show other than conspiracy theorists agree that there is a conspiracy?

If this poll were recreated on an aviation or atmospheric science site, where the majority of people understand the science, the results would be completely different.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
yes, in other words, "chemtrails" is a catch-all, where any believer in it can make up their own version to suit whatever suspicions or ignorance that they have.

You will often see different version of it, that contradict each other, or when they put up pictures of aircraft that are absolutely not what they claim. Your claim #1 withstood no scrutiny, and you even changed that claim as this thread went along. It changed from that you have evidence, to its circumstantial evidence, to you finally admitting its more a matter of faith and intuition.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Polls:

This seems to reinforce an earlier discussion that Chemtrail adherents often seem to be "people focussed" rather than facts and phenomena focussed.
It's mostly about the "boogeyman". Technical or logical discussion about the "boogey" may be just an inconvenience.

Regardless of that observation George you would tend to find that the regular posters here have a particularly wide and eclectic range of interests, knowledge and expertise and are probably far more open-minded than those that repeat assertions from conspiracy sites.
Being interested in atmospheric physics and the other subjects discussed on these kinds of forums requires embracing complex and often counterintuitive ideas that may seem to contradict common sense.

It might be worth watching this simple vid about open mindedness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

This forum is not just about debunking Chemtrails etc. It's also about thought processes, and different approaches to thought.

I am rather 'eclectic' myself and very well versed on Atmospheric Science . . . for example . . . visible persistent trails in the sky are about several factors including the exhaust's exit temperature, exhaust's and ambient Relative Humidity, ambient particulate nuclei and those supplied by the combustion products, fuel contaminates and additives, CO2, NOx, Sulfur, soot, H20 and metal particulates from the engines, the updrafts and downdrafts not to mention the effect of the wing and control surface vortices . . . and what about the exhausts' probability to persist or form cirrus cloud banks . . .? How can you tell if someone has not added something to the fuel or injected something into the atmosphere through some systematic (pre or post exhaust) process and if they did what effect would it have on visibility or persistence. . . and how would you ever know what the substances were or the concentrations used . . .? By-The-Way, visibility is fleeting whether for a few seconds or several hours . . . the injected materials (intentional or not) will no longer be visible from the ground . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Polls:

This seems to reinforce an earlier discussion that Chemtrail adherents often seem to be "people focussed" rather than facts and phenomena focussed.
It's mostly about the "boogeyman". Technical or logical discussion about the "boogey" may be just an inconvenience.

Regardless of that observation George you would tend to find that the regular posters here have a particularly wide and eclectic range of interests, knowledge and expertise and are probably far more open-minded than those that repeat assertions from conspiracy sites.
Being interested in atmospheric physics and the other subjects discussed on these kinds of forums requires embracing complex and often counterintuitive ideas that may seem to contradict common sense.

It might be worth watching this simple vid about open mindedness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

This forum is not just about debunking Chemtrails etc. It's also about thought processes, and different approaches to thought.

Exactly, that is the point . . . I have conducted many different polls and the difference between the conspiracy site and for example this one would be very eye opening . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
George. Given that 99.99% of a persistent spreading contrail is made of atmospheric water, then how is it possible for a substance to spread out to the same optical density as a persistent contrail?

Or are you just saying that something is added to the fuel to make contrail formation more likely? Does such a chemical exist?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But in this case, direct evidence (IE: testing the emissions of aircraft) is available.

Available, yes but to whom and at what cost and effort . . . in situ testing to be done properly with a valid chain of custody, expertise, and credibility is honestly out of reach to the Chemtrail Advocates . . . who are not organized, funded or knowledgeable enough . . . one would have to choose the proper trails to sample and repeat this across several geographic regions and time to eliminate the possibility of random contamination from an almost infinite number of sources . . . then what are you looking for and what concentrations would be a hit . . . what scientist or institution would lend its expertise to the effort without loosing credibility with its peers . . . not likely . . . not impossible either. . .
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
Available, yes but to whom and at what cost and effort . . . in situ testing to be done properly with a valid chain of custody, expertise, and credibility is honestly out of reach to the Chemtrail Advocates . . . who are not organized, funded or knowledgeable enough . . . one would have to choose the proper trails to sample and repeat this across several geographic regions and time to eliminate the possibility of random contamination from an almost infinite number of sources . . . then what are you looking for and what concentrations would be a hit . . . what scientist or institution would lend its expertise to the effort without loosing credibility with its peers . . . not likely . . . not impossible either. . .

So, it's much easier to assume/speculate?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The poll on contrail science has 121 responses:

No answer 5
Don't Know 18
Just Contrails 42
Chemtrails 55

See the results here, with some interesting comments.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AthfJKf0ArdPdGVKSXQzTWVGRWlNUUU5T2pjSzNLMGc&output=html

Of course people who don't believe in chemtrails are unlikely going to be searching for info about them. So obviously this does not relate to the general public, and is not in any way a scientific survey for distribution of belief.

Where the survey IS scientific is in the question on when people first noticed chemtrails or persistent contrails. There's quite a wide range, which indicates that people simple started noticing them at various times, rather than the trails starting. Unfortunately there's not enough samples to be statistically valid yet. But results are still interesting, as are the comments.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
I am rather 'eclectic' myself and very well versed on Atmospheric Science . . . for example . . . visible persistent trails in the sky are about several factors including the exhaust's exit temperature, exhaust's and ambient Relative Humidity, ambient particulate nuclei and those supplied by the combustion products, fuel contaminates and additives, CO2, NOx, Sulfur, soot, H20 and metal particulates from the engines, the updrafts and downdrafts not to mention the effect of the wing and control surface vortices . . . and what about the exhausts' probability to persist or form cirrus cloud banks . . .? How can you tell if someone has not added something to the fuel or injected something into the atmosphere through some systematic (pre or post exhaust) process and if they did what effect would it have on visibility or persistence. . . and how would you ever know what the substances were or the concentrations used . . .? By-The-Way, visibility is fleeting whether for a few seconds or several hours . . . the injected materials (intentional or not) will no longer be visible from the ground . . .

I am glad you have taken it upon yourself to learn such things, and how contrails can vary. But here is a valid question. If you know that contrail appearance has multiple factors, that it can vary, and that they can persist, then why do you not come out against the chemtrail promoters, who insist that contrails can not persist, and they say this to sell products for commercial gain?

Have you tried explaining this to other believed in the chemtrail faith?

How can you tell if someone has not added something to the fuel or injected something into the atmosphere through some systematic (pre or post exhaust) process and if they did what effect would it have on visibility or persistence.

You are asking the wrong question. You could be asking how you can tell if someone has added something. That is the logical question to ask of someone making a claim of spraying.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George. Given that 99.99% of a persistent spreading contrail is made of atmospheric water, then how is it possible for a substance to spread out to the same optical density as a persistent contrail?

Or are you just saying that something is added to the fuel to make contrail formation more likely? Does such a chemical exist?

I think the likely explanation is rather complicated . . .
1) Most persistent Trails (Persistent Contrails or low grade Chemtrails as I like to call them) are exactly what you said 99% plus water vapor . . . which is a powerful greenhouse gas by the way and are the product of the newer high efficiency jet engines that have increased in number and frequency on long haul flights which have increased over the last two decades . . . they are more likely to form in suboptimal air and at higher ambient temperatures than the exhaust from the lower efficiency engines . . .
2) Secondly, there is research which tested the visual appearance and measurement of Sulfur compounds when added to the fuel at different ppms. . . why this research was done I am not really sure but if you are interested I can cite it for you . . .
3) My paranoid suspicion is there was a reason for the research . . . "can we add higher concentrations of Sulfur to jet fuel and will it be noticed?"
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
yes, in other words, "chemtrails" is a catch-all, where any believer in it can make up their own version to suit whatever suspicions or ignorance that they have.

You will often see different version of it, that contradict each other, or when they put up pictures of aircraft that are absolutely not what they claim. Your claim #1 withstood no scrutiny, and you even changed that claim as this thread went along. It changed from that you have evidence, to its circumstantial evidence, to you finally admitting its more a matter of faith and intuition.

The logic can be compared to a crime scene. Detectives show up at a murder scene and find fingerprints and DNA all over the place, pointing to several possible suspects. But the detectives choose to not round up the suspects for testing or questioning. Now in the absence of available, direct evidence, the detectives use the circumstantial evidence to declare Freddy Krueger is alive and well.

To the issue of this thread, a checklist of 20 circumstantial questions can be affirmed or negated by one or two real-world tests (IE: testing the emissions of aircraft). All the pomp and circumstance surrounding this issue doesn't change the real-world, available, direct evidence the believers refuse to acquire.

Refusing to acquire available, direct evidence is not "no evidence to the contrary."
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am glad you have taken it upon yourself to learn such things, and how contrails can vary. But here is a valid question. If you know that contrail appearance has multiple factors, that it can vary, and that they can persist, then why do you not come out against the chemtrail promoters, who insist that contrails can not persist, and they say this to sell products for commercial gain?

Have you tried explaining this to other believed in the chemtrail faith?



You are asking the wrong question. You could be asking how you can tell if someone has added something. That is the logical question to ask of someone making a claim of spraying.

" . . . then why do you not come out against the chemtrail promoters, who insist that contrails can not persist, . . ."I frequently do . . . I would show you the graphics I use to explain that issue but don't know how to load a pictrue, graphic, etc. here yet . . .

"You could be asking how you can tell if someone has added something." . . . the research I have digested so far suggests there is not enough information within the Atmospheric Scientists or GeoEngineering groups to answer that question . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So your theory is just that there are slightly more contrails than you'd expect?

Are there any figures to back this up? Or is the entire thing based on people noticing more contrails?

Did you factor in that people look for contrails a lot more when they suspect they are part of a secret government plot?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So, it's much easier to assume/speculate?

Well when you don't have the resources you turn to other methods . . . If the scientific community, Airline Industry, Air Force, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etc wish to answer the nagging questions and paranoid criticisms . . . why don't they propose a system of random sampling and report these to the general public to demonstrate the absence of such programs . . . they certainly have the resources to do so . . .
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
I think the likely explanation is rather complicated . . .
1) Most persistent Trails (Persistent Contrails or low grade Chemtrails as I like to call them) are exactly what you said 99% plus water vapor . . . which is a powerful greenhouse gas by the way and are the product of the newer high efficiency jet engines that have increased in number and frequency on long haul flights which have increased over the last two decades . . . they are more likely to form in suboptimal air and at higher ambient temperatures than the exhaust from the lower efficiency engines . . .
2) Secondly, there is research which tested the visual appearance and measurement of Sulfur compounds when added to the fuel at different ppms. . . why this research was done I am not really sure but if you are interested I can cite it for you . . .
3) My paranoid suspicion is there was a reason for the research . . . "can we add higher concentrations of Sulfur to jet fuel and will it be noticed?"

They are still contrails, regardless of what you like to call them.

And as far as #3 goes, that's all it is...YOUR "paranoid suspicion". I see no evidence that the research has anything to do with sulfur content.

Couldn't it have something to do with all of the complaints they are getting about the trails in the sky? Couldn't they be trying to change/condense air routes or change altitudes in an effort to limit the number of trails? There is as much evidence to support MY idea as there is to support your. Yet, it seems that more people who are prone to accepting "conspiracy theories" will immediately choose your idea over mine. Can't you see why?
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
Well when you don't have the resources you turn to other methods . . . If the scientific community, Airline Industry, Air Force, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etc wish to answer the nagging questions and paranoid criticisms . . . why don't they propose a system of random sampling and report these to the general public to demonstrate the absence of such programs . . . they certainly have the resources to do so . . .

It's just a matter of time. But, I have a feeling that they understand that it would be a complete waste of time. The people who accept "chemtrails" as fact aren't the type to accept such evidence...and will be suspicious of ANY claim that doesn't agree with their intuition/speculation/assumptions.

No matter WHAT the scientific community, Airline Industry, Air Force, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etcsays about the trails in the sky, "chemtrail advocates" will assume they are being lied to.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So your theory is just that there are slightly more contrails than you'd expect?

Are there any figures to back this up? Or is the entire thing based on people noticing more contrails?

Did you factor in that people look for contrails a lot more when they suspect they are part of a secret government plot?

"NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.

"This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect," said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The study was published April 15 in the Journal of Climate. "During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady," he added.. . ." http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04140_clouds_climate.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well when you don't have the resources you turn to other methods . . . If the scientific community, Airline Industry, Air Force, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etc wish to answer the nagging questions and paranoid criticisms . . . why don't they propose a system of random sampling and report these to the general public to demonstrate the absence of such programs . . . they certainly have the resources to do so . . .

Because

A) They don't see the need.
B) They know any results would be viewed as part of the conspiracy
C) It would cost a lot of money.

First of all you have to establish scientific evidence to justify such a test. "thousands of people are worried" is not scientific evidence.

I mean, why don't the government also randomly sample all the cats in Los Angeles to ensure none of them are government spy cats?

Same thing - certainly from their point of view.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It's just a matter of time. But, I have a feeling that they understand that it would be a complete waste of time. The people who accept "chemtrails" as fact aren't the type to accept such evidence...and will be suspicious of ANY claim that doesn't agree with their intuition/speculation/assumptions.

No matter WHAT the scientific community, Airline Industry, Air Force, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etcsays about the trails in the sky, "chemtrail advocates" will assume they are being lied to.

You just made my point . . . in similar fashion, the Aerosol Injection Advocates feel the same way . . . why go to the effort and expense to do testing no one will accept or acknowledge . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.

"This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect," said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The study was published April 15 in the Journal of Climate. "During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady," he added.. . ." http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04140_clouds_climate.html

But that's the result of contrails. It says so right there. It says nothing about there being more contrails than you'd expect.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because

A) They don't see the need.
B) They know any results would be viewed as part of the conspiracy
C) It would cost a lot of money.

First of all you have to establish scientific evidence to justify such a test. "thousands of people are worried" is not scientific evidence.

I mean, why don't the government also randomly sample all the cats in Los Angeles to ensure none of them are government spy cats?

Same thing - certainly from their point of view.

Well the state and Federal Government does ground water sampling and ambient air sampling . . . and spends untold millions and billions for utter nonsense . . . why not what I suggested . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You just made my point . . . in similar fashion, the Aerosol Injection Advocates feel the same way . . . why go to the effort and expense to do testing no one will accept or acknowledge . . .


I think you miss the point. All it takes is one positive test to prove chemtrails, but a thousand negative tests would not disprove it.

If I go out and capture a cat, open it up, and show that it's robotic, then that proves robocats.

If I go out, capture 100 cats, cut them open, and show they are all flesh and blood, then that does not disprove robocats.

So if I'm going to go out killing cats, I better have some sound reason for doing so.

Do you have a sound reason to test contrails?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Okay, so if you acknowledge that there is ground air sampling, water testing, etc do you have any of these that have show evidence of your conspiracy conspiracy?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think you miss the point. All it takes is one positive test to prove chemtrails, but a thousand negative tests would not disprove it.

If I go out and capture a cat, open it up, and show that it's robotic, then that proves robocats.

If I go out, capture 100 cats, cut them open, and show they are all flesh and blood, then that does not disprove robocats.

So if I'm going to go out killing cats, I better have some sound reason for doing so.

Do you have a sound reason to test contrails?

What would a positive result look like . . . what is the concentration of some substance need to be . . . or what is the substance . . . if the concentration (of let's say a Sulfur Compound) is only a few percent over those supposed to be normal what does that mean . . . If I find it once . . . could be a sample error . . . ?
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
Well the state and Federal Government does ground water sampling and ambient air sampling . . . and spends untold millions and billions for utter nonsense . . . why not what I suggested . . .

Why do you think that testing ground water and ambient air is "utter nonsense"?!

EDIT:

Nevermind, I see what you meant...
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
So your theory is just that there are slightly more contrails than you'd expect?

Are there any figures to back this up? Or is the entire thing based on people noticing more contrails?

Did you factor in that people look for contrails a lot more when they suspect they are part of a secret government plot?

Reminds me of the "clock phenomenon", where people interpret the repeated observations of certain times as some kind of sign.

They ask, "How many times do you look at your digital clock and see times like 11:11, 1:11, 10:10, 12:12, 1:23, etc.?"

Once we are told to look out for such "oddities" we are far more likely to notice these times, and in keeping with the nature of human beings, if we choose to believe, we will conveniently forget all the times we looked at our clocks and DIDN'T see an "odd time."

My favorite question to "clock phenomenon" believers is, "What was the time on the clock the last time you looked at it and it WASN'T one of these 'odd times' ?" They can't tell me. Their brains didn't notice because it didn't fit their bias.

It's the same phenomenon at work with psychics. If we want to believe, we forget the "misses" and remember all the "hits".

The real phenomenon at work in these examples lies within the human brain and its ability to engage in confirmatory bias.
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
. . why go to the effort and expense to do testing no one will accept or acknowledge . . .

You've made excuses why you could not get evidence in the past. Now you're making up excuses why you won't be able to get evidence in the future. You seem to be saying that you guys believe in chemtrails, but as a group you're not capable, knowledgeable or organized enough to even figure out what it is you're looking for. And even if you could figure out, and then find it, nobody would believe you in the first place.

You have successfully convinced yourself not to look for evidence.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Okay, so if you acknowledge that there is ground air sampling, water testing, etc do you have any of these that have show evidence of your conspiracy conspiracy?

Not that I could prove to your satisfaction. . . there are such an infinite number of sources of contamination it is not funny . . . acid rain leaching, farming, manufacturing, dust and pollution from China, mining . . . you name it . . . the biosphere and human culture are not the best place to use a finite number of localized test to prove anything . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What would a positive result look like . . . what is the concentration of some substance need to be . . . or what is the substance . . . if the concentration (of let's say a Sulfur Compound) is only a few percent over those supposed to be normal what does that mean . . . If I find it once . . . could be a sample error . . . ?

It would be something that distinguishes it from a regular contrail. Most theorists suggest that the trails are entirely chemical, which would be easy to test for. Something that is 99% the same as a contrail would be harder to test for - but then why would anyone be suspecting such a thing?

Why don't you design the experiment. And set the criteria for a positive result. Work out the logistics, and then the cost.

In other words, why don't you write up a proposal for exactly what you think should be done?

Start off with explaining what effect an increase in sulphur content would have on the noticeability of contrails.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
What would a positive result look like . . . what is the concentration of some substance need to be . . . or what is the substance . . . if the concentration (of let's say a Sulfur Compound) is only a few percent over those supposed to be normal what does that mean . . . If I find it once . . . could be a sample error . . . ?

Your questions are reasonable. However, these questions that you are asking, you should have thought about before believing in chemtrails. Its like you started with your conclusion first, based on suspicion, faith and intuition, and then came up with the questions for others to answer.

I am find myself surprised that you fell into the chemtrail hoax. You understand that contrails can vary, you know that they can persist, and you admit there is no actual evidence for chemtrails, other than suspicion and what people propose.

What is your opinion on Will Thomas, the person who really ran with chemtrails and turned it into a for profit conspiracy?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You've made excuses why you could not get evidence in the past. Now you're making up excuses why you won't be able to get evidence in the future. You seem to be saying that you guys believe in chemtrails, but as a group you're not capable, knowledgeable or organized enough to even figure out what it is you're looking for. And even if you could figure out, and then find it, nobody would believe you in the first place.

You have successfully convinced yourself not to look for evidence.

Not at all . . . I am just realistic . . . that is why our position is so difficult . . . we hold none of the cards, politically, scientifically, or financially and we think we are up against the weight of the Congressional, Military, Industrial Complex basically on our own . . . it is like fighting City Hall as they say . . .
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Well when you don't have the resources you turn to other methods . . . If the scientific community, Airline Industry, Air Force, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etc wish to answer the nagging questions and paranoid criticisms . . . why don't they propose a system of random sampling and report these to the general public to demonstrate the absence of such programs . . . they certainly have the resources to do so . . .

George, you do have resources much closer to the issue than the information and resources you're currently using. I'll give you two: Pilots and air traffic controllers.

Pilots would know best if there was some strange, unknown substance coming from their aircraft or there was some strange equipment strapped to their aircraft or if there was anything out of the ordinary happening with their aircraft.

Air traffic controllers talk to tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of pilots every day. If pilots suspected something was amiss, they would inform ATC, it would be recorded on ATC tapes.

Both these groups are out there and available for commentary. There are over half a million certified pilots and about 15,000 air traffic controllers. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West GeoengineeringWatch Chemtrail Posters fly-posted in Sydney Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Do Polls and Google Trends show Chemtrail Belief Declining? Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
StratMatt777 How to effectively talk to chemtrail folk Practical Debunking 9
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
cmnit Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West A Conversation with "Chemtrail" activist Patrick Roddie Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Explained: Vatican "chemtrail spraying" coin [part of set depicting Pope's travels] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
JRBids "Chemtrail off your left wing": Air Traffic Controller Contrails and Chemtrails 18
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Why "Chemtrail" Tests on the Ground Find Metals That Don't Occur Naturally Contrails and Chemtrails 14
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tapir-mâché Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form? Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Another photoshopped chemtrail poster: Michael J Murphy Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Chemtrail Believers' predictions of "years left" before disaster Contrails and Chemtrails 6
A Augie Snyder's contrail/chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Debunked: Rise In Respiratory Mortality from 4th to 3rd Cause of Death. "Chemtrail Flu" General Discussion 13
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Trailblazer Photoshopped "chemtrail" images on Geoengineeringwatch.org Contrails and Chemtrails 76
JFDee New fuel dump "chemtrail" video [Munich, Thai Airways Flight 925] Contrails and Chemtrails 33
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
Trailblazer Identified: Chemtrails Project UK's "chemtrail plane" (Air France A340) Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail Meme Tweet Contrails and Chemtrails 54
S Contrail shadow Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Trailblazer Video of helicopter leaving "chemtrail"? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
TEEJ Chemtrail Fleet - Peter A. Kirby Contrails and Chemtrails 10
cmnit Chemtrailists articles on Las Vegas Tribune (in 2005) Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Critical Thinker San Diego Chemtrail group to 'educate' & Protest Scientists/Doctors Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
S Black exhaust, contrail, or chemtrail? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West The Best Book for Explaining Contrails to Chemtrail Believers Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Husband of chemmy Help me! Wife is Chemtrailing... Contrails and Chemtrails 69
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
A Dr. Kirkby 2009 CERN presentation: "Clouds Seeded by Jets" [Misunderstanding by Chemtrail Theorists] Contrails and Chemtrails 28
TWCobra Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Whitebeard Claim - 'Orbs Killing Chemtrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 29
Trailblazer Debunked: "The Snake" non-commercial chemtrail plane (China Eastern A330) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 33
Chemtrail_Follower Chemtrail Follower Escaping The Rabbit Hole 70
Peter How 'alive' is the topic of chemtrails nowadays? Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Homeopathic chemtrail detox formula Health and Quackery 25
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
Gundersen Debunked: Australian Rainwater "Chemtrail" test Contrails and Chemtrails 11
M Four Jets in Formation, Leaving Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top