Max Bliss debates chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
The chemtrail hoax would never have lasted if the people promoting it were willing to have their claims pinned down to testable specifics. They simply never allow that. I can't imagine that Max will actually debate specifics.

How can Max's overture be genuine? He has expressed utter contempt for Metabunk as being part of the intentional coverup.
Well, maybe he sees that his current path is not actually getting anywhere. Maybe he is getting tired of the build up of bunk and has finally decided to clean up the act. I know that if I were him and saw Dane Wigington, Russ Tanner, and Tankerenemy insisting there are no identifiable commercial planes I'd be fairly pissed.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Well, maybe he sees that his current path is not actually getting anywhere. Maybe he is getting tired of the build up of bunk and has finally decided to clean up the act. I know that if I were him and saw Dane Wigington, Russ Tanner, and Tankerenemy insisting there are no identifiable commercial planes I'd be fairly pissed.
They all seem to forgive each other and even themselves, mistakes on any number of details because they are sure that the "big picture" they are painting is correct.

PS: It's like arguing with fundie Christians. No matter how many contradictory details or errors you outline in their "Holy Book" it still always comes back to them believing it's still the "Word of God".
 

JFDee

Senior Member
They all seem to [...] they are sure [...] their [...]
I really, really strongly doubt that putting people in boxes, post after post, is in any way helpful here, true or not.
Can't you see that it's essentially wall-building - instead of opening up this place?

Why not use the rant corner for posts like this?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
Odd.
Every time I see a photo of "40 or 50" trails and a halo around the sun (or parhelia) I am reminded that only ice, and ice of a certain shape, can do that.
That is your remote sensed trail sample experiment right there.
 

PCWilliams

Active Member
I think a debate is a great idea, but if Max wants his question answered first I think he should be willing to answer a reciprocal one and also say what evidence he would accept proving the chemtrail theory wrong.
I wouldn't debate without written ground rules. Each side has timed responses, one question at a time, that sort of think. Otherwise it could quickly deteriorate into a Gish Gallop (<- me new phrase) - not by Mick, but by Max.

I also have concerns this is a publicity stunt. Max talks about a debate and talks and talks, then at the last minute backs out - pointing at, and blaming, MetaBunk in some way. Conspiracists need bad guys, and MetaBunk would fit the bill. I guess i feel this way because i can't see why he would want to do this. He doesn't have the facts on his side. He would be walking into a buzz saw.

My $0.02 :)
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I really, really strongly doubt that putting people in boxes, post after post, is in any way helpful here, true or not.
Can't you see that it's essentially wall-building - instead of opening up this place?

Why not use the rant corner for posts like this?
It helps to understand why hoaxes like this are being perpetuated. It helps to outline the mindset which is behind it and how to approach those with such a mindset. It helps to understand that it doesn't work to approach it as if the people involved will see things in the same logical way that you do.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Logic and belief are often on opposite sides of any coin . . . one must always realize when a coin is flipped which side comes up to win the toss is random and Chemtrail advocates are just as likely to use one side or the other at any time without warning . . .
 

JFDee

Senior Member
It helps to outline the mindset which is behind it and how to approach those with such a mindset.
If you need to discuss and define such a mindset, then I suggest you don't do it in a public forum where this kind of talk is likely to make visitors feel denigrated.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
If you need to discuss and define such a mindset, then I suggest you don't do it in a public forum where this kind of talk is likely to make visitors feel denigrated.
I can understand that. On the other hand, keeping it a secret as to what fuels these hoaxes (and how 'cult-like' they actually are) might not always be productive.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I can understand that. On the other hand, keeping it a secret as to what fuels these hoaxes (and how 'cult-like' they actually are) might not always be productive.
Perhaps, but it's very easy to slip into over-generalization, like "they all..." or "they are sure that...". Who are you talking about? You are are only talking about people who fit the description you are talking about. So it's pointless, and will insult people who get swept up in the description.

Unless you can be specific about who you are describing, then "they all..." is not useful. People believe in chemtrails for many different reason, and at many different levels.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Perhaps, but it's very easy to slip into over-generalization, like "they all..." or "they are sure that...". Who are you talking about? You are are only talking about people who fit the description you are talking about. So it's pointless, and will insult people who get swept up in the description.

Unless you can be specific about who you are describing, then "they all..." is not useful. People believe in chemtrails for many different reason, and at many different levels.
Context:

Me:
How can Max's overture be genuine? He has expressed utter contempt for Metabunk as being part of the intentional coverup.

Jay:
Well, maybe he sees that his current path is not actually getting anywhere. Maybe he is getting tired of the build up of bunk and has finally decided to clean up the act. I know that if I were him and saw Dane Wigington, Russ Tanner, and Tankerenemy insisting there are no identifiable commercial planes I'd be fairly pissed.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Max has finally come forward with his "evidence" that RH levels at cruising altitude are too low to form contrails: Thus;

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...t=a.10151300810995396.524896.685100395&type=1

As expected Max has no idea about what Relative Humidity actually is.

The definition:Relative humidity is the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapor in an air-water mixture to the saturated vapor pressure of water at a prescribed temperature.

The key words there are "prescribed temperature".

For those unfamiliar with RH, air can hold water as invisible water vapor. The warmer the temperature, the more water vapor can be held in any given parcel of air. The amount of water vapor in the air, compared to the maximum it can theoretically hold is called RH and is expressed as a percentage.

At 100% RH the air is saturated with water vapor, and condensation into visible water begins. (this also explains the gap in contrails behind aircraft engines, as hot exhaust air rapidly cools, the water vapor contains reaches saturation levels and condenses to form the contrail.)

Max, has failed to take into account that cabin air is at least 70C warmer than the outside air, so the same air coming from the outside, with say 50% RH, will have a much lower RH inside the cabin as soon as it warms up. That is what the R in stands for. The same cubic metre of air could have an RH of 60% outside the aircraft; then have an RH of 5% inside and after it is expelled and rapidly drops 70C, will go back to its former 60% plus whatever moisture it picked up from the people in the cabin. (this also explains why in some photos, small contrails can be seen from air conditioning outflow valves positioned at the back of aircraft.)

Some people think that the prescribed temperature is the temp of the air. ( I used to). The RH, as seen from the definition above is actually based on the temperature of the water itself, which undoubtedly has implications for contrail formation.

In the link provided, an old newspaper article is featured. This is an example of poor research as Max has homed in on a quote that says that contrails only form in a narrow band. (most days this is probably true). Max is trying to make an issue of the amount of contrails seen above his house in France, which is at the crossroads of some of the busiest air routes in Europe. Reading the rest of the article confirms everything about contrails, however Max ignores that bit.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19550422&id=eK9YAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WfcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2904,5247238
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member
An example of differing RH values in a small space. Fox put up a video of a Qantas A380 landing at LAX and causing a bit of localised fog around the aircraft, primarily over the wings.

As the aircraft approaches the RH would have been approaching saturation level (100%) for the temperature at the airport. That can be seen from the cloud bank below it.The condensation begins as the aircraft sinks into the wispy bits of the cloud bank. As the A380 goes into the flare manoeuvre (raising the nose to arrest the rate of descent just prior to landing) more lift is generated over the wings and hence the pressure over the wings drops. This causes a temperature drop to the temp that saturation occurs, called the Dew point, and a local cloud forms over the fuselage as well as over the wings. The air is warmed and it slows down as enters the exhaust area behind the aircraft, the RH drops and the condensation reverts to water vapour.

This warm-colder-warmer process is the reverse of the situation described in Max's reference, but is a great example of localised RH changes.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/24356678/quantas-a380-aircraft-lands-at-lax-and-creates-fog
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Max still doesn't understand the concept. This video addresses me directly and I have answered him. I am not holding my breath for a retraction though.

 

cloudspotter

Senior Member
Max still doesn't understand the concept. This video addresses me directly and I have answered him. I am not holding my breath for a retraction though.

I like the bit where he says the air from outside has to go through an air con unit because it's so cold and then in the next breath goes on to talk about relative humidity. :D
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member
Max has posted a Flightradar24 screenshot and has on the face of it done a fairly thorough job of it by including (what could be) a photo of the plane (impossible to tell for sure) and radiosonde data for the area from what appears to be three hours earlier although the date and time aren't included on the Flightradar24 screenshot.

max.jpg

However if we look at the full data from the radiosonde and the ones immediately before and after we can see that there is an issue with the data stream.

http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sou...AR=2014&MONTH=01&FROM=0700&TO=0800&STNM=07510

We can also see from the comment in the bottom left corner that Max doesn't understand the variability of conditions or the role of relative humidity in contrail formation despite the fact that he is using the cabin RH to prove that contrails shouldn't be forming. Very mixed messages.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's very unfortunate that most radiosondes don't really work for humidity at contrail temperatures. The erroneous low readings make it easy for people to claim contrail should not form. Maybe Max could have a look at this:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ac...midity-soundings-for-contrail-prediction.758/

This graph being the most telling:


It's an example of the same conditions measured with three types of radiosonde humidity meter. The red line is the most accurate (actual) relative humidity, the green and blue are what most radiosondes report. Where it crosses the dashed line (ice saturation) is where contrails persist.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
Some radiosondes do not transmit any RH data when the temperature is below -40°C because of the poor (dry) values sensed.
These instruments measure temperature with a thermister which is pretty accurate.
The moisture is sensed in terms of RH by a thing called a "humicap" (I think). Vaisala of Finland supply most of the world's meteorological services with this equipment, but the French use a different supplier, and I think you will find no French mainland or dependency (Tahiti, New Caledonia, others?) radiosonde stations giving RH at temperatures below -40.

So it's not so much an issue with the data stream; there is no RH data for temperature below -40°C by design.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So it's not so much an issue with the data stream; there is no RH data for temperature below -40°C by design.
I wish they would do that for the US stations, it seems like over 90% of them just give essentially random low readings below -40
 

hemi

Active Member
I don't know if it's been mentioned here yet but some of these readings are about to be much more accurate and timely:

http://www.airlinesanddestinations....s-on-87-jets-to-help-u-s-weather-forecasting/
I was wondering what that equipment would look like, and how soon it might work its way onto the chemtrail forums as further proof of spraying apparatus, but, from the following video, it might be a bit of a stretch to finger this as an aerosol-delivery mechanism (although, maybe not)...

 

cloudspotter

Senior Member
Some radiosondes do not transmit any RH data when the temperature is below -40°C because of the poor (dry) values sensed.
These instruments measure temperature with a thermister which is pretty accurate.
The moisture is sensed in terms of RH by a thing called a "humicap" (I think). Vaisala of Finland supply most of the world's meteorological services with this equipment, but the French use a different supplier, and I think you will find no French mainland or dependency (Tahiti, New Caledonia, others?) radiosonde stations giving RH at temperatures below -40.

So it's not so much an issue with the data stream; there is no RH data for temperature below -40°C by design.
I did wonder about three faulty ones in a row but they do indeed all cut off at -40. Add to that the fact that the plane is descending and it makes it even tougher to tell the conditions the plane was flying through.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
I did wonder about three faulty ones in a row but they do indeed all cut off at -40. Add to that the fact that the plane is descending and it makes it even tougher to tell the conditions the plane was flying through.
Right! I forgot to include that observation (the plane is descending 4000-odd feet per minute) in my post above.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
Well I think it is encouraging to see Max will accept some official data. It is clear he accepts Met Office (or le weather place as we think the French say) data especially given MI5 have hidden an island off the African coast. It seems a little sloppy cover up work. How does this fit in his narrative?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
I was wondering what that equipment would look like, and how soon it might work its way onto the chemtrail forums as further proof of spraying apparatus, but, from the following video, it might be a bit of a stretch to finger this as an aerosol-delivery mechanism (although, maybe not)...

1:56 "... securely ..." Hmmm; I don't think that data is going to be publicly available.
There is a bit of a problem with presentation of data like that - arbitrary location, altitude, time.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
I don't know if it's been mentioned here yet but some of these readings are about to be much more accurate and timely:

http://www.airlinesanddestinations....s-on-87-jets-to-help-u-s-weather-forecasting/
Off topic but I think a system like that may be preferable for the Met Office. Radiosondes partly caused £25 grand of damages over a 3 year period one even smashing a car windscreen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...eather-balloon-crashes-into-conservatory.html
 

Joe

Senior Member
I was wondering what that equipment would look like, and how soon it might work its way onto the chemtrail forums as further proof of spraying apparatus, but, from the following video, it might be a bit of a stretch to finger this as an aerosol-delivery mechanism (although, maybe not)...

Hmm ? A private airline working with the Government ?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
Off topic but I think a system like that may be preferable for the Met Office. Radiosondes partly caused £25 grand of damages over a 3 year period one even smashing a car windscreen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...eather-balloon-crashes-into-conservatory.html
I know. Those radiosondes are one of the "dirty little secrets" of the meteorological observation system.
In New Zealand, decades ago, a sheep farmer in the Canterbury High Country what hit by one of these while out riding his horse... twice! At that time the things were the size of a shoe box.

These days they are about the size of 2 pack of smokes. It is the Cu/Zn wet battery that is causing the damage. The rest is polystyrene, cardboard, wire and a PCB. Then there is 60 metres of tough string, a simple parachute and a shredded latex balloon, and maybe an Al-foil and balsa radar target. The US and Europe must be littered with them.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
You'll get the occasional farmer out there who might run into one of those things here in the US, with a tag on it saying where to return the radiosonde to...by what I've heard NOAA doesn't get a whole lot of them back. That adds up when you're doing it at over $100 a launch, at least twice a day, from several dozen stations...

But I digress.
 

justanairlinepilot

Active Member
1:56 "... securely ..." Hmmm; I don't think that data is going to be publicly available.
There is a bit of a problem with presentation of data like that - arbitrary location, altitude, time.
The same company put them in our Saab 340 aircraft under Northwest Airlines. They did the study on behalf of the NASA through the National Weather Service to help the weather models collect data at lower levels. The Saab 340 is a prop aircraft and doesn't get too high...(17K..ish). Funny, however, they work broken a lot. The equipment was useful when it worked, however.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
Max still peddling the low flying planes in his videos. Filmed on 16th January 2014. We know that he has access to Flight Radar 24 apps so why does he not provide the evidence that this aircraft has been caught 'spraying at low level' ?

01:00 Max states "That plane was so low it's ridiculous!"

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Max seems to be falling for a common optical illusion. Close to the horizon does not mean "low", it means far away.

Here I've stitched together some frames from the video, so you can see how this illusion arises.

 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Yes, I have seen chemtrail believers talk about "vertical" trails. I'm sure it's just that the trail is passing directly over them from the horizon.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
Max still peddling the low flying planes in his videos. Filmed on 16th January 2014. We know that he has access to Flight Radar 24 apps so why does he not provide the evidence that this aircraft has been caught 'spraying at low level' ?

01:00 Max states "That plane was so low it's ridiculous!"

There's that "nano" word again.


nanoScreenshot (759).png
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
Max at it yet again with the low aircraft claims in his recent video. He has a good old rant about Metabunk and Contrail Science, but I think he gets mixed up yet again with units stating that the aircraft is at 6,000 metres. I think he actually meant feet. In other videos he has then down to a few thousand feet.

In the description he states

We know that Max has access to Flight Radar apps so there is no excuse in not using them when he is making these videos. Clearly he knows he can't "catch them in the act" at low levels with the FR24 apps so he resorts to the old rant of 'low plane' in his videos. Here he is using the apps in the past.

The first airliner in the first video is a Boeing 777 of LAN Cargo. Registration N778LA. Flying at 29,000 feet.

The second airliner is a Boeing 737 of Royal Air Maroc. Registration CN-RGJ. Flying at 37,000 feet.

Playback facility will be available for about 30 days.

http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-02-02/12:04/12x/45.53,0.38/12

http://www.airliners.net/photo/LAN-Cargo/Boeing-777-F16/2211794/L

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Royal-Air-Maroc/Boeing-737-8B6/2220334/L
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think Max is applying a bit of a double standard there for "unmarked planes"

Contrail Plane: "Can we see any markings on that plane?" (implying there are none)
No-trail plane: "Difficult to see the marking at this distance"

Here's his video:


And the actual plane (Thanks @TEEJ !)
source: http://planefinder.net/data/airplanes/N778LA


You can see all the markings you would expect to see - the greyish blue tail, and a blurry registration number. Maybe a slight hint of the word "cargo" on the pilot's right side (blurred and blown out).
 
Last edited:

Gary Cook

Active Member
It is a sham so many people get stuck on chemtrails. there are other more insidious things like blatant government violence. Even if chemtrails were true the direct violence would be worse. I guess those on this forum could genuinely claim they are just reacting to the data being presented by chemtrail theorists.

there has been documented chemical weapon testing so I would not put it past government to be poisoning us but I would agree it is likely to be on the scale that people like Max say it is.

Do these planes admit residue from burning fossil fuels that is harmful?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TWCobra Debunked: Max Bliss and the Berlin Declaration Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra Max Bliss "3 chemtrails" Video. 20th June 2014 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Max Bliss performs seamless 180 U-Turn on global warming. Contrails and Chemtrails 13
TWCobra Debunked-Max Bliss implying that aluminium can be added to modern turbo-fan engine fuel. Contrails and Chemtrails 6
TWCobra Max Bliss inadvertently debunks most chemtrail theories Contrails and Chemtrails 10
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked-Aircraft engine oil systems used to dispense Chemtrail chemicals Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Statement from Michael Mulder of Aerotoxic.org regard claims by Max Bliss Contrails and Chemtrails 1
HappyMonday Max Bliss - Anonymous Chemtrails 'Airline insider' speaks out Contrails and Chemtrails 54
TheMindBoggles Max Bliss & David Lim - Genuine concern or fear mongering? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked (again) Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra Wigington/Max Bliss Debunked. Automated Chemtrail dispersal Commercial aircraft Contrails and Chemtrails 7
I Nathan Oakley's Flat Earth "Debates". Flat Earth 69
Hama Neggs Mike Glynn debates Peter Kusznir with Madisonstar Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Jay Reynolds Debunking in Live Debates Practical Debunking 4
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ben Geddy Happy to have found this site and Mick thru JRE! Practical Debunking 4
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Chemtrails and the Anti-Vaccine Movement Contrails and Chemtrails 34
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Demythologizing Prince's reference to "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 5
ParanoidSkeptic Chemtrails: Experiments on the Public Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Article: "Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School" Contrails and Chemtrails 92
skephu Chuck Norris on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
JFDee Debunked: Lichens and Moss on Trees Caused by Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Sausalito Spectral analysis of alleged "chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Safya Yassin, Missouri ISIS supporter and chemtrails believer arrested for threats Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Dan Page idea: a "Debunked" Stamp Practical Debunking 9
Z 3 military helicopters Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
MikeG Giant Snowflakes [Rimed Dendrites] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Balance Blatant photoshop deceit of BP refueling tank Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Dan Page Claim: Mobile app uses atmospheric data to prove chemtrails vs contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top