Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails

20160811-115134-bqpt2.jpg

In a paper publish in Environmental Research letters, August 2016, 77 scientists with expertise in atmospheric science and geochemistry were asked to give their expert opinions regarding the most common claims of evidence put forward by proponents of the "chemtrail" or "covert geoengineering" theory (referred to in the paper as a "secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP)". The evidence being photos of trails left by planes, and chemical analyses of air, soil, and water. The scientists overwhelming rejected the idea that the photos and tests were evidence of a secret spraying program. All of the atmospheric scientists and all but one of the geochemists saw nothing suspicious about the proffered evidence. The photos were all identified as contrails, and the chemical analyses were generally identified as expected results due to normal variation and poor testing methodology.

Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program
The paper (of which I am a co-author) came about partly as a response to problems scientists were having with harassment from chemtrail believers. The science of geoengineering is largely theoretical, however researchers in this field have been subject to threats, and disruptions at their conferences and during public talks.

Chemtrail believers frequently show the same kinds of evidence over and over. Because of the fringe nature of this belief many scientists simply ignore the issue and the claims of evidence are likewise ignored. Since the claims are often only refuted by online lay skeptics the believers in the theory think they may have more validity than they actually do. So by having a large number of actual experts examine the evidence and give their professional opinion, a more accurate assessment of the evidence can be given to the believers.

And it is a large number of experts, have a look at the list of atmospheric scientists polled:
  • Andrew Carleton, Penn State University
  • Andrew Heidinger, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Andrew Heymsfield, National Center for Atmospheric Research
  • Andrew J Weinheimer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
  • Brian A Ridley, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Bruce Anderson, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Bryan Baum, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Charles A Brock, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Charles E Kolb, Aerodyne Research
  • Christine Fichter, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
  • Christos Zerefos, University of Athens
  • Cynthia Twohy, NorthWest Research Associates
  • Darrel Baumgardner, Droplet Measurement Technologies
  • David Doelling, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • David Kratz, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • David Lee, Manchester Metropolitan University
  • David Lewellen, West Virginia University
  • David J Travis, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
  • Donald P Garber, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Eleftheratos Konstantinos, University of Athens
  • Gaby Radel, University of Reading
  • Guy Febvre, Observatory of Atmospheric Physics at Clermont-Ferrand
  • Hartmut Grassl, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
  • Jack Dibb, University of New Hampshire
  • Karen Rosenlof, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Klaus Gierens, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
  • Larry Miloshevich, Milo Scientific
  • Markus Garhammer, Ludwig-Maximilians-University
  • Matthias Tesche, Stockholm University
  • Michael Ponater, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
  • Michael Prather, University of California, Irvine
  • Otto Klemm, University of Muenster
  • Patrick Minnis, National Aeronautics & Space Administration
  • Piers Forster, University of Leeds
  • R Paul Lawson, Stratton Park Engineering Company
  • Rabi Palikonda ,National Aeronautics & Space Administration
  • Reinhold Busen, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
  • Robert Sausen, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
  • Robert Talbot, University of Houston
  • Ru-Shan Gao, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Sonia M Kreidenweis, Colorado State University
  • Stephan Bakan, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
  • Tatiana Khokhlova, University of Washington
  • Thilo Stilp European, Aviation Group for Occupational Safety and Health
  • Tove Svenby Norwegian, Institute for Air Research
  • Ulrich Schumann Institute, of Atmospheric Physics
  • Ulrike Burkhardt, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
  • Volker Grewe, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
  • William L Smith, National Aeronautics and Space
Every single one of these scientists rejected the hypothesis that the four photos shown were evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). They all identified the trails as contrails, and gave scientific explanations for the effects seen in each photo.

The photos were chosen to illustrate the most common type of photographic evidence presented by chemtrail believers:

a) Planes leaving long trails where seemingly adjacent planes leave no trails
b) Trails from planes that leave gaps
c) Trails that seem to come from the whole wing surface, and exhibit a spectrum of colors
d) Multiple persistent trails curving and criss-crossing the sky.​

(unfortunately since Environmental Research Letters is a UK publication, they were not able to display all the photos due to the more restrictive UK copyright laws. I have reproduced them all in the copy of the figure above).

As well as simply giving a yes/no answer on if they thought the photos were evidence of covert geoengineering, the scientists were asked to explain what they thought was going on in the photo. For example the photo (b) with the gap in the trail (credit: Forest M. Mims III)


The atmospheric scientists were all asked a simple question:
"What is the most likely reason there is a gap in this trail?"

A variety of answers were given, for example:
  • "A local area of the upper troposphere where the temperature or the humidity (or both) are below the threshold values needed for a persisting contrail (e.g., due to locally sinking air at that altitude, which warms up and dries out the air)."
  • "A dry spot."
  • "Water vapor fields are not homogeneous or uniform. Part of the contrail is in a region where the relative humidity is less than 100% with respect to ice and the crystals are evaporating"
  • "Aircraft passing through local turbulence condition (strong upwinds?) leading to a rapid break-up of the vortex in the area. Likely to accelerate also the break up of the vortex."
  • "Atmospheric variability: In that area the air is probably not moist enough, not a ice supersaturated region ."

These various answers were manually grouped into the four most common variants, along with an "other" category, and the results were graphed:
20160811-090344-lcili.jpg


The results were similar for the other three photos, as seen in the top image.

The scientists were also asked "Could you provide a citation to a publication describing the mechanisms that most likely account for the phenomena shown in the photo?", and a wide variety of scientific papers were cited with the most common reference for photo (b) being Schumann’s ‘On conditions for contrail formation from aircraft exhausts’ (1996) and Schumann’s ‘Formation, properties, and climate effects of contrails’ (2005), both cited by 6% of experts.

The geochemists survey was slightly less clear cut, which probably reflects the more ambiguous nature of the data, and lack of information regarding collection procedures. Three chemical analyses were presented, all of which we picked because they have been continually cited by chemtrail believers for several years, and are still in use as of today. Unfortunately they were not reproduced in the paper, so I will reproduce them here.

Analysis a, pond sediment
20160811-092052-7uvae.jpg

Analysis b, airborne particulates:
20160811-092146-vayl1.jpg

Analysis c, Snow Surface
20160811-092329-pn3ow.jpg

With the results:

20160811-092442-h8ira.jpg

The question with the most consesus is the pond sample, which was featured in the film "What In The World Are They Spraying?" in 2010. The scientists were asked:
"Do you think the most parsimonious explanation of these results involve the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program?

If yes, why? If not, how would you interpret these results?"​

As with the contrail photos the answer was generally "no" and there were a variety of interpretations which were grouped as seen above. Some sample responses:
  • "It looks like about 5 grams of average soil or desert dust in a liter of sludge, quite reasonable."
  • "I would compare the concentration of Al, Ba and Sr to that in local sources (e.g., local streams, rocks/sediments/soil, discharges from local facilities)."
  • "The elemental concentrations are consistent with silicate mineral dissolution. The Al concentration could be due to colloidal Al. Nothing unusual here, No red flags from this data. More really needs to be known; i.e what is the pH and O2 status of the pond, also what is the DOC. Hard to say much from 3 concentration numbers"
  • "Most likely anthropogenic pollution (industrial or municipal); any more detailed interpretation would require knowledge of the environmental context"
  • "All three of these elements are major constituents of crustal material. The concentrations reported for the three elements are much less than what is present in average upper continental crust. The results report an aluminum concentration of 375000ppb which is less than 0.04%. Average continental crust is 7.96% aluminum (Wedepohl, 1995). All three elements are reported at values two-three orders of magnitude less than crustal values."
Interestingly in the other two samples, there was one scientist who actually did think the results were evidence of secret spraying program. This seems to be due to him interpreting the results without sufficient context about what actually was being tested, and what the expected results should be for that test. They also claimed 'high levels of atm[ospheric] barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium'. It's not clear what they mean by "high" here, or what tests they are actually referring to. This one person is very much an outlier result.

The confusion about what the test actually represented was shared by other scientists, some of whom took the comparison against the MCL levels at face value, but others correctly identified the problems, like with the second sample:

  • "As in the last example, the units reported are not directly interpretable. Are the results reported as concentration in air, or as concentration in a lab prepared solution? There are many possible sources of these metals as airborne particulates, especially in an urban environment."
  • "The concentrations per unit mass look like average soil or desert dust. The MCL values are not relevant, and look to be based on drinking water standards"
  • "Presence of particles from aeolian [wind] erosion?"
  • "Firstly, all three elements are common constituents of crustal material. This figure does not provide adequate information regarding collection methods, location, analytical methods, etc for one to make any judgement regarding their validity whatsoever. Further, the MCL values quoted are for contaminants in water not air."
  • "Probably from mineral particles."

In addition the scientists were asked to give their assessment of the water testing procedure that geoengineringwatch.org used at the time for analysis (a).

The results were largely critical (emphasis mine):
Atmospheric scientists were also asked if contrails were persisting more now than they were before, about half of them said yes, for a variety of reasons.
Participating in this study was a very interesting experience for me. It actually started over two years ago, in July 2014, when I was approached by Christine Shearer who was in the very early stages of working on the study with Steve Davis and Ken Caldeira. My contributions were largely based on my experience of what claims of evidence the chemtrail community commonly used, and we spend some time debating which photos and tests would be most representative, and how to phrase the survey questions.

Progress seemed very slow, as the main authors had other projects to work on. With chemtrails being a bit of a fringe subject it seemed difficult for some people in the academic community to take it seriously, and there were occasional reports of people being highly surprised at the very idea of such a study, including some of the experts who were surveyed (or who were asked, but declined).

The surveying was completed early 2015, but again other commitments kept the main authors from working much on the project until later in the year. I contributed a little to the wording and proof reading, but the vast bulk of the work collating the results, writing the paper, and creating figures was done by Christine and Steve. The paper was completed in early 2016, and published on August 10th 2016.

The big question of course is: will it help? Time will tell. There's some debate regarding fringe subjects as to whether they should be addressed at all. If you take conspiracy theories seriously enough to write a peer reviewed paper rebutting them, then does it actually make the theory more plausible for some people? Will media coverage of the paper actually just lead to more people being exposed to the chemtrail theory? These are genuine concerns.

My hope is that our attempt to ask neutral questions about the photos, and the honest responses of the experts, will act as a reality check. Is it really possible that these 49 listed atmospheric scientists, from all over the world, scientists who are leading experts in the field of clouds and contrails, is it possible they are all wrong? And if not (and surely nobody would argue they are all simply mistaken) then is it possible that all of them are in the employ of whoever is doing the "covert geoengineering"? And these are a representative sample of thousands of similar experts. Are they all wrong too?

Ultimately there's no convincing some people, and this study may well backfire for the hardcore conspiracist. But for people on the fence, who have not yet fallen down the rabbit hole, I think it will help them. I think this help will outweigh any harm. But time will tell.





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the original sources of the photos and test results:

Plane Trails

Photo 1 - Longer and Shorter Trails
Source: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showgallery&Number=8579#.VmW6r-MrKEI
Photographer: "Bornfree" (anonymous forum poster)
Captioned: "Two Contrail planes alongside one Chemtrail plane. These pictures were taken in Tucson Arizona in 2011."

Photo 2 - Trail with gap in between
Current Source: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-government-coordinated-chemtrail-conspiracy-continues-unabated/
Previously: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-05-28/news2/index.html
Photographer: Forrest M. Mims III
Caption: "The break in this contrail indicates drier air than the air in which the contrail is visible."
Published in 2004

Photo 3 - Trails with color spectrum in between
Current Source: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/plane-flying-over-sea-of-clouds-leaving-high-res-stock-photography/71083312
(Previously: http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Cargo/Boeing-747-206BM(SF-SUD)/0239080/L/ )
Photographer Josef P. Willems
Caption: "KLM Flight 9165 from Amsterdam to Dubai, cruising at FL350, seen from 1000 ft above. Maybe the largest trails I've ever seen..."
Photo taken May 21, 2002

Photo 4 - Swirling Trails
Source: http://war.163.com/07/1225/08/40I0FABE00011MTO.html (http://archive.today/ojnZc)
Caption: "战机大规模演习后空中流下的尾迹。" (Contrails behind fighter jets in the large scale exercise)
Photographer unknown, possible an official Chinese government photo.

Deposition

Sample 1 - Pond Sediment
Source video: "What in the World Are They Spraying",
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis
Time: 30:10
Sample taken 04/29/2007, Dane Wigington

Sample 2 - Air particulates
Source: http://arizonaskywatch.com/az-tests/our charts/phx_particulates_2008.htm (Crop of third image)
Sample take 05/01/2008, Air through Hepa Filter, by "Arizona Skywatch"

Sample 3 - Snow Surface
Source video: "What in the World Are They Spraying"
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis
Time 25:03
Sample taken 07/08/2008, Rose Taylor

Geoengineeringwatch Water Testing Procedure:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/html/watertesting.html (http://archive.is/tskGA)
 
Last edited:

Comments

Dane Wigington's counter-survey:

Scientists Surveyed Unanimously Refuse To Deny Climate Engineering Reality
From 1518 climate scientists, only 1 was willing to state that geoengineering was not going on, but even that single one has not confirmed his answer a second time.

The survey question was:
[bunk]Please REPLY and mark an "X" in one of the two blanks below.

_____ Yes, as an expert/scientist I can confirm that global atmospheric geoengineering programs have not yet been deployed.

_____No, as an expert/scientist I cannot confirm that global atmospheric geoengineering programs have not yet been deployed.[/bunk]

A few scientists commented on that:
Alan Robock:
Two other scientists:
 
Last edited:
From 1518 climate scientists, only 1 was willing to state that geoengineering was not going on, but even that single one has not confirmed his/her answer a second time.
And it sounds like he was the only one who responded with an answer. So 100% of the scientists who responded to a vague question said no " global atmospheric geoengineering programs " had been deployed.

Now he's published all their email addresses, and suggested his followers send them helpful information of geoengineering.
 
send them helpful information of geoengineering
It seems to me like publishing information like this might not invite entirely nice, helpful emails... It reminds me a touch of doxxing, when someone publishes another person's personal information (address, phone, etc) online. At the very least this is requesting that hordes of people send busy scientists a bunch of information, at worst the scientists could be receiving threatening emails...
 
It seems to me like publishing information like this might not invite entirely nice, helpful emails... It reminds me a touch of doxxing, when someone publishes another person's personal information (address, phone, etc) online. At the very least this is requesting that hordes of people send busy scientists a bunch of information, at worst the scientists could be receiving threatening emails...
well Dane did say to send "Credible" information, so since they still have to find some there shouldnt be emails anytime soon.
 
If it's the avatar pic that's flipped, I assumed it's just so that you are "looking into" the page. That's a basic design rule, that people's faces should be looking towards the centre of the page where possible. @Jay Reynolds and @deirdre get it right, but @Leifer doesn't ;)
My avatar was never designed to be an avatar. My image was using the older painting design rule....
......that because most westerners read or scan images left-to-right, my 3/4 view that faces to your left, forces the eye back to the beginning (the left).....which almost makes you see the image twice.

BTW Mick.....will your CSICON lecture be available as a public video ?
 
Working on releasing more of the raw data. Here's one set of comments with personal info redacted, very minor typos corrections (like aiirplane -> airplane), otherwise as written.

 
Answers to the broken trail question. Just one minor edit to remove identifying info, some minor typo corrections, sorted alphabetically for some grouping.

 
This study debunk nothing

-Every single one of these scientists rejected the hypothesis that the four photos shown were evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). They all identified the trails as contrails, and gave scientific explanations for the effects seen in each photo.

Scientists have a magical eyes ? Chemtrails/contrails have a same aspect, best scientists of the world or no , it's IMPOSSIBLE to say 100% is contrails on the pictures.

-SLAP is THE simple explanation ?

Why just ask if is the simplest explanation ? Give all possible explanations !
If contrails is the simplest explanation, what is the others possible explanations ? The hardest explanation ?

Photo B - ON/OFF spraying is ONE possible explanation ? YES !

-Question: "What is the most likely reason there is a gap in this trail?"

The most likely reason !? Give all possible explanations again ! No just, the "most likely".

And again for the samples, simplest, most likely... explanation but never if SLAP is one possible explanation... You can saying anything you want, SLAP is one possible explanation for all (photos & sample)

The only solution they have is to discredit the samples collect methode but why they don't do a news samples collects of 2016 ? IT'S THAT THE REALS SCIENTISTS DO WHEN THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SAMPLES !

Never they say, IT ISN'T SLAP ! They say, it's not THE SIMPLEST or THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION. They don't say : SLAP is an impossible explanation.

I can't think that the best scientists on the subject can do a work also low level !

The "experts" were not paid for this work, is the simplest/most likely explanation for this bad job ?

Sorry, if my english isn't perfect, i trying to do my best for that you can read it.
 
Last edited:
That would be an infinite number of explanations.
A basic principle in science is that the simplest explanation should be investigated first.
Ok but here the question is about 2 possibilities not an infinite, and the people they call conspiracy say, it's chemtrails. So the question for the scientists is : SLAP is the explanation or not ?

Not the Simplest explanation, most likely.... Especially if you want to be caught in the serious and coming from "specialists". Don't hide behind a basic principe. It's too easy & don't answer at the question : From where the elements far beyond their maximum contaminant levels ? From the planes or not ? That's the question the peoples ask, not the simplest, i don't need a "scientists" for saying to me the simplest explanation. One child can find the simplest explanation ! The planes don't reject only h2o. Where can i see, what he's the rejected ?

You say : the simplest explanation should be investigated first, i'm ok but when you don't have your answer, you investigate more.

So until every trail seen in the sky is tested you will say each one COULD be a "chemtrail"?
No, but i don't say it's impossible. When i could know from where the pollution contaminants then i could reply if yes or no it's from trails.
 
Last edited:
Why just ask if is the simplest explanation ? Give all possible explanations !
If contrails is the simplest explanation, what is the others possible explanations ? The hardest explanation ?
We didn't just if they thought SLAP was the simplest explanation, we asked them what they actually thought it was. None of them though the photos were anything even remotely like "chemtrails" or some kind of spraying. Read the posts directly before yours, where the various explanations are listed in the words of the scientists.
 
We didn't just if they thought SLAP was the simplest explanation, we asked them what they actually thought it was. None of them though the photos were anything even remotely like "chemtrails" or some kind of spraying. Read the posts directly before yours, where the various explanations are listed in the words of the scientists.
You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.
But there you are just saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrail experts.

So basically the photos are not evidence of "chemtrails". Which is the point. The study is about the proposed evidence. We show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails because they look and act like contrails.
 
You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.

[...]
Like Mick says, the study wasn't intended to disprove the possibility of chemtrails. It was intended to gauge what the consensus of experts is: people who study the atmosphere or soil all the time in their professional lives. If anyone should see evidence for chemtrails, it should be people who study those things. The fact is that they see any evidence for them, nor do they feel that chemtrails are needed to explain what they see in the sky or in water/soil samples.
 
But there you are just saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrail experts.

So basically the photos are not evidence of "chemtrails". Which is the point. The study is about the proposed evidence. We show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails because they look and act like contrails.
Yes i saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrails experts. How are the chemtrails photos ? Can you show me for comparison ? Sorrry but Here we need a chemtrails experts, not a contrails "experts".
You don't show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails, you just show that isn't SIMPLEST EXPLANATION !

Like Mick says, the study wasn't intended to disprove the possibility of chemtrails. It was intended to gauge what the consensus of experts is: people who study the atmosphere or soil all the time in their professional lives. If anyone should see evidence for chemtrails, it should be people who study those things. The fact is that they see any evidence for them, nor do they feel that chemtrails are needed to explain what they see in the sky or in water/soil samples.
Quantifier Expert Consensus AGAINST Covert géoingénierie / Chemtrails

- Je vous laisse chercher la traduction : https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasoir_d'Ockham

Une formulation plus moderne est que « les hypothèses suffisantes les plus simples sont les plus vraisemblables ». C'est un des principes heuristiques fondamentaux en science, sans être pour autant à proprement parler un résultat scientifique. Dans le langage courant, le rasoir d'Ockham pourrait s'exprimer par la phrase « Pourquoi faire compliqué quand on peut faire simple ? ». Cependant, la simplicité dont il est question ici ne signifie pas que l'hypothèse la plus simpliste, la plus évidente ou la plus conventionnelle est forcément la bonne.

 
You don't show that in the case of these photo they are not evidence of chemtrails, you just show that isn't SIMPLEST EXPLANATION !
We show that the experts think they are contrails.

We also show the experts have found no evidence of chemtrails.

There might still be chemtrails, just that these photos are not evidence of it.
 
That the experts think... with her magical eyes... You turn around... Show me chemtrails photos for comparison !?
No evidence of chemtrails is not an evidence of no chemtrails. A real prove can be but they never given. They just want debunked, it's why the study name "The experts against..."

There might still be chemtrails, just that these photos are not evidence of it.
This is one of the answers that should have been in this study if it had really been serious. And it is all your honor to finally acknowledge it, pity that it did not come from you and that it was necessary to debate so much to have this truth. SLAP is a possible explanation to each element, the one that says the opposite is not credible! I do not assert in any case that this is the explanation and also acknowledges that it might be contrails but until someone does a study worthy of the subject treated, for me the two possibilities remains conceivable.
Now, i see that You delete and edit my answers that seem not to please you, because they are off topic. All my questions, remarks or other are related to what is said in this study. No need to answer more in these conditions. But I'm not surprised, it fits well with the low level of this study ... Hav fun, You can now delete & edit all you want to match your needs.
 
Last edited:
So if we had titled it:

"Quantifying expert consensus about the evidence for the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program"

Would that have been okay?
 
No if they have, do a samples 2016 in the con/chem-trails & show an evidence that it's not the reason of high levels of contanimants (far beyond their maximum...), i have been ok

If they have saying also : there might still be chemtrails but that photos are not evidence of it. I maybe can think that this study is a serious work.

I wait again your chemtrails photos for conparison...
 
Yes i saying there might be chemtrails that look exactly like contrails to contrails experts. How are the chemtrails photos ? Can you show me for comparison ?
If by "chemtrail" you mean some aerial spray that produces persistent spreading trails when contrails would not be persistent and spreading, I don't think that is possible. No matter what you spray in the air, it will not persist and spread unless contrails also persist and spread. But then you can simply use contrails to produce such trails.
 
Now, i see that You delete and edit my answers that seem not to please you, because they are off topic. All my questions, remarks or other are related to what is said in this study.
Please read the posting guidelines
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

If you'd like to discuss other topics related to 'chemtrails' find teh appropriate thread or start a new one.


but until someone does a study worthy of the subject treated, for me the two possibilities remains conceivable.
You seem to be misunderstanding the study.

Actual experts, in atmospheric fields, were shown the evidence that 'chemtrail experts' claim is evidence for chemtrails. The 'chemtrail experts' photos claim that these are chemtrails is ONLY based on visual assessment. "Look up".

'Chemtrail experts' claim that those particular water/soil samples prove chemtrails.

The actual experts opinions were that those particular 'claims of evidence from chemtrail experts', presented to them, did not prove chemtrails.

That's all the study was about.



i added bold for emphasis:
 
You can ask what you want, all explanations given by scientists can be possible but i have say : they don't have a magical eyes for say if it's a contrails/chemtrails on the photos. And anothers explanations could be possible.

[...]
But apparently people who believe chemtrails exist do have such eyes - and while other explanations COULD be possible there are no actual real life scenarios that would enable them to exist.

Go figure.....
 
But apparently people who believe chemtrails exist do have such eyes - and while other explanations COULD be possible there are no actual real life scenarios that would enable them to exist.

Go figure.....
Exactly this. Go onto a chemtrail website of your choice and chances are it will tell people exactly how to identify chemtrails using only their eyes: because, they claim, chemtrails look different (spreading, persistent) from contrails (thin, quickly dissipating)!

The people claiming to have magic eyes aren't the experts quoted in this study, but the self-styled chemtrail experts who tell people all they have to do is "look up"!
 
If there ARE no chemtrails, how can there be chemtrail photos to compare with?
If ALL the evidence of chemtrails is visual (i.e looking at trails) but they don't look any different to normal persistent contrails, then there is NO specific evidence for chemtrails.
 
If there ARE no chemtrails, how can there be chemtrail photos to compare with?
If ALL the evidence of chemtrails is visual (i.e looking at trails) but they don't look any different to normal persistent contrails, then there is NO specific evidence for chemtrails.
I'd like to reiterate here that there is only one chemical known to form persistent spreading clouds (including trails) in the Earth atmosphere. It is called water and is already present in abundance at the Earth surface and in the atmosphere in three different states - solid (ice), liquid (water) and gaseous (vapour). Condensation of invisible vapour in the atmosphere creates visible clouds - aerosols of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals. Contrails (short for condensation trails) are the same clouds, their formation is triggered by the pressure drop on the aircraft wing and/or the injection of extra water vapour into the atmosphere - byproduct of hydrocarbon fuel burning.

No other chemical has been shown to have similar properties in the Earth conditions. Although other chemical compounds can be sprayed into the air, they will not hang there for long as a visible cloud; they will quickly dissipate as smoke does after the smoke generator's turned off. Therefore, until it is demonstrated experimentally, in laboratory conditions, that an alleged chemical compound or mixture can imitate the behaviour of water vapour in the atmosphere, the hypothesis of some persistent trails above being "chemtrails" can be dismissed as lacking scientific basis.

It should not be surprising at all that the expert scientists did not consider it seriously.
 
Which is another major point of course. MOST of the water was already in the atmosphere. There is not enough cargo capacity in ANY plane to be able to spray enough of ANYTHING to make clouds this big (bearing in mind they are foten hundreds of miles long.
 
This military fighter jet pilot explains contrails, he is what I would consider an expert as he has to be aware of conditions that produce contrails in order to not be easily seen. He covers a lot in this very good and informative 15 minute video.
 
Top