If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

scombrid

Senior Member.
I never took the position geoengineering requires visible contrails . . .

George B said:
And are there not pictures of what people think are chemtrails all over the place ??

So you suggest that those pictures of contrails are good as evidence of Chemtrails as photos of the F117A were as evidence that a secret aircraft was in development. But you simultaneously hold that the whole chemtrail program is likely totally covert with spraying deliberately done in such a way as to avoid detection.

Those are contradictory positions.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So you suggest that those pictures of contrails are good as evidence of Chemtrails as photos of the F117A were as evidence that a secret aircraft was in development. But you simultaneously hold that the whole chemtrail program is likely totally covert with spraying deliberately done in such a way as to avoid detection.

Those are contradictory positions.

The key to my answer is the word THINK . . . we are talking in general perceptions in one quote not just my personal perceptions as in the other quote . . . do you deny that many or most chemtrail advocates believe the persistent trails are chemtrails just as much as aircraft nuts believe the 117 pictures were real . . .

"And are there not pictures of what people think are chemtrails all over the place ??"

Sorry to have confused you . . . I am making arguments from two separate lines of reasoning . . . one my personal belief and the other from what I think most or many chemtrail advocates would take. . .
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The people that think those are chemtrails have zero scientific backing for that belief. Therefore whatever they think can be safely discounted. Many of them believe that "Sylphs" appear to "eat" the chemtrails. Many believe that the chemtrails are delivered by "holographic, shape shifting fake aircraft". These too can be safely discounted. Your theory can be safely discounted because there is no evidence whatsoever that the logistics are in place, no matter how technically feasible it may be. The logistics, as pointed out in another thread, are the Achilles heel. The number of specialized aircraft required; the wide dispersion of the bases required, (remember the F117 was based at one remote USAF base in New Mexico) and the manpower required, means that, lacking any other evidence to back up the theory, that it remains a theory and can be safely discounted.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The people that think those are chemtrails have zero scientific backing for that belief. Therefore whatever they think can be safely discounted. Many of them believe that "Sylphs" appear to "eat" the chemtrails. Many believe that the chemtrails are delivered by "holographic, shape shifting fake aircraft". These too can be safely discounted. Your theory can be safely discounted because there is no evidence whatsoever that the logistics are in place, no matter how technically feasible it may be. The logistics, as pointed out in another thread, are the Achilles heel. The number of specialized aircraft required; the wide dispersion of the bases required, (remember the F117 was based at one remote USAF base in New Mexico) and the manpower required, means that, lacking any other evidence to back up the theory, that it remains a theory and can be safely discounted.
A hypothetical scenario is one thing . . . you can discount whatever you wish; however, you have misrepresented even the scenario . . . there is only one base required . . . the estimates of required sulfur are not my estimates they are the person proposing the project . . . assuming he is off by a factor of 100% and twice the amount is needed that would be 18 modified aircraft flying I believe three missions per day for 200 plus days . . .

There will always be disagreements between scientists regarding the amount of sulfur compounds and the location of injection . . . I found several different estimates in the scientific literature . . . the question is if preemptive geoengineering was initiated . . . when was it and what were the best estimates and models at the time . . . the decision to continue or terminate based on better computer models or feedback from the historical results of injection I am sure would influence the decision makers . . .

By-the-way your elimination of people's position based on your opinion of their scientific sophistication communicates much to me . . . I find it hard to respect such statements . . . you might think your world view is the only TRUTH . . . however, you might find out differently eventually . . .
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
"18 modified aircraft flying O believe three missions per day for 200 plus days"

18 aircraft, each flying 3 missions per day? From a single base? So exactly how far would they travel on each mission? Assuming 747's...lets call it 550 MPH? Range of about maybe 6000 miles? No, lets call it 7000 at max weight.

So 3500 out...3500 back at 550....hmmm, thats an almost 13 hr trip.....so even with a crew change they can't even do 2 trips a day. That's completely disregarding refueling, reloading, safety checks, time on the ground, weather, etc, etc. And how could one base cover much more than a 7000mi radius? What about aircraft maintenance? No expert, but don't they have to go down for almost a week every few thousand hours? Or would they disregard that and take a chance of a catastrophic failure and crash?

Oh....and the one base....it would need hanger facilities, 10000 ft runways, fire crews, housing, medical facilities, infrastructure, etc. So no one, not ATC, not the FAA, locals, fuel delivery trucks, mailmen....would ever wonder about these flights and the facility?

See all these could be's and may be's just don't add up to a possible...in my opinion. This is not the 1940s when people still crapped in an outhouse and many had no running water or electricity.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
1) One cannot deny stratospheric geoengineering has been researched, modeled, and cost analyzed . . .
2) One cannot deny there are heavy lift aircraft capable of flight in the lower stratosphere . . .
3) One cannot deny there is sufficient sources of substances which could be injected into the stratosphere . . .
4) One cannot deny there have been calls from responsible people to mitigate global warming. . .
5) One cannot deny there are organizations capable of covert operations
6) One cannot deny there is adequate budget to initiate some level of geoengineering

The biggest single evidence pointed to by debunkers is it cannot have happened because you couldn't have hidden all those activities without someone finding out about it . . . I believe it could have and can still be ongoing . . .
7) one cannot deny that there has never been any credible evidence that "it" is actually happening.
8) One cannot deny that russels teapot may be orbiting out there.....
9) One cannot deny that I have an invisible dragon in my garage
10) One canot deny that saying "One cannot deny (something could exist)..." any number of times does not actually constitute evidence that it DOES exist
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
"18 modified aircraft flying O believe three missions per day for 200 plus days"

18 aircraft, each flying 3 missions per day? From a single base? So exactly how far would they travel on each mission? Assuming 747's...lets call it 550 MPH? Range of about maybe 6000 miles? No, lets call it 7000 at max weight.

So 3500 out...3500 back at 550....hmmm, thats an almost 13 hr trip.....so even with a crew change they can't even do 2 trips a day. That's completely disregarding refueling, reloading, safety checks, time on the ground, weather, etc, etc. And how could one base cover much more than a 7000mi radius? What about aircraft maintenance? No expert, but don't they have to go down for almost a week every few thousand hours? Or would they disregard that and take a chance of a catastrophic failure and crash?

Oh....and the one base....it would need hanger facilities, 10000 ft runways, fire crews, housing, medical facilities, infrastructure, etc. So no one, not ATC, not the FAA, locals, fuel delivery trucks, mailmen....would ever wonder about these flights and the facility?

See all these could be's and may be's just don't add up to a possible...in my opinion. This is not the 1940s when people still crapped in an outhouse and many had no running water or electricity.
1) The missions do not have to be multiple of thousands of miles in duration . . . especially on polar routes . ..
2) While one base is possible . . . flying from say one for example Loring AFB an abandoned SAC base with hangers, housing, hospital, maintenance facilities adequate for B52s, Railhead adequate for fuel to support an entire SAC Wing . . .then fly to a sister base in Northern Russia . . .
3) Security Fences, remote location, three to five hundred people . . .
4) Fuel and sulfur compounds delivered by rail or existing pipeline . . .
5) The number of 2,000 to 3,000 mile missions a 747 is capable of flying on 200 days with multiple crews . . . I don't know but the author of the research paper didn't think it was a problem . . .

IMO not impossible at all . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
7) one cannot deny that there has never been any credible evidence that "it" is actually happening.
8) One cannot deny that russels teapot may be orbiting out there.....
9) One cannot deny that I have an invisible dragon in my garage
10) One canot deny that saying "One cannot deny (something could exist)..." any number of times does not actually constitute evidence that it DOES exist
That is your opinion you have every right to hold it . . . I am just trying to explore possibilities . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yeah Jay....I think you're right....but bad facts are just....well...bad facts. Even when they aren't facts....
Your opinion . . . and you are not a third party unbiased judge . . . Sorry . . .And by the way . . . I never, never said they were facts . . . they are possibilities to explore and evaluate . . .
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
1) The missions do not have to be multiple of thousands of miles in duration . . . especially on polar routes . ..
2) While one base is possible . . . flying from say one for example Loring AFB an abandoned SAC base with hangers, housing, hospital, maintenance facilities adequate for B52s, Railhead adequate for fuel to support an entire SAC Wing . . .then fly to a sister base in Northern Russia . . .
3) Security Fences, remote location, three to five hundred people . . .
4) Fuel and sulfur compounds delivered by rail or existing pipeline . . .

IMO not impossible at all . . .

1) I must be confused...or have forgotten the original proposal.......worldwide dispersal would require worldwide deployment.
2) You said one base...not me
3) Remote location...ok sure. 3-5 hundred people. Ummmmm 18 aircraft, their crews, support personnel. You really think 18 747's and support crews only would only need 3-5 hundred people total?
4) Rail engineers and pipeline personnel. No one wonders wth they are doing?

You mentioned Loring....but that has already been repurposed for many other uses. No one would notice 18 747's? Are the runways even maintained? No...they now hold land racing event.


As Jay said...I was sucked in....this is just silly and I'm done.
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Your opinion . . . and you are not a third party unbiased judge . . . Sorry . . .

Why am I not unbiased? You mean I have any pre-concieved notions? Well....ummm why would I? Because I happen to be a member here? So are you....your point?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why am I not unbiased? You mean I have any pre-concieved notions? Well....ummm why would I? Because I happen to be a member here? So are you....your point?
Simply, if you were unbiased I might take your opinions more seriously . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) I must be confused...or have forgotten the original proposal.......worldwide dispersal would require worldwide deployment.
2) You said one base...not me
3) Remote location...ok sure. 3-5 hundred people. Ummmmm 18 aircraft, their crews, support personnel. You really think 18 747's and support crews only would only need 3-5 hundred people total?
4) Rail engineers and pipeline personnel. No one wonders wth they are doing?

You mentioned Loring....but that has already been repurposed for many other uses. No one would notice 18 747's? Are the runways even maintained? No...they now hold land racing event.


As Jay said...I was sucked in....this is just silly and I'm done.
1) Aerosols released into the stratosphere will eventually disperse just like volcanic injected aerosols do . . . as long as they stay aloft long enough . . .
2) One or two . . . both possible
3) Possibly, additional personnel could be hired on a need basis . . . Planes can be flown to maintenance facilities . . . Jobs that would reveal sensitive information would be done at home base under security . . .
4) Why? if they are paid well and jobs are hard to find in many areas . . .

Loring . . . hypothetical . . . there are others throughout North America and Russia
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Well...I said I was done...but please...explain why you think I am biased? Because I believe in facts or real possibilities with observable actions....not maybe's and what if's?
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Ok...saw the 4:47 (my time) post....just keep moving around and changing stances... if it works for you...have at it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well...I said I was done...but please...explain why you think I am biased? Because I believe in facts or real possibilities with observable actions....not maybe's and what if's?
You insist on treating opinions, speculations and hypotheticals as though they are presented as facts . . . my original purpose was . . . If I were going to design an ICAAIP this is what I would do . . . seems most people on this Forum feel it necessary to judge everything . . . on prove everything as a validated verifiable fact or don't post it here . . . sorry . . . I come from a different culture . . . we have to speculate first on complicated cases and then find data to support or eliminate different possible explanations . . .
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
I was only responding to let you know I saw it. Like I said, what if's and maybe's are for another place...IMO. I may have missed the original point of the thread...as I stated.

My point in being here is to see things presented as fact...if they are just wild imagination...please state them as such. I can read Jules Verne or Isaac Asimov for those.

I thought that was pretty much the purpose here. State a believed fact...then defend it to those who de-bunk it?

I speculate that many chemtrail believers have serious mental and emotional problems...and no close support network. There we go.....can that be de-bunked?

You still haven't really said why you think I'm biased....

btw...nothing personal here...just trying to understand the mindset.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I was only responding to let you know I saw it. Like I said, what if's and maybe's are for another place...IMO. I may have missed the original point of the thread...as I stated.

My point in being here is to see things presented as fact...if they are just wild imagination...please state them as such. I can read Jules Verne or Isaac Asimov for those.

I thought that was pretty much the purpose here. State a believed fact...then defend it to those who de-bunk it?

I speculate that many chemtrail believers have serious mental and emotional problems...and no close support network. There we go.....can that be de-bunked?

You still haven't really said why you think I'm biased....

btw...nothing personal here...just trying to understand the mindset.
You along with most on this forum are biased toward accepting only verified fact like that is all that exist in life . . . most people have to start at a different initial stage even when dealing with very important issues . . . I come from a different culture . . . and you insist on judging me only by your standards . . . everything cannot have validated verifiable facts or don't post it here . . . sorry . . . when I was saving lives and puting others in harms way . . . I often had to speculate first on complicated cases and then find data to support or eliminate different possible explanations . . .often having to act before the data was in . . . to me speculation is proper not unacceptable . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I am not biased to accepting only verified fact.

I can accept information that is credible by association too - for example I do not need to have verified information that a particulr human bing breathes - I am more than happy to accept that someone who I believe exists does actually breathe.

what's more I am prepared to accept that lots of things I have never seen verified at all do exist - lunar landings, the whole Apollo programme, nuclear aircraft carriers, F-15 Eagles, Mick, you, President Obama, WW2, Julius Caesar, etc., etc. - I do not have any verified evidence concerning any of these - lots and lots of annecdotal and asserted evidence for sure, but nothing more.

nonetheless I am prepared to accept their existence as fact because of the weight of the annecdotal evidence, and because they do not contradict anything else that I regard as factual.

Verification is the "gold standard" of evidence. but it not the only acceptable standard for me.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am not biased to accepting only verified fact.

I can accept information that is credible by association too - for example I do not need to have verified information that a particulr human bing breathes - I am more than happy to accept that someone who I believe exists does actually breathe.

what's more I am prepared to accept that lots of things I have never seen verified at all do exist - lunar landings, the whole Apollo programme, nuclear aircraft carriers, F-15 Eagles, Mick, you, President Obama, WW2, Julius Caesar, etc., etc. - I do not have any verified evidence concerning any of these - lots and lots of annecdotal and asserted evidence for sure, but nothing more.

nonetheless I am prepared to accept their existence as fact because of the weight of the annecdotal evidence, and because they do not contradict anything else that I regard as factual.

Verification is the "gold standard" of evidence. but it not the only acceptable standard for me.

Good . . .
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
7) one cannot deny that there has never been any credible evidence that "it" is actually happening.
8) One cannot deny that russels teapot may be orbiting out there.....
9) One cannot deny that I have an invisible dragon in my garage
10) One canot deny that saying "One cannot deny (something could exist)..." any number of times does not actually constitute evidence that it DOES exist

There are so many roads I can go down here...

1) Before you can have solid evidence, you must have supporting evidence.
2) Credibility is relative.
3) Denying the notion of something is counterproductive. Notions make people biased.
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
You along with most on this forum are biased toward accepting only verified fact like that is all that exist in life . . . most people have to start at a different initial stage even when dealing with very important issues . . . I come from a different culture . . . and you insist on judging me only by your standards . . . everything cannot have validated verifiable facts or don't post it here . . . sorry . . . when I was saving lives and putting others in harms way . . . I often had to speculate first on complicated cases and then find data to support or eliminate different possible explanations . . .often having to act before the data was in . . . to me speculation is proper not unacceptable . . .

And I think you are making an incorrect assumption. I spent the majority of my life having to make decisions about things without all the facts. But when it came down to the final point....if it worked or not confirmed the "facts" that I needed. In some cases it was mechanical or electronic....if the "fix" was incorrect...then so were my assumptions or interpretations about the "facts". Of course I did everything possible to verify those "facts" but it wasn't always possible. In other cases it was managerial or personnel issues that needed to be instituted or fixed and they just said "do it" like I was a mushroom.

At the same time during my nuclear power training...facts were all you dealt with....no assumptions or speculations allowed.

Maybe I mean "evidence that is acceptable" instead of "facts". Provable or verifiable or repeatable evidence. Once you have actual evidence of something...then you can look for the why, what, how, or who.

Perhaps MikeC said it better than I, he's been here longer and has probably responded like that more than a few times.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And I think you are making an incorrect assumption. I spent the majority of my life having to make decisions about things without all the facts. But when it came down to the final point....if it worked or not confirmed the "facts" that I needed. In some cases it was mechanical or electronic....if the "fix" was incorrect...then so were my assumptions or interpretations about the "facts". Of course I did everything possible to verify those "facts" but it wasn't always possible. In other cases it was managerial or personnel issues that needed to be instituted or fixed and they just said "do it" like I was a mushroom.

At the same time during my nuclear power training...facts were all you dealt with....no assumptions or speculations allowed.

Maybe I mean "evidence that is acceptable" instead of "facts". Provable or verifiable or repeatable evidence. Once you have actual evidence of something...then you can look for the why, what, how, or who.

Perhaps MikeC said it better than I, he's been here longer and has probably responded like that more than a few times.

Interestingly you used the word repeatable . . . history is important for me . . . along with human behavior . . . which are repeatable in a sense very different from a lab experiment . . . they repeat through a very broad set of complex interrelated behaviors . . . and thus defy the collection of easily identified scientifically validated evidence . . . That is, I feel, the hole in this Forums treatment of soft yet valid evidence . . . it is ignored . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
There are so many roads I can go down here...

1) Before you can have solid evidence, you must have supporting evidence.

Why must htey be sequential?

And even if they are...so what?

2) Credibility is relative.

Of course - I have stated above teh general basis of my requirements for credibility, and again....so what?

3) Denying the notion of something is counterproductive.

i am not quite sure what you mean by this - denying something that is false or untrue seems perfectly productive - it removes potential for confusion and waste of resources in respect of that error.


Notions make people biased.

I find this statement trivial at best, nonsense at worst (al people are biased - it is inate), and, yet again - so what???
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
The notion of gasoline powered machinery is not a ridiculous notion, however if you wanted to convince someone of their existence, and they see them as huge metal monsters that drink decomposed dinosaur juice then that would make the notion ridiculous to them, even if the facts corroborated. You can give any subject a ridiculous notion. I am just pointing out that a perception and interpretation of a notion is counterproductive when compared to the facts. People have called many of my ideas ridiculous on this forum, and I am just saying we should stay away from using that label.
 
Top