Reasoned, open, factual debate about 'chemtrails'...? Is it possible?

[tryblinking]

I stumbled across this chap, Patriot CAJeffO, advertising a challenge to confront any skeptic on the topic of 'chemtrails'. Specifically, he says:

My challenge to debate any one about the authenticity of information presented anywhere on my blog is aimed at delivering the truth.

He has seems to have rigorous rules and everything, so maybe its something to think about, for someone nearby.

 

[Mick West]

Seems like he's really interested in debating Illegal Immigration.

His chemtrail evidence is the usual stuff.
http://constitutionalvoices.org/bloggers/freedomblogger2/?page_id=2109

Amusingly he's taken some of the image from this post, while totally missing the point, and continuing to say there's something odd about the trails in the NASA photo.
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-grids-are-not-chemtrail-grids/

Specifically this:

I think his reasoning is:

A) Image contains trails
B) Image looks odd
C) Therefore it's chemtrails.

 

[firepilot]

No, because chemtrail believers do not deal in facts

 

[DeeDee]

Chemtrails?

Hi! New to this website. Born and raised a skeptic, and am a behavioral scientist. I am not a fan of 'conspiracy theories'.

I have been reading through some of the debunking here of 'chemtrails' and there is certainly much info regarding 'contrails'. In what I have been reading thus far, though, many of the arguments made against chemtrails seem to (at least implicitly) include underlying conspiracy theories in their operational definitions. In addition, chemtrails that people are reporting are automatically debunked as being contrails. So, in essence, many of the claims against chemtrails seem to be along the lines of: you think you are seeing ghosts, but what you really are seeing are tricks of light because this is what a trick of light is. Fair enough. But, that leaves me with the following questions:

If a plane WERE to spray chemicals from altitudes suggested (i.e., not something like crop dusting & I am not even getting into whether the govt is engaged in such practices, nefarious or otherwise), would it leave a trail? Is that possible or conceivable? Are there such things as 'chemtrails', the simplest definition of which would be a trail that exists in the high skies for however long and that is the result of a plane spraying chemicals? And, if so, would it be observable from ground level and what would be its characteristics? If it *did* exist, what would distinguish it from a contrail? And, could it result in residual fall-out?

Thanks in advance

 

[Mick West]

Sure, there could be secret spraying that leaves no evidence.

But that is not what is claimed, and is not what has been debunked.

 

[MikeC]

DeeDee, videos of agent orange spraying show how it might look if the same sort of stuff was being sprayed - and how long it might remain visible for - which isnt' very long because het purpose of the defoliant was to disperse and not stay in a cloud.

simlarly the Porton Down video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkWv1hk0vEo) shows trails that are usually barely visible and appear to disperse quite quickly.

IMO it is somewhat ironic that if there was a "real chemtrail", and if it were visible as sprayed, it would probably disperse rapidly in order to have whatever effect it was supposed to have - ie short trails would be the chemicals, not long ones, directly the opposite what what hte hoax oftenassumes.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

In what I have been reading thus far, though, many of the arguments made against chemtrails seem to (at least implicitly) include underlying conspiracy theories in their operational definitions.

I'd like for you to expand on this. Are you speaking about the idea that some are promoting the chemtrails idea for egotistical reasons, riding it on other conspiracy theories, or supporting another anti-governmental grudge, or simply seeking fame or fortune off of chemtrails?

If a plane WERE to spray chemicals from altitudes suggested, would it leave a trail?

Not sure what you mean by "The altitudes suggested". The altitudes being debunked are the ones being observed, which can be documented photographically. There are claims of low altitude chemtrails, but none are documented photographically, so those aren't really worth discussing. However, the current iterations of the hoax seems to be settling on geoengineering, which would take place at about twice the altitude being photographed. That is one major failing of the believers, one which they don't really address because it reveals a critical weakness in their claims.

Is that possible or conceivable?

As a skeptic, we have to keep everything conceivable, or possible, but only accept as a hypothesis that which can be documented, proven by evidence, tested and found repeatable. Even then, there will be unknowns which could cause that acceptance to change.

Are there such things as 'chemtrails', the simplest definition of which would be a trail that exists in the high skies for however long and that is the result of a plane spraying chemicals?

As you say, depends on your definition. The generally accepted definition by the believers is persistence, but there they vary, some more, some less. They use this wiggle room as deflection of criticism, and usually when cornered they will eventually say that even if ordinary contrails persist, those are chemtrails because they contain chemicals as a result of kerosene jet fuel combustion.

And, if so, would it be observable from ground level and what would be its characteristics?

One characteristic which would probably distinguish something being "sprayed", would be the lack of a "gap" between the engines and the start of the visible trail. As you can see in their photos, the gap is often quite apparent, and results from the time required for hot gases out of the engines to cool down to below zero and form the ice crystals. Solids or liquids being sprayed from nozzles would probably not have such a gap.
I've seen some creative ideas for working around this contradiction, however. Since it is clear that the trails being photographed align with the engines, have a gap, persist under ordinary contrail conditions, there are no real reasons to believe otherwise.

If it *did* exist, what would distinguish it from a contrail? And, could it result in residual fall-out?

(see above)

Now, I have some questions for you as a behavioral scientist.

1. How long will the chemtrails hoax last?
2. What is the best way for us to end it?
3. What are we doing right?
4. What are we doing wrong?

Please stick around, we need input from you.

 

[Mick West]

So, in essence, many of the claims against chemtrails seem to be along the lines of: you think you are seeing ghosts, but what you really are seeing are tricks of light because this is what a trick of light is. Fair enough.

Not really. The "claim against chemtrails" is that there's no evidence that they exist.

We are talking about debunking here. Debunking a topic does not mean proving the opposite of a topic. It means identifying and explaining the bunk in a topic. In this case the bunk is the things that people present as being evidence, such as the various soil and water tests, and photos of supposedly unusual looking trails. All those things have been repeatedly debunked.

I'm really not sure what could be behind your questions. They seem rhetorical. Of course you could spray chemicals in the high skys, and have them look like contrails. Why do you ask?

 

[lee h oswald]

radosonde data

[Duplicate post Deleted]

See response here:

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1525

 

[lee h oswald]

you're dealing with people holding an advocate position

Hi! New to this website. Born and raised a skeptic, and am a behavioral scientist. I am not a fan of 'conspiracy theories'.

I have been reading through some of the debunking here of 'chemtrails' and there is certainly much info regarding 'contrails'. In what I have been reading thus far, though, many of the arguments made against chemtrails seem to (at least implicitly) include underlying conspiracy theories in their operational definitions. In addition, chemtrails that people are reporting are automatically debunked as being contrails. So, in essence, many of the claims against chemtrails seem to be along the lines of: you think you are seeing ghosts, but what you really are seeing are tricks of light because this is what a trick of light is. Fair enough. But, that leaves me with the following questions:

If a plane WERE to spray chemicals from altitudes suggested (i.e., not something like crop dusting & I am not even getting into whether the govt is engaged in such practices, nefarious or otherwise), would it leave a trail? Is that possible or conceivable? Are there such things as 'chemtrails', the simplest definition of which would be a trail that exists in the high skies for however long and that is the result of a plane spraying chemicals? And, if so, would it be observable from ground level and what would be its characteristics? If it *did* exist, what would distinguish it from a contrail? And, could it result in residual fall-out?

Thanks in advance

I think your questions are all reasonable and deserve answers. I'm not sure you're in the right place to get them. As the heading suggests, you're asking the view of people with a pre-existing position; you won't get a rounded discussion here.
'Debunking' necessarily begins at a point where a position has been established and the debunker is not flexible in his/her approach, as I think you might find if you challenged any of these 'established' preferences (or indeed prejudices). The debunker is, to an extent, a cousin of the lawyer: the advocate for a position which can not move too much this way or that lest it ruin the case they have built and send the defendant down for a term, or let the accused go free. This is an accepted practice in law, but not science. The debunker's claims to be 'scientific' do not stand up to too much scrutiny. One of the (many) important aspects of science is that it has no ego; positions are changed on a regular basis - and in science this is considered to be progress. When one set of theories (which is all science is in essence) is replaced with another, more rounded set, then we consider this a move forward (to greater understanding?) until the same processes (testing/repeating/observing/noting etc) throw up yet another set of data/hypotheses that then supplant the former, and so on. The debunker is divorced from this process by their ego coupled to a static, or even stagnant position - somewhat akin to the religious zealot, dare I say. The world as science sees it is a fluid set of knowns and unknowns, constant interaction, development and finessing of data and observation leads to new discoveries, in contrast to the dogma of religion which is necessarily static (ofcourse there are different interpretations in religious matters, but interpreting is not the same as proving with all available knowledge and technical know-how at the disposal of the scientist; the religious story does not change - it must be constant).
I suppose, in short, there is an immutability in both religion and 'debunking' which is in direct conflict with the scientific method; without 'movement' science would go nowhere useful and 'progress' and the furtherance of our understanding of the universe would grind to a halt. Science relies on its mutability (and complete lack of ego) to drive understanding forward; so beware the pre-existing position; the mind already made up; the argument presented and heralded as 'scientific' when it is, in fact, more akin to the religious.

 

[Mick West]

I think you misunderstand what debunking is. You seem to be characterizing it as having a predetermined conclusion, and then arguing for that conclusion.

No, debunking is about removing the bunk. It's very much about having a neutral point of view, and looking at the evidence, and seeing if the evidence is correct. See my more detailed explanation here:

https://www.metabunk.org/content/129-A-Guide-to-Debunking

 

[lee h oswald]

bending of language

The words 'conspiracy theory' or 'conspiracy theorist' are now commonly used as a perjorative. When one considers the definitions of these words it might be considered surprising. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful, subversive or wrongful act. A theory is a set of general propositions designed to describe a hypothesis. I think it might be well to recall that it was one GW Bush, shortly after the events of 9/11, who made a statement that went something like this: We will not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11. Why not? Tolerance not a strong point? Possibly. Why would he make such a statement? Bush, it is demonstrable, is and was a liar. It is largely from that genesis (his statement) that these words are now bent to the perjorative when their actual meanings do not indicate anything of the sort. Actual meanings are important. Anyone wanting to align themselves with Bush, on pretty much any subject, wouldn't be doing anything to enhance their intellectual credentials.
Conspiracies have populated our history books since they were first written, and they still populate our media on a daily basis. Examples? Judas Iscariot conspired with others to betray Jesus Christ; Brutus conspired with others to murder Julius Caesar, '- et tu Brute?' What was The Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' if not a conspiracy? (now admitted and one which lead to the full-on assault and genocide in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos - 3 million dead); is it not demonstrable that the US and UK governments conspired to lie about 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq so as to enable two illegal wars of aggression and theft on a grand scale against two helpless countries? (2 million dead and still counting, 4 million displaced, epidemic of mental illness, poisoning of the environment with uranium weapons - more?). Iran/Contra - a conspiracy. Did the CIA conspire to remove the democratically elected Chavez from power in Venezuela? (as they have so many other times, notably in Chile, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua...want more?). Or more? The point is clear.

Is the difficulty psychological? as difficulty there appears to be. When one begins to use words or language designed for a purpose for another opposing purpose, then there is something to ponder. This particular 'conspiracy theory' example goes beyond what can be considered 'evolution' in language; examples of this evolution are many in argot - bad means good; likewise wicked, sick etc - these are natural sideshoots of a culture, or sub-culture, developing an identity, its identity being formed in part by its own language. The use of, let's say, 'ct', for brevity, as a perjorative is not like those examples. When you find here, on this webpage, perjorative use of this, not only but more particularly directed towards the '-ist', ie. the person first, then the idea, it begs a question. What is the meaning? If one claims to be scientific, logical, correct in word and deed and theory - then what is the meaning of this expression? Could someone explain the nuance?

 

[Mick West]

Interesting how you bemoan the negative connotations associated with "conspiracy theory", while simultaneously attempting a simplistic and negative interpretation of "debunking".

Of course there are real conspiracies. Everyone knows that.

That does not mean that every conspiracy theory is true, or every theory deserves serious consideration.

Regarding "chemtrails". I've given the theory a LOT of consideration. Take it very seriously. But the result was to reveal the lack of evidence supporting the theory. It's things like that that give "Conspiracy Theories" a bad name - because all too often that's the end result of any serious investigation.

This seems like a last resort - after all the evidence supporting your theory has been debunked, complain about language.

If the term offends you. Ignore it. Focus on the evidence.

 

[lee h oswald]

actually...

I think you misunderstand what debunking is. You seem to be characterizing it as having a predetermined conclusion, and then arguing for that conclusion.

No, debunking is about removing the bunk. It's very much about having a neutral point of view, and looking at the evidence, and seeing if the evidence is correct. See my more detailed explanation here:

https://www.metabunk.org/content/129-A-Guide-to-Debunking

...I think it's you doing the misunderstanding of what 'debunking' is. Like the lawyer you have taken your advocate role; either for the defence - which is usually in the 'mainstream' or conservative view - or the prosecution of an idea you cannot fathom for whatever reason. It is right here that you present yourself from an adversarial position, opposed to and ready to repel allcomers. Take a step back and look where you are. The environment (virtual though it is) you have created is one which presents as 'Metabunk'. You even quote me an article you wrote on a guide to 'debunking'. It's what you're here for! Your 'pre-existing' condition/position could not be more clear. The name of the page you frequently inhabit, and administer, is definitely not 'open-minded.com'.

 

[lee h oswald]

simplistic?

Interesting how you bemoan the negative connotations associated with "conspiracy theory", while simultaneously attempting a simplistic and negative interpretation of "debunking".

Of course there are real conspiracies. Everyone knows that.

That does not mean that every conspiracy theory is true, or every theory deserves serious consideration.

Regarding "chemtrails". I've given the theory a LOT of consideration. Take it very seriously. But the result was to reveal the lack of evidence supporting the theory. It's things like that that give "Conspiracy Theories" a bad name - because all too often that's the end result of any serious investigation.

This seems like a last resort - after all the evidence supporting your theory has been debunked, complain about language.

If the term offends you. Ignore it. Focus on the evidence.

Not bemoaning, pointing out a fact. I don't think it's that simplistic. Not everyone does know there are real conspiracies - spoken to many kids lately? Chemtrails? I've given them a LOT of consideration too. I also take it seriously. The result was to show a lot of evidence which could be described as empirical, circumstantial, scientific, heresay/eyewitness testimonial. A fair gamut. You haven't/can't define 'the theory'. There should be a serious investigation.

This is no resort. It's some facts. I don't think I complained about language - just pointed to the incorrect use of it and asked for a word on it. Didn't get it.

It's what the term stands for when used as a perjorative, which it is, many times on your site. It's not scientific, logical, correct or anything alse of value save an interesting sideshow of narrowness. There's a lot of evidence.

Guy called Milgram did an experiment - look it up. He found that 66% would administer what they thought was a fatal electric shock to another person just because someone in apparent authority told them to - 33% did not.

If it was 1964 and Tonkin had just happened - I'd be saying: don't like this, something's not right - you'd debunk me and call me a nut. Some people have different predispositions. I'd always prefer to be right the first time.

 

[Mick West]

Do you understand what I mean by the term "debunking"? How in my mind it's a scientifically neutral activity, focussing only on the quality of the evidence?

Or do you think I'm lying?

 

[lee h oswald]

not at all

Do you understand what I mean by the term "debunking"? How in my mind it's a scientifically neutral activity, focussing only on the quality of the evidence?

Or do you think I'm lying?

No. Ofcourse I don't think you're lying, neither have I implied that. If I did, I apologise, it is absolutely not my intention.

I fully understand (I think) what your angle is, but that's all it is, an angle (configured from the position you proactively - even aggressively - take up). I think where we differ is that I don't believe (and I think I'm right by all reasonable definitions) that it is possible to be 'neutral' in the way that you believe you are. All is subjected to the subjective. One might argue the Pirsig point that there are three possibilities in this realm: subjectivity, objectivity, quality. You have a belief that your focus is on the quality part - you cannot conceive that the subjective might interfere with this overarching 'neutrality' of the singularly qualitative approach you imagine.

Can you conceive of any recent, current or ongoing conspiracy of the elite? I'd be very interested to hear if you have

 

[Mick West]

Sure, I think there's a de-facto conspiracy by the many of the rich people to stay rich (and get richer). Best evidenced by the lobby system and the propaganda outlets like Fox News / News Corp.

My "angle" though is to look at individual pieces of evidence and see if they are bunk or not. I notice you don't actually point out any areas where I've got it wrong (on contrailscience.com), so perhaps I'm doing okay in managing my cognitive biases?

 

[Mick West]

OT, I'm going to prevent unregistered comments soon, due to problems with spam.

Can you please register and use that account. Feel free to use a throwaway gmail address if you want to remain anonymous.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

What the hell difference does it matter what we call anybody, or anyone calls us. If you are offended by a label, just ignore it, and grow thicker skin. This is all just elctronic blips on a screen, and most people are totally anonymous, so you have no pride to hurt. If you don't like the blips you see on this screen, go elsewhere, there are plenty more out there on the WWW, right?

I'll admit that I'm not always nice when speaking to or about some subjects, and yes, I have my rights to my opinions and respect you to have the right to yours, though I'll fight it out, curse it out, or call it out if I feel like it. I tried the nicey nice guy for a couple of years back before the turn of the century and caught hell during that time. So I got crotchety and come out swinging now, if you don't like it to hell with you. I can be reasoned, factual, and open as well, but on some subjects I see myself as being right on, I'll not hold back factually or rhetorically.

Let me tell you that even within the world of academic journal paper writing scientists, there is mudslinging, slagging, petty talk, jealousy, secrets and all the rest. Don't think for a minute that just because papers are published all pretty and nice that the best don't hold their strong opinions, debate and call each other names, and even fight about their own theories.

Once in awhile, frequently, sometimes, outright cases of "academic" fraud gets debunked. It doen't happen by somebody being all nicey-nice and putting up with bullshit. It happens when someone's work gets attacked, and often it's open and heated. Hell they tear each other new assholes on a regular basis. Read any of the climategate emails?

Like Mick said, do you really want bunk?

Is bunk acceptable to you?

You complain that we hold positions of Advocacy?
Bemoaning is a tame word for it.
Sounds like the whining of a loser to me.

Adversarial? That is exactly how to get to the truth. Most chemtrails people won't even come out and state their evidence,
much of it is hearsay on purpose, except that it's really say-hear, where they say they have something, but won't hear of showing it. Even the Case Orange CT's said they had receipts but never showed them. I've been waiting over a decade to see some lab tests that were said to have been done.....

Who really gives a damn if we are neutral or not. If you have proof, no amount of non-neutrality can stop it.

It sounds like you are just complaining that you can't get anywhere on chemtrails because you can't find facts to use,
or else you'd be throwing them in our face right now.
Instead we get yet another whining simpering dissertation on fairness.
Who ever told you life was going to be fair?

Don't expect me to keep my mind open to just any old thing you want to say because I hear
that running around with a totally exposed open mind leaves you vulnerable to infection. But if you convince me of something factual, better believe you'll have a friend for life.

 

[tryblinking]

Who really gives a damn if we are neutral or not. If you have proof, no amount of non-neutrality can stop it.

Exactly. EXACTLY.

 

[Mick West]

Indeed. Which is why I often tell the chemtrail believers to assume I'm a PTB spook. Just to get that out of the way, so we can focus on the evidence.

 

[lee h oswald]

ho diddly ho....quote: Jay Reynolds: If you have proof, no amount of non-neutrality can stop it.

Ok, let's see your proof for your position. The truth is you don't have any - all you do is say 'they're contrails, honest they are'.
It's quite telling that the three usual suspects sit around 'thanking' each other for their posts. What you do is 'poo-poo' what anyone says and keep talking about contrails. Your position is based on two basic tenets: 1) there are more aircraft than ever before and 2) contrails can likely be formed more often because of efficient new engines which have cooler exhaust and can therefore create contrails at a lower altitude (and it is worth noting here that the altitude difference is over around 300 feet - which is a gnat's whisker, ie. nothing in the context of aircraft flying betwen 30 and 40 thousand feet). Your 'debunking', seen from your pre-supposed positions of advocacy for this version of events, tellingly and totally ignores the relatively new phenomenon of aircraft trails persisting and spreading and creating cloud cover on a regular basis. A very regular basis where I live. It was not always thus. The conditions for this to occur at altitudes between 30 and 40 thousand feet are very rare indeed, you choose to ignore this evidence and dismiss it as 'bunk'. There is no doubt in the mind of any observer who has watched these trails spread and cover the sky that this is what is happening. You ask people to believe that this is because of more planes and better new engines - worse, you appear to believe it yourselves. If the engines are better, more efficient than previously (and I quote an aeronautics engineer) then the emissions from these engines will only contain less particles of unburned hydrocarbons, soot, nitrogen, carbon monoxide etc. For clouds to form - AND THEY ARE FORMING EN MASSE FROM AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS - one needs condensation nuclei around which the moisture present coalesces. If the engines are more efficient than before, and the nuclei are only less - then how is it that this wasn't happening all the time in such volume when those older, 'less efficient' engines were all there was and they had more nuclei in their emissions - and it is happening in such volume that a lot of people are noticing the difference. The atmospheric conditions of the earth have not altered since the introduction of these new engines, so why is it, counter to the information, that we should actually be seeing more of this? - and drastically more - when the opposite should be true. Show me YOUR PROOF - you can't and you won't - you'll say blah blah ...contrails, blah - conspiracy blah, I'll shout if I want to blah blah blah. You have no more proof than the Warren Commission did that I did JFK all on my lonesome. You probably believe that as well - because there is no proof to the contrary - but there is a huge amount of evidence which supports the idea that he was a PATSY. You're patsys too, just willing ones with a psychological disorder which prevents you from opening your mind to all potential possibilities. That's the problem with your attitude - you think you're right and you behave righteously - you're narrow-minded. I disagree that the route to truth is by calling each other names and misusing language. Language is the way we communicate ideas, you prefer to use it as a club to hit people and ideas you don't like. And you claim the scientific high ground? Tell me another, it's almost funny.

I await your unequivocal 'proof' with interest

 

[lee h oswald]

What the hell difference does it matter what we call anybody, or anyone calls us. If you are offended by a label, just ignore it, and grow thicker skin. This is all just elctronic blips on a screen, and most people are totally anonymous, so you have no pride to hurt. If you don't like the blips you see on this screen, go elsewhere, there are plenty more out there on the WWW, right?

I'll admit that I'm not always nice when speaking to or about some subjects, and yes, I have my rights to my opinions and respect you to have the right to yours, though I'll fight it out, curse it out, or call it out if I feel like it. I tried the nicey nice guy for a couple of years back before the turn of the century and caught hell during that time. So I got crotchety and come out swinging now, if you don't like it to hell with you. I can be reasoned, factual, and open as well, but on some subjects I see myself as being right on, I'll not hold back factually or rhetorically.

Let me tell you that even within the world of academic journal paper writing scientists, there is mudslinging, slagging, petty talk, jealousy, secrets and all the rest. Don't think for a minute that just because papers are published all pretty and nice that the best don't hold their strong opinions, debate and call each other names, and even fight about their own theories.

Once in awhile, frequently, sometimes, outright cases of "academic" fraud gets debunked. It doen't happen by somebody being all nicey-nice and putting up with bullshit. It happens when someone's work gets attacked, and often it's open and heated. Hell they tear each other new assholes on a regular basis. Read any of the climategate emails?

Like Mick said, do you really want bunk?

Is bunk acceptable to you?

You complain that we hold positions of Advocacy?
Bemoaning is a tame word for it.
Sounds like the whining of a loser to me.

Adversarial? That is exactly how to get to the truth. Most chemtrails people won't even come out and state their evidence,
much of it is hearsay on purpose, except that it's really say-hear, where they say they have something, but won't hear of showing it. Even the Case Orange CT's said they had receipts but never showed them. I've been waiting over a decade to see some lab tests that were said to have been done.....

Who really gives a damn if we are neutral or not. If you have proof, no amount of non-neutrality can stop it.

It sounds like you are just complaining that you can't get anywhere on chemtrails because you can't find facts to use,
or else you'd be throwing them in our face right now.
Instead we get yet another whining simpering dissertation on fairness.
Who ever told you life was going to be fair?

Don't expect me to keep my mind open to just any old thing you want to say because I hear
that running around with a totally exposed open mind leaves you vulnerable to infection. But if you convince me of something factual, better believe you'll have a friend for life.

For context for any new readers: It might be worth pointing out that this Jay Reynolds is the same person who claims to have an organic farm - on which, by his admission, he grows genetically modified corn and sprays glyphosate. Perhaps judgement is not a strong point.

 

[Mick West]

ho diddly ho....quote: Jay Reynolds: If you have proof, no amount of non-neutrality can stop it.

Ok, let's see your proof for your position. The truth is you don't have any - all you do is say 'they're contrails, honest they are'.
It's quite telling that the three usual suspects sit around 'thanking' each other for their posts. What you do is 'poo-poo' what anyone says and keep talking about contrails. Your position is based on two basic tenets: 1) there are more aircraft than ever before and 2) contrails can likely be formed more often because of efficient new engines which have cooler exhaust and can therefore create contrails at a lower altitude (and it is worth noting here that the altitude difference is over around 300 feet - which is a gnat's whisker, ie. nothing in the context of aircraft flying betwen 30 and 40 thousand feet). Your 'debunking', seen from your pre-supposed positions of advocacy for this version of events, tellingly and totally ignores the relatively new phenomenon of aircraft trails persisting and spreading and creating cloud cover on a regular basis. A very regular basis where I live. It was not always thus. The conditions for this to occur at altitudes between 30 and 40 thousand feet are very rare indeed, you choose to ignore this evidence and dismiss it as 'bunk'. There is no doubt in the mind of any observer who has watched these trails spread and cover the sky that this is what is happening. You ask people to believe that this is because of more planes and better new engines - worse, you appear to believe it yourselves. If the engines are better, more efficient than previously (and I quote an aeronautics engineer) then the emissions from these engines will only contain less particles of unburned hydrocarbons, soot, nitrogen, carbon monoxide etc. For clouds to form - AND THEY ARE FORMING EN MASSE FROM AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS - one needs condensation nuclei around which the moisture present coalesces. If the engines are more efficient than before, and the nuclei are only less - then how is it that this wasn't happening all the time in such volume when those older, 'less efficient' engines were all there was and they had more nuclei in their emissions - and it is happening in such volume that a lot of people are noticing the difference. The atmospheric conditions of the earth have not altered since the introduction of these new engines, so why is it, counter to the information, that we should actually be seeing more of this? - and drastically more - when the opposite should be true. Show me YOUR PROOF - you can't and you won't - you'll say blah blah ...contrails, blah - conspiracy blah, I'll shout if I want to blah blah blah. You have no more proof than the Warren Commission did that I did JFK all on my lonesome. You probably believe that as well - because there is no proof to the contrary - but there is a huge amount of evidence which supports the idea that he was a PATSY. You're patsys too, just willing ones with a psychological disorder which prevents you from opening your mind to all potential possibilities. That's the problem with your attitude - you think you're right and you behave righteously - you're narrow-minded. I disagree that the route to truth is by calling each other names and misusing language. Language is the way we communicate ideas, you prefer to use it as a club to hit people and ideas you don't like. And you claim the scientific high ground? Tell me another, it's almost funny.

I await your unequivocal 'proof' with interest

See, again I think you misunderstand "debunking". It's not about proving something does not exist. It's about demonstrating that the evidence used to support something is false.

For example - you claim that " It was not always thus", and yet there are plenty of people who do actually remember it being thus.

You claim it is "very rare indeed", yet decades old science papers call it "a common sight".

I actually think the new engines play only a fractional role in the amount of contrails. Like you say, the difference in height is quite small. But that's a bit of a red herring - you are trying to explain what you claim is a new phenomenon, yet you've not actually demonstrated that anything new is occurring.

Do you understand the role of ice supersaturation in contrail formation? Ice supersaturation is at around 70% relative humidity.

Did you know that water vapor will not condense on nuclei if RH is under 100%

Did you know that water vapor WILL NOT accrete (as ice) on nuclei, but WILL accrete on ice.

So given that, can you see that the presence of condensation nuclei in the exhaust is a bit of a moot point. The nuclei already exist in the atmosphere (although the exhaust does add a lot). That's why an engine that burns only hydrogen and oxygen (and hence produces ZERO nuclei) will still produce a contrail.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Ok, let's see your proof for your position. The truth is you don't have any - all you do is say 'they're contrails, honest they are'.

So what? Here are what contrails are, and they match every attribute of purported "chemtrails":
http://www.contrailscience.com

Here is how the chemtrails hoax got started:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/evolution.html

Your position is based on two basic tenets: 1) there are more aircraft than ever before and 2) contrails can likely be formed more often because of efficient new engines which have cooler exhaust and can therefore create contrails at a lower altitude

Not entirely, lee. My position is also based on 15 years experience documenting this hoax. I tracked it since it's inception. You probably had no idea how it started, but think about why you weren't told by those promoting the hoax- they don't want you to know or never bothered to find out for themselves.

There are many many other facts which document our positions, the majority of which can be found at http://www.contrailscience.com
These are open for discussion here or there at any time. If yu want to debate the issue, make an affirmative statement and we'll have at it.

(and it is worth noting here that the altitude difference is over around 300 feet - which is a gnat's whisker, ie. nothing in the context of aircraft flying betwen 30 and 40 thousand feet).

Ok, that looks like an affirmative, declarative statement to me.
Back it up with some facts, figures, and evidence.

Your 'debunking', seen from your pre-supposed positions of advocacy for this version of events, tellingly and totally ignores the relatively new phenomenon of aircraft trails persisting and spreading and creating cloud cover on a regular basis. A very regular basis where I live. It was not always thus.

This is gettting better. Define your claim better, show us at least some shred of proof for this "relatively new phenomenon", when did you first notice it(date), what is the location(lat, long), how do you define persisting(what do you consider as being too long to be an ordinary contrail), spreading(how large is too large for an ordinary contrail to spread)?

The conditions for this to occur at altitudes between 30 and 40 thousand feet are very rare indeed, you choose to ignore this evidence and dismiss it as 'bunk'.

Again, indeed, define "rare indeed" in your case, have you researched the frequency of formation and persistence for ordinary contrails? What were your findings?

There is no doubt in the mind of any observer who has watched these trails spread and cover the sky that this is what is happening. You ask people to believe that this is because of more planes and better new engines - worse, you appear to believe it yourselves.

Ah, but there is considerable doubt in my own mind, and I base it on actual IDENTIFICATION of the unique aircraft making persistent, spreading contrails over my own area. Because I measured, I KNOW! Have you ever actually identified my any means whatsoever even one aircraft you have seen making these purported "chemtrails"?

If the engines are better, more efficient than previously (and I quote an aeronautics engineer) then the emissions from these engines will only contain less particles of unburned hydrocarbons, soot, nitrogen, carbon monoxide etc.

Ah, to some extent this may be true, though the relative proportions might change. But you forgot that higher efficiency means the combustion is closer to an ideal stoichiometric equation, more efficiency means more water produced. And you forgot that the engines are getting larger, more fuel burned, more water produced as well. There is more....

For clouds to form - AND THEY ARE FORMING EN MASSE FROM AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS - one needs condensation nuclei around which the moisture present coalesces. If the engines are more efficient than before, and the nuclei are only less - then how is it that this wasn't happening all the time in such volume when those older, 'less efficient' engines were all there was and they had more nuclei in their emissions

See above answer. More fuel, more water, more nuceli. Remember, it is more about the water than anything else, the ice crystals nuceate and grow. Bergeron wasn't just a Vonnegut character.

The atmospheric conditions of the earth have not altered since the introduction of these new engines, so why is it, counter to the information, that we should actually be seeing more of this? - and drastically more - when the opposite should be true.

How do you know that other atmospheric properties have not changed? Some say they have, who don't for a minute believe in checmtrails. Ordinary aerosols in the atmosphere change over time, water vapor changes, temperatures change. Aviation routes change. Are you just being subjective, is this a personal observation, or do you have documentation that nothing in the atmosphere has changed?

Show me YOUR PROOF - you can't and you won't

Stand by. All your claims will be discussed and I will stick to it till each and every one is covered.
Bring on your responses and requests for moe documentation from me if needed.

I strongly suggest you study this to catch up on whatever it is that your anonymous "aeronautics engineer"
told you.
http://www.aero-net.info/fileadmin/aeronet_files/links/documents/DLR/Schumann_Contrails.pdf

What was his name, by the way, if you please?

You might also at least consider following some of my suggestions here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions

 

[Jay Reynolds]

For context for any new readers: It might be worth pointing out that this Jay Reynolds is the same person who claims to have an organic farm - on which, by his admission, he grows genetically modified corn and sprays glyphosate. Perhaps judgement is not a strong point.

My farm is not currently in operation. I am currently employed as a US Merchant Marine Officer at the rating of Chief Engineer.

I did produce several crops of corn which contained the bt gene against the corn earworm, and used glyphosate with a hand squirt bottle to eradicate ~300 square feet of poison ivy on forest land away from all crops.

 

[lee h oswald]

See, again I think you misunderstand "debunking". It's not about proving something does not exist. It's about demonstrating that the evidence used to support something is false.

There is no misunderstanding on my part relating to what debunking is. One cannot prove that something does not exist. You have not even defined 'the theory' you claim to prove false - you have even stated it in these pages that you cannot define 'the theory'. How can you therefore prove falsity to a theory you cannot define?

For example - you claim that " It was not always thus", and yet there are plenty of people who do actually remember it being thus.

You claim it is "very rare indeed", yet decades old science papers call it "a common sight".

What I claim is very rare indeed, if you read it again, is for the right humidity conditions to exist at that altitude for what we are seeing. ie. 70% humidity at 30-40000 feet is pretty scarce where I come from.
Also: interesting to note your shifting goalposts: when it suits you, anecdotal evidence is evidence - when it doesn't, it's 'bunk'. Which is it?

I actually think the new engines play only a fractional role in the amount of contrails. Like you say, the difference in height is quite small. But that's a bit of a red herring - you are trying to explain what you claim is a new phenomenon, yet you've not actually demonstrated that anything new is occurring.

It is difficult to demonstrate a comparison to difference when the former condition has passed in time - please tell me how I might do that. Not all relevant evidence can always be available on tap. You have not demonstrated that something new is not happening - so we're equal there. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is something new happening - do you agree?
So now your argument is reduced to simply 'more aircraft'. Is that right?

Do you understand the role of ice supersaturation in contrail formation? Ice supersaturation is at around 70% relative humidity.

Yes I do.

Did you know that water vapor will not condense on nuclei if RH is under 100%

Yes I did.

Did you know that water vapor WILL NOT accrete (as ice) on nuclei, but WILL accrete on ice.

Yes I did.

So given that, can you see that the presence of condensation nuclei in the exhaust is a bit of a moot point. The nuclei already exist in the atmosphere (although the exhaust does add a lot). That's why an engine that burns only hydrogen and oxygen (and hence produces ZERO nuclei) will still produce a contrail.

It may be a moot point - it may not. That may well be the heart of the argument. Because of the variables involved in the formation of condensation trails, it is not totally understood. One only needs to look at the prediction methods for and against formation and to see the innaccuracy of these methods to know that we don't have a great handle on this, not by a long chalk.
What we do know is that there is a great proliferation of aircraft emissions turning into cloud cover - cirrus, yes - so ice crystals. What we should be asking is what has changed? Why this great increase? I think you have previously agreed that this is true - so what is your answer? More planes?

 

[Mick West]

Yes, more planes equates to more contrails.

There's also the the issue of more routes.

Also RVSM (Reduces vertical separation minima) allow more planes to be packed into the more efficient higher altitudes, which are more contrail conducive.

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima or Minimum (RVSM) is an aviation term used to describe the reduction of the standard vertical separation required between aircraft flying at levels between FL290 (29,000 ft.) and FL410 (41,000 ft.) from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet (or between 8,900 metres and 12,500 metres from 600 metres to 300 metres). This therefore increases the number of aircraft that can safely fly in a particular volume of airspace.

Also new engines contributes a little.

But I'd disagree that there was a SUDDEN change, which you seem to be suggesting. It varies from year to year, but has gradually increased, mostly from increased numbers of planes.

There are a variety of reasons why any one individual might think there was a sudden change, I'm sure you can think of a few.

 

[firepilot]

And the chemtrailers have not provided evidence of such a change, only their perceptions and feelings of it from memories. You can not argue for/against peoples emotions, its pointless. If they want to argue that we have more contrails than 40 years ago for example, I would agree with that. But this idea that there was some sudden change in the number of contrails, and that contrails did not last before, has no evidence at all to back it up.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

What we should be asking is what has changed?

Who says we should be asking this?

Why should we be asking this?

What good would asking this do for anyone at all?

Will you, or will you not take my suggestions?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions

Because if you won't, you have no intention of proving to yourself whether some sort of "spraying" is going on, or not.

If you won't, this is all an exercise no different from masturbation.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Ok, after some thought on this i've come to the conclusion that rather than to come here to berate or debate, lee's purpose here is just to masturbate.

One thing, he is not arguing against us, he is putting on a show for an audience elsewhere.
I can tell.

It looks to me as if he set himself up on the stage as a 'victim', and is playing the part in such a way to get there.

Well, lee, I can speak to your audience too.

Listen up, people. What lee has shown here is the paucity of evidence for your case. The sum total of fifteen years of effort among thousands of people, thousands of websites, weeks of radio, books, movies, videos and tapes, and it all rests on what lee has shown us here.

Pretty pathetic.

If this is the best that Coen Vermeeren can do, you need to start searching for some decent leadership.

Nuff said.

 

[tryblinking]

As the chump who started this thread, it seams I have my answer. It is not possible to have a reasoned, open, factual debate about 'chemtrails'.

Verifiable evidence is called for, and repeatedly none is given. Please focus on the word verifiable. Evidence which is not factual or numerical, purely anecdotal, lacking references, and unashamedly rife with hyperbole is not verifiable.

To be taken seriously and discussed productively evidence must be logical and thought out, presented clearly and concisely, be based on understood and interdependent laws of physics, and must above all have sources, presentedly openly, which anyone can check without difficulty.

It is not up to scientists to prove again what has already been proven and understood over the last 50 years of meteorology and aviation science. The burden of proof lies with those who claim that condensation trails are not behaving the way physics dictates. It always has, and it always will.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Almost worse than the sort of behavior that lee has been engaging in here is that of the major figures pulling the strings on these puppets. The ones like Michael J. Murphy.

They make proclamations yet they then dodge any open debate on them, their dupes don't hold them to any scrutiny. Even when they go out of favor, as so many have ie. William Thomas, Clifford Carnicom, folks like lee, who is capable of seeing through it all, keep quiet about it and let the bunk get repeated over and over and over again.

There is no self-correction, and so no advancement. That's why 15 years and no progress.
That is not reasoned, open, rational, or factual debate.

They are so polite, aren't they, but who wants to open the door on someone else when they have their own skeletons in the closet?

And their minds so open, any sort of BS is possible, so one whacko idea elevated to a "THEORY" is as good as another?

So, here is a question for you, lee.
Michael J. Murphy has insisted that aluminum oxide is very toxic, responsible for death and disease and can change the soil pH.
His own PhD chemist featured in his movie disagrees on both accounts.
Science disagrees, all of it, absolutely, that aluminum oxide is inert and harmless.
Yesterday Michael J. Murphy said he regularly takes a product called zeolite, which contains
11-13% aluminum oxide. He feels fine and suggests that others take it daily.

Michael J. Murphy is putting out bogus, false information.
He is scaring people needlessly. He is making women cry, and inducing men to make threats.

Do you feel any responsibility at all to correct that situation, or will you just accept it?
Will you take a stand to correct this false information, or not?

Because if you won't, you are not interested in the truth at all.

The evidence for all the above claims I make is right here on metabunk-chemtrails. If you haven't read it yet, I'll point you to the specific pages, if you will ask me specifically what you can't find for yourself.

 

[lee h oswald]

Are personal insults part of the scientific method you propound?

Who says we should be asking this?

Why should we be asking this?

What good would asking this do for anyone at all?

Will you, or will you not take my suggestions?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions

Because if you won't, you have no intention of proving to yourself whether some sort of "spraying" is going on, or not.

If you won't, this is all an exercise no different from masturbation.

Hmmm...going a bit off piste, aren't we? I thought masturbation had a very definite ending. Perhaps you're getting there, but it's not a turn on for me. You should try to read what you write with an objective eye - insults galore and a fair bit of foot-stamping; science? nope.
Some anecdotal evidence: For the last three days, and nights - including today, which is Sunday, and Sunday is usually MUCH quieter in terms of air traffic (there are rules on this in my part of the world), the sky where I live has been completely obliterated by the spreading emissions of aircraft. Layer upon layer, on what started as a RELATIVELY blue sky has now removed all but the smallest trace of what could be called 'blue'. Set this against the data - again - I've done it here previously, but got an answer that the methods are not reliable - it's better to look at satellite images, so I've been told - so I've done both. I've done all this many times - you know: look outside, observe what is happening; look at the data, note it; look at the satellite, note it. This is quite scientific, isn't it? Taking readings, making observations, noting conditions and results - it's almost exactly like, er, science - or isn't it?? answers please.
Now, there's a location within twenty miles of where I live that, twice a day, collects radiosonde data - I didn't invent it, but it's one of the best tools we have for this purpose). The latest figures in the relevant altitude range go like this: at 8754m alt (28888ft) it reads -39.1deg C, the RH is 21%; at 11,960m (39470ft) temp is -62.3degC and the RH is 39%. This 39% represents the highest rh reading in the range of commercial aircraft operation - the average RH over this range, yes I have calculated it, is 28%. This does not converge with what is clear to anyone with eyes to see - the sky is completely covered with spreading aircraft emissions.
If, as you claim, this is down to the prevailing conditions (here not borne out by the data) coupled to the extra water vapour from more aircraft and their cooler engines, then surely it would be very easy for the meteorological people to predict when aircraft emissions are going to form cloud cover and then they would forecast it and that it's harmless and nothing to be concerned about etc. But, for some reason, er, they don't. Why do you think that is? Are clouds not relevant to the weather? Or its forecasting? Why do they say nothing about this? Don't worry, it's just harmless water vapour crystallizing at temperatures...etc etc. Three days of artificial cloud cover over my head and the met people say NOTHING. Why is that?


Quote: tryblinking says:

As the chump who started this thread, it seams I have my answer. It is not possible to have a reasoned, open, factual debate about 'chemtrails'.

Verifiable evidence is called for, and repeatedly none is given. Please focus on the word verifiable. Evidence which is not factual or numerical, purely anecdotal, lacking references, and unashamedly rife with hyperbole is not verifiable.

To be taken seriously and discussed productively evidence must be logical and thought out, presented clearly and concisely, be based on understood and interdependent laws of physics, and must above all have sources, presentedly openly, which anyone can check without difficulty.

//end quote


You're right - not possible, read some of your peers comments to know that's the truth.

So, to be taken seriously evidence must be logical, thought out, presented clearly and concisely (conciseness is not, actually, a requisite of a scientific argument, often quite the opposite - convoluted and complex are many theories: or am I wrong about that too?), be based on understood and interdependent laws of physics....hold on, so everything is physics? If I read your statement right, I think you'll find you're wrong - it appears to me there are many facets to this argument, among them are political, psychological, empirical, historical, economic, geographical, physical, theoretical...etc. Tell it to Galileo, forced to end his work by the inquisition on pain of death. Science has been considered heresy when pushed too far ahead of the 'mainstream' curve: historical precedent, another facet to the argument.
There's some data, presented openly above - no doubt you'll find a fault in it that refutes the facts and reinforces your belief - which is what we are reduced to - belief. Do you see how your statement is inadequate? Probably not. I look forward to your fevered responses on how I've misread the data and that there must be something wrong with my eyes...

 

[lee h oswald]

Verifiable evidence is called for, and repeatedly none is given. Please focus on the word verifiable. Evidence which is not factual or numerical, purely anecdotal, lacking references, and unashamedly rife with hyperbole is not verifiable.

Ok, let's take an example of what in the mainstream is considered to be 'verifiable evidence'. When I was accused of assassinating John Kennedy (remember - the 'loner' - I had two kids and a wife, actually - 'lone' gunman, all that stuff, remember?). They had a bally-hooed, with knobs inquiry called The Warren Commission - all the evidence is available for you to peruse - and they came to the conclusion, with loads of 'verifiable' evidence, that I acted alone - there was no conspiracy. It's official - can't deny it.

Which of you here believe that this evidence - apparently verified to the max - is correct and represents a realistic, plausible account of the events surrounding John Kennedy's murder? There's even some physics involved, which might make it easier

 

[Mick West]

Now, there's a location within twenty miles of where I live that, twice a day, collects radiosonde data - I didn't invent it, but it's one of the best tools we have for this purpose). The latest figures in the relevant altitude range go like this: at 8754m alt (28888ft) it reads -39.1deg C, the RH is 21%; at 11,960m (39470ft) temp is -62.3degC and the RH is 39%. This 39% represents the highest rh reading in the range of commercial aircraft operation - the average RH over this range, yes I have calculated it, is 28%. This does not converge with what is clear to anyone with eyes to see - the sky is completely covered with spreading aircraft emissions.
If, as you claim, this is down to the prevailing conditions (here not borne out by the data) coupled to the extra water vapour from more aircraft and their cooler engines, then surely it would be very easy for the meteorological people to predict when aircraft emissions are going to form cloud cover and then they would forecast it and that it's harmless and nothing to be concerned about etc. But, for some reason, er, they don't. Why do you think that is? Are clouds not relevant to the weather? Or its forecasting? Why do they say nothing about this? Don't worry, it's just harmless water vapour crystallizing at temperatures...etc etc. Three days of artificial cloud cover over my head and the met people say NOTHING. Why is that?

I don't know why they don't forecast contrail conditions. But I'd suspect it's because there's no demand for it. Also, since it's a probabilistic thing it would seem a little pointless. Most people arn't too bothered about it.

Actually observations of contrails frequently do not match the observed or predicted conditions. This is a known problem. Look at this paper:

http://globe.gov/boulder2004docs/chambers_paper_contrails_2004.pdf

They map predicted RHI against observed contrails:

A single radiosonde sample is of course not good enough data. You need to use a model of the surrounding atmosphere over time. Even then it's not 100% accurate. See this page on contrail forecasting in the US:

http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/site/showdoc?docid=33&cmd=forecast#

The RUC model data are representations of the complete 3-dimensional structure of wind, temperature, and humidity over the USA at a resolution of 25 mb and 40 km. The horizontal resolution has been degraded to 1° latitude x 1° longitude to facilitate the computations. Because they are based on a sparse number of actual in situ (balloon sonde) data taken every 12 hours and satellite measurements, the RUC data are not a perfect representation of the various meteorological parameters, especially water vapor. The model humidity at upper levels of the atmosphere is often too low, reflecting the current biases known to exist in our measurement system. Persistent contrails require a relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) that exceeds 100%. We know that contrails are sometimes observed in areas where estimates of the RHI are less than 100%. The existence of contrails in those locations highlights the "dry-bias" in the humidity fields.
Because the input data do not perfectly characterize the meteorological conditions, the diagnoses of persistent contrail conditions are only estimates and will not detect all of the areas where persistent contrails will form and may also add areas of formation that do not exist.

Kevin Martin of theweatherspace.com has a set up a system that generates "chemtrail" maps from the detailed weather data. Check out the Europe maps:
http://www.theweatherspace.com/chemtrailforecast2.html

The interesting thing about both the NASA maps, and Kevin's, is that you can see the regions favorable to contrails often come in bands. You know how fast the weather moves east to west over the UK, so you should be able to see that a single 12 hour reading in one spot is not going to give you the full picture.

Which station were your figures from? What time was the reading, and what time did you first see the contrails?

 

[Mick West]

Ok, let's take an example of what in the mainstream is considered to be 'verifiable evidence'. When I was accused of asassinating John Kennedy (remember - the 'loner' - I had two kids and a wife, actually - 'lone' gunman, all that stuff, remember?). They had a bally-hooed, with knobs inquiry called The Warren Commission - all the evidence is available for you to peruse - and they came to the conclusion, with loads of 'verifiable' evidence, that I acted alone - there was no conspiracy. It's official - can't deny it.

Which of you here believe that this evidence - apparently verified to the max - is correct and represents a realistic, plausible account of the events surrounding John Kennedy's murder? There's even some physics involved, which might make it easier

Maybe you'd like to start another thread on that. But really, that's been discussed and debunked extensively already in other places. You might want to verify some of your favorite pieces of evidence here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

 

[lee h oswald]

Almost worse than the sort of behavior that lee has been engaging in here is that of the major figures pulling the strings on these puppets. The ones like Michael J. Murphy.

They make proclamations yet they then dodge any open debate on them, their dupes don't hold them to any scrutiny. Even when they go out of favor, as so many have ie. William Thomas, Clifford Carnicom, folks like lee, who is capable of seeing through it all, keep quiet about it and let the bunk get repeated over and over and over again.

There is no self-correction, and so no advancement. That's why 15 years and no progress.
That is not reasoned, open, rational, or factual debate.

They are so polite, aren't they, but who wants to open the door on someone else when they have their own skeletons in the closet?

And their minds so open, any sort of BS is possible, so one whacko idea elevated to a "THEORY" is as good as another?

So, here is a question for you, lee.
Michael J. Murphy has insisted that aluminum oxide is very toxic, responsible for death and disease and can change the soil pH.
His own PhD chemist featured in his movie disagrees on both accounts.
Science disagrees, all of it, absolutely, that aluminum oxide is inert and harmless.
Yesterday Michael J. Murphy said he regularly takes a product called zeolite, which contains
11-13% aluminum oxide. He feels fine and suggests that others take it daily.

Michael J. Murphy is putting out bogus, false information.
He is scaring people needlessly. He is making women cry, and inducing men to make threats.

Do you feel any responsibility at all to correct that situation, or will you just accept it?
Will you take a stand to correct this false information, or not?

Because if you won't, you are not interested in the truth at all.

The evidence for all the above claims I make is right here on metabunk-chemtrails. If you haven't read it yet, I'll point you to the specific pages, if you will ask me specifically what you can't find for yourself.

I'll leave aside the implied insults. I can see your point. However, if you check back over all my words, you'll find that I have not quoted Murphy, nor backed his argument - likewise the others you mention. In fact, it depresses me sometimes, some of the claims that are made as fact in the absence of any sensible or corroborating evidence. However, in answer to your not unreasonable question: do I feel any responsibility to correct that situation? The answer is unequivocal. No. One must accept that others will make false statements - it's unavoidable. I, or any other reasonable commentator, should not be expected to correct every error made by anyone. We are all, at times, guilty of passing on misinformation: we all make mistakes (and I believe that mistakes made should be forgiven if acknowledged by the maker) - this distinct from disinformation, another thing altogether, and abundant around this subject, I believe. Michael Murphy's claims are not my claims, and I have not referenced him as a reliable source. If you wish to fight some kind of battle with him, that's your choice. I choose to focus on what I know, not what someone like him says. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with him and his arguments anyway. On the subject of aluminium, and the varying toxicity of its different forms, I would argue that ingestion of any form is to be avoided - it is understood to be a neurotoxicant - further to that, and not necessarily related to Al, even if a substance is completely non-toxic, if it is presented in very small particles, or particulates, then exposure is detrimental to health, period. There's loads of epidemiological data to back up this claim, as I'm sure you know.

So, not surprisingly, I disagree with your view that I am not interested in truth because I won't spend my time 'debunking' people I generally ignore. I'm not qualified enough to comment on Murphy's ideas, so I don't - and I don't feel responsible for that in any way. To reiterate: I think it's a shame when people make false claims as fact and then dig-in to their entrenched position as if life depended on it - surely we can do better than that.

 

[lee h oswald]

I don't know why they don't forecast contrail conditions. But I'd suspect it's because there's no demand for it. Also, since it's a probabilistic thing it would seem a little pointless. Most people arn't too bothered about it.

Actually observations of contrails frequently do not match the observed or predicted conditions. This is a known problem. Look at this paper:

http://globe.gov/boulder2004docs/chambers_paper_contrails_2004.pdf

They map predicted RHI against observed contrails:

A single radiosonde sample is of course not good enough data. You need to use a model of the surrounding atmosphere over time. Even then it's not 100% accurate. See this page on contrail forecasting in the US:

http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/site/showdoc?docid=33&cmd=forecast#



Kevin Martin of theweatherspace.com has a set up a system that generates "chemtrail" maps from the detailed weather data. Check out the Europe maps:
http://www.theweatherspace.com/chemtrailforecast2.html

The interesting thing about both the NASA maps, and Kevin's, is that you can see the regions favorable to contrails often come in bands. You know how fast the weather moves east to west over the UK, so you should be able to see that a single 12 hour reading in one spot is not going to give you the full picture.

Which station were your figures from? What time was the reading, and what time did you first see the contrails?

Ok, now we get somewhere - the prediction methods are not reliable (and I've mentioned this before in previous posts - as an indicator of how little we really know and fully understand about the phenomenon) so we don't bother with it. Now, you're from the UK, and you probably remember it is our national past time to talk about the weather. How could it be of no interest that the sky will be covered with cloud made by aircraft for three days? The methods of predicting weather over the UK (incidentally the weather generally flows west to east, not the other way round, and yes, it moves very fast) are also (often) not very accurate due to being the first bit of land after 3,000 miles of ocean, but, and here's the rub, they still try to forecast it. It is also probabilistic rather than bang on the money, but that's no excuse for not bothering with it; best efforts, with percentage chances are commonly understood and accepted.

Anyway, don't want to get bogged down here as I'm moving on to your next