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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
(incidentally the weather generally flows west to east, not the other way round, and yes, it moves very fast)

Oops, that's what I meant of course. West to east.

Yes, I remember British weather. Now of course I personally would be interested in contrail forecasting. You would be too, with your interest in chemtrail. But I'm not sure the British obsession with the weather extends much beyond temperature, rain, and if we might get some patchy sun. Furthermore, the Brits talk about what the weather is like NOW not the forecast. You get lots of "nice day", "dashed cold" or (mostly in Manchester, where I lived) "bloody rain". But when you are down in the pub do you hear people (not conspiracy enthusiasts) talk about contrails? Or how the sky was hazily overcast? I just don't think it's a big issue for most people.

Are you getting at something here though? You think there's some kind of deliberate obfuscation of the connection (or lack of) between contrails and the weather? What do you think this lack of forecasting indicates?
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
Ok, let's see your proof for your position.

My position is that there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of "chemtrails" or a covert geo-engineering campaign. My position could be refuted with one... just one little piece of solid, verifiable, scientific evidence for the existence of "chemtrails." To date, all I've seen is bunk.

The truth is you don't have any - all you do is say 'they're contrails, honest they are'.

I say there is not enough evidence to conclude that the trails in the sky are anything other than contrails. All efforts to prove that the trails are something other than contrails has turned out to be bunk.

It's a very simple situation. The trails in the sky look and act just like contrails are expected to look and act. This is supported by 50 years of science and countless people from many professions and fields of study. If someone (like you, for instance) believes that the trails are something other than contrails, then show us your evidence. Let's see if it's bunk.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, just to er, verify: You put your name against the official version of events as described in the Warren Commission Report?

I think it's most probable that LHO fired the shots that killed Kennedy. It's not entirely clear to what degree he acted alone. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence for any of the various conspiracy theories.

I think this site seems to do a good job at debunking many individual pieces of evidence for a broader conspiracy

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Oops, that's what I meant of course. West to east.

Yes, I remember British weather. Now of course I personally would be interested in contrail forecasting. You would be too, with your interest in chemtrail. But I'm not sure the British obsession with the weather extends much beyond temperature, rain, and if we might get some patchy sun. Furthermore, the Brits talk about what the weather is like NOW not the forecast. You get lots of "nice day", "dashed cold" or (mostly in Manchester, where I lived) "bloody rain". But when you are down in the pub do you hear people (not conspiracy enthusiasts) talk about contrails? Or how the sky was hazily overcast? I just don't think it's a big issue for most people.

Are you getting at something here though? You think there's some kind of deliberate obfuscation of the connection (or lack of) between contrails and the weather? What do you think this lack of forecasting indicates?

Hmmm...you've been away too long! Is it going to be hot and sunny or cloudy and shite? that's important - and people would definitely prefer to know. I'm originally from Manchester too. You're right, ofcourse, there's lots of comments on how the weather is currently, but that's probably true of most places on earth. Your 'down the pub' question is interesting. Michael Fish, at one time a tv weather forecaster of some repute in the UK, will be forever remembered for a gaffe made in 1987 - a while back, but it is still talked about to this day. His forecast began one evening in October with a little anecdote; Mr Fish told us that the BBC had got a call from a woman in Wales telling she had been told that there was to be a hurricane that night and we should batten down the hatches. Ho ho ho, how Michael chuckled, as did we...Well, he said, there'll certainly be some above average wind speeds, but definitely not a hurricane, tee hee hee. Hundreds of millions of £ worth of damage, several fatalities, 120mph winds and one day later he was forced to er, correct himself. I remember it well - I was out and about with a mate - it was freakish. So, you see, we do have a deeper interest when the occasion arises. With regard to people discussing - or rather not discussing - such things as you mention; hazy sky, lots of contrails etc, down the pub, then the answer is obvious really - who walks about with their head up in the air? When you're out and about you're generally on the move - you watch your feet and where they're heading. You exist on a level on which all your other fellow humans do - eye level and below, no? If you saw someone walking about with their head in the air, you'd probably think they're a bit odd and they'd walk into something. And this leads on to the next point: when you draw something 'different' or unusual to someone's attention, then likely they become interested - perhaps this is why it is not mentioned by the met people? I am certainly getting at something - and maybe, partly, it's that all evidence needn't be scientific? - it's seems odd, to say the least, that this wouldn't be of the greatest interest to met people - it's their job and the silence is deafening. If, on perhaps a third to a half of the days of the year, the sky over one of the world's biggest cities is covered with aircraft emissions either partially or often in totality, then surely it is a major factor in determining temperatures, hours of sunlight etc. That would make absolute sense to any scientist. One has to consider all the factors available, not ignore what is an increasingly huge factor. That silence makes a case for some questions to be asked and answered.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, it's not like the met office are uninterested in contrails

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/OPAL-climate-survey

I
just think it's more that there's never been a perceived need to include them in the weather forecast. Contrails do increase cloud cover, but also it's frequently cloud cover that would have formed anyway, so the forecast is unchanged.

The planes are always there, it's not like they are forecasting the planes. Really the worst you might say is that they under-report overcast skies. Anyway. I really can't see it as being a big deal. Certainly not as some kind of evidence for a conspiracy.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I think it's most probable that LHO fired the shots that killed Kennedy. It's not entirely clear to what degree he acted alone. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence for any of the various conspiracy theories.

I think this site seems to do a good job at debunking many individual pieces of evidence for a broader conspiracy

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

Wow! Really? Anyone else? Please say

If I was behind JFK and to his right, how come Mrs K grabbed a piece of his brain off the boot of the car which she still had in her hands on arrival at hospital? (Testimony available) What strange physics would cause that? Surely, without being able to repeat the experiment, we can deduce that soft tissue might most likely go generally in the direction demanded by the force applied to it. You'd agree with that?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Well, it's not like the met office are uninterested in contrails

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/OPAL-climate-survey

I
just think it's more that there's never been a perceived need to include them in the weather forecast. Contrails do increase cloud cover, but also it's frequently cloud cover that would have formed anyway, so the forecast is unchanged.

The planes are always there, it's not like they are forecasting the planes. Really the worst you might say is that they under-report overcast skies. Anyway. I really can't see it as being a big deal. Certainly not as some kind of evidence for a conspiracy.

I refer to my previous post
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Well, it's not like the met office are uninterested in contrails

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/OPAL-climate-survey

I
just think it's more that there's never been a perceived need to include them in the weather forecast. Contrails do increase cloud cover, but also it's frequently cloud cover that would have formed anyway, so the forecast is unchanged.

The planes are always there, it's not like they are forecasting the planes. Really the worst you might say is that they under-report overcast skies. Anyway. I really can't see it as being a big deal. Certainly not as some kind of evidence for a conspiracy.


Actually, no I don't. here's a copy and paste job from your met office web page: OPAL is funded by the Big Lottery Fund and accredited by LWEC (Living with Environmental Change). Add to that the juvenile nature of the 'program' - asking people to note contrails?? administered not by the Met, but by OPAL, funded by national lottery returns: a tax on the hope of the poor and stupid - a sure fire 'business' by encouraging greed and singularism; funded to the tune of £11.75 million (wonder how much the ceo gets?); under the aegis of...an org called Living with Environmental Change - it has capital letters and everything...there'll be no problem for you - well, people need funding; environmental change exists etc...Oh, sorry, no - wrong meeting - ofcourse they have everyone's best interests at heart, why wouldn't they
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
My position is that there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of "chemtrails" or a covert geo-engineering campaign. My position could be refuted with one... just one little piece of solid, verifiable, scientific evidence for the existence of "chemtrails." To date, all I've seen is bunk.

.
Ok, but if you read it again, I ask for proof for your position - I already know your position. You don't give proof because it's impossible to. On 'verifiable', I refer you to question on Oswald and Kennedy - what do you think?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
[h=2]Climate challenge[/h] Directorate Lead:
Mary Barkham


[Broken External Image]:[URL]http://dcms.lwec.ulcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/images/80.challenges%20pages.jpg[/URL]

To understand the risks of climate change and assess options for avoiding or managing such risks.
The climate challenge aims to build effective mitigation, adaptation and resilience to climate change, including preparedness for changes to the intensity and frequency of extreme events so that human health, wellbeing and a healthy natural environment are ensured through the use of sustainable and socially acceptable environmental managment approaches and technologies.


That's from the org Living with Environmental Change. How can they tell so much when they often can't forecast rain tomorrow? Its steering committee is run by an appointee of a govt. dept. This is Public Relations, or as it was known before Bernays, propaganda. Who funds LWEC and what qualifies it to 'accredit' other organisations? Here are its 'partners':

LWEC also mentions geo-engineering...a bit...

[h=2]Geoengineering - a future LWEC activity?[/h] Living with Environmental Change partners have been considering the need for research activity in geoengineering. Geoengineering is defined as :
'the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system in order to moderate global warming”
It includes:

  • Carbon Dioxide Removal
  • Solar Radiation Management techniques
It excludes:

  • Techniques for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Low carbon energy sources.
  • Conventional power/industrial plant carbon capture and storage.
A report from a partners workshop on 20th May is now available to read together with presentations that were made at the event.
Downloads below:

AttachmentSize
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
as clint said...

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.

...in all the excitement...I forgot about this. Just to show I can take a bit of criticism in front of 'my audience', hi guys and girls, whoever you are or aren't...I urge anyone to read the words I've written - I don't claim to speak for anyone, as you'll see. Dr Coen Vermeeren, for any who don't know, is an aeronautical engineer and teaches at a uni in Holland. He happens to say that he thinks something is not right and there should be a discussion.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
here's the uk met office page linking to OPAL and Living with Environmental Change...

Contrails over Met Office, Exeter

| Plane spotters needed for climate survey

4 March 2011 - Scientists at the Met Office and Royal Meteorological Society are asking everyone in the country to take part in the OPAL Climate Survey.
The OPAL survey is open to people of all ages and aims to provide scientists with data which will help them investigate ways in which we affect the climate and how the climate may affect us.
Global climate change is predicted to give milder winters and hotter summers across the UK, with more frequent heatwaves. By discovering how hot or cold people feel should help us judge how adaptable we might be to future climate change.
Dr Mark McCarthy, Climate Research Scientist at the Met Office, said: "Climate change poses many challenges for both the natural environment and human populations worldwide. The new insights from the OPAL climate survey will complement and build on our existing research looking at the potential impacts of climate change through the 21st Century."
There are four main things to do in the survey
  • Spot plane trails, known as contrails, as a measure of air temperature and humidity
  • Watch cloud movement to record wind direction in the sky
  • Blow bubbles to measure wind speed and direction near the ground
  • Record how hot or cold you feel
The results will be analysed by Met Office scientists.

Anyone can take part in the survey. The more people that get involved the more valuable the research becomes. The results from all four activities will be published on the OPAL website, where you can see how your findings compare to others across the country. ////END QUOTE

....let's spread the info...

What a load of utter bollocks! 'The results will be analysed by Met Office scientists.' What??! 'You see, Johnny blew some bubbles on 9/11/11 and we've extrapolated from that information that everything is lovely and normal....bollocks!! No you haven't. Wtf is going on here? Can I put it more strongly? Are you seriously offering this as evidence that 'the met office is interested in contrails?'
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
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%.

Are you using relative humidity. or relative humidity with respect to ice?

Are you aware that the radiosondes have a dry bias?

You dodged this question:
Jay Reynolds said:
Originally Posted by Jay Reynolds
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.

I used Flight Explorer to identify what ordinary commercial aircraft could do.
I was essentially exploring what 'Normal' was a decade ago, but FlightAware is excellent nowadays.
Here is what was available then;
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/brendt2.html

The use of flight tracking software will give you real-time experience.
The use of telescopic photography will document and back-check what the flight tracking shows you.
This is remote sensing you can do for yourself.

Others are doing it.
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1078
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
Yawn

Ok, but if you read it again, I ask for proof for your position

So you're asking me to prove there is no evidence supporting the existence of chemtrails? OK... watch "What in the World are they Spraying". That video proves conclusively that there is no evidence of chemtrails. If you'd like, I could also prove there is no evidence supporting the existence of unicorns, the Easter bunny or signs of intelligent life on the Glen Beck show.

Just to be clear, I don't claim chemtrails are not real. I claim there is no evidence chemtrails exist. The default rational position is then to accept the scientific explanation for the trails in to the sky: contrails.

On 'verifiable', I refer you to question on Oswald and Kennedy - what do you think?

I think I would ask you how exactly one goes about questioning on Oswald and Kennedy?

Look... the game is on. Do you have evidence of chemtrails or are you just formulating some kind of "god of the gaps" argument?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What a load of utter bollocks! 'The results will be analysed by Met Office scientists.' What??! 'You see, Johnny blew some bubbles on 9/11/11 and we've extrapolated from that information that everything is lovely and normal....bollocks!! No you haven't. Wtf is going on here? Can I put it more strongly? Are you seriously offering this as evidence that 'the met office is interested in contrails?'

Are they not? It seems pretty similar to the seminal NASA SUCCESS program. It's using actual observational data to verify models.

The met office is interested in contrails to the same extent that they are interested in cirrus clouds. It's part of the weather. Possible also a contribution to climate.

And what's with the geoengineering links? What are you trying to say there?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Are they not? It seems pretty similar to the seminal NASA SUCCESS program. It's using actual observational data to verify models.

The met office is interested in contrails to the same extent that they are interested in cirrus clouds. It's part of the weather. Possible also a contribution to climate.

And what's with the geoengineering links? What are you trying to say there?
The UK student stuff looks pretty lame to me. Make work for somebody, spend some leftover funds, really, a waste.

The geoengineering links looks like he's going to start with the 'laundry list'.
Its usually the last resort when chemtrail believers run out of steam.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wow! Really? Anyone else? Please say

If I was behind JFK and to his right, how come Mrs K grabbed a piece of his brain off the boot of the car which she still had in her hands on arrival at hospital? (Testimony available) What strange physics would cause that? Surely, without being able to repeat the experiment, we can deduce that soft tissue might most likely go generally in the direction demanded by the force applied to it. You'd agree with that?

I really don't want to get into a totally different conspiracy. But let's just look at that one point.

You bring it up as if somehow it proves JFK was shot from the front.

But have you ever even looked into the "strange" physics? Because if you do, you'll find this particular question has been answered many times.



Y
ou can even repeat the test yourself, just get a melon and a rifle. Soft tissue goes forward?



Now, don't dodge away from this point. Explain how you've never actually looked into this. Explain how, now you've had this point explained and demonstrated, you still don't change your opinion one iota?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
that's enough time wasted with you guys

  • This is the extent of the met office's interest in contrails, a survey farmed out to an organisation funded by govt - as in the link you used as evidence of their interest
  • Spot plane trails, known as contrails, as a measure of air temperature and humidity
  • Watch cloud movement to record wind direction in the sky
  • Blow bubbles to measure wind speed and direction near the ground
  • Record how hot or cold you feel
This is worse than a bad joke. But you think it's 'seminal'. What was it you said? It's like the seminal Nasa 'success' program! What exactly is that? A useless waste of money and a blatant piece of PR? Yes. Scientific? You're having a laugh. This is a brilliant example of your ultra-conservative position. Anything, and clearly it is anything, which comes out of the mainstream, particularly a govt agency, you hold up as an example of how it should be - it's beyond question. Your so-called skepticism runs into the buffers here - there isn't any, it evaporates. Where have you been all your life? You and your mates questioning why I include links to geo-engineering and making out like it's a sign of desperation on my part? No - you should read first and comment later, otherwise you look stupid; those were directly linked to the link that you sent me - supposedly showing the met office's interest in 'contrails'. Their interest in contrails is to farm out a ridiculous questionnaire to anyone stupid enough to want to take part and it's linked very closely to discussions on geo-engineering. Go do some learning. Bernays; invisible government; public relations. See above - asking people to look at contrails as a measure of air temperature and humidity??? You should debunk this load of nonsense - but you don't, you stand up for it. Brilliant. Why don't you take part in this 'seminal' program? Tell them how hot or cold you feel - it'll all be very useful. Why don't you explain to us all just how useful that would be?

You also changed your mind on how much interest the met office has in contrails - for two or three posts - look back a few - at one point you're saying how it's not really of any interest, no perceived need to forecast them (whatever that means - as perceived by who?), people aren't that bothered, and even that the clouds which are made by aircraft would have occurred anyway - how do you know?? You don't, ofcourse - and then you send me that gem as an indicator of how 'interested' they really are. Which is it? Would you take part in this 'seminal' project?

I stick by what I said in a previous post - and anyone with an ounce of common sense will know that what I say is right:

...it seems odd, to say the least, that this wouldn't be of the greatest interest to met people - it's their job and the silence is deafening. If, on perhaps a third to a half of the days of the year, the sky over one of the world's biggest cities is covered with aircraft emissions either partially or often in totality, then surely it is a major factor in determining temperatures, hours of sunlight etc. That would make absolute sense to any scientist. One has to consider all the factors available, not ignore what is an increasingly huge factor. That silence makes a case for some questions to be asked and answered.

On Kennedy - like I said - the experiment can't be repeated; maybe your head is made of water melon, mine isn't. From my overview, behind, through the trees and hanging by my toes from the window ledge, I think the reason JK's head was so badly damaged at the front and right was because Jackie told him a joke just at the wrong moment and he laughed and threw his head back just as my bullet arrived behind him, which made it worse. They say all comedy is timing.

Bernays; invisible government; public relations. I hope anyone reading this (does anyone read this except for three or four devotees?) with a passing interest might also be interested in this subject for a broader general view of part of the context of this 'argument'.

It is no wonder, with people like yourselves, that we are experiencing a withering of the humanities - the very means by which we ask the broader questions. For in the end, everything is reduced to philosophy, even your precious science. You'd do well to remember that.

Finally: an esteemed journalist (a rare being indeed) once said: Never believe anything until it is officially denied.
Remember that too.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is worse than a bad joke. But you think it's 'seminal'. What was it you said? It's like the seminal Nasa 'success' program! What exactly is that? A useless waste of money and a blatant piece of PR? Yes. Scientific? You're having a laugh. This is a brilliant example of your ultra-conservative position.

It's called crowd-sourcing. It's a way to tackling intractably large problems using large amounts of volunteers. You get a large number of scientific observations, and you can get useful data from it. The public side of such projects are necessarily simplistic, even entertaining. But they still provide a large amount of raw data.

The NASA program I was thinking of was actually S'COOL, a cringe-worthy name to be sure, but it's aimed at using kids for the crowdsourcing. It helps with NASA's goals of science education, and provides large amounts of raw data for calibrating the accuracy of climate models. Such raw data would be impossible to get without vast expense using normal means. Hard science has emerged from S'COOL:

The CERES S’COOL Project:
Statistical Analysis of Cloud Data Collected by Satellites with Comparisons to Simultaneously Collected Ground Data

S'COOL emerged from SUCCESS, which I described as seminal as it was the first large scale observation program for contrails.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You also changed your mind on how much interest the met office has in contrails - for two or three posts - look back a few - at one point you're saying how it's not really of any interest, no perceived need to forecast them (whatever that means - as perceived by who?), people aren't that bothered, and even that the clouds which are made by aircraft would have occurred anyway - how do you know?? You don't, ofcourse - and then you send me that gem as an indicator of how 'interested' they really are. Which is it? Would you take part in this 'seminal' project?

Really. Why are you persisting on about exactly how interested the Met is in contrails, or how interested they should be? Let's agree they don't put them in their forecasts, but they mention them a few times on their web site.

Do you actually think this is evidence of something? Or are you just trying to illustrate my cognitive biases?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
It's called crowd-sourcing. It's a way to tackling intractably large problems using large amounts of volunteers. You get a large number of scientific observations, and you can get useful data from it. The public side of such projects are necessarily simplistic, even entertaining. But they still provide a large amount of raw data.

The NASA program I was thinking of was actually S'COOL, a cringe-worthy name to be sure, but it's aimed at using kids for the crowdsourcing. It helps with NASA's goals of science education, and provides large amounts of raw data for calibrating the accuracy of climate models. Such raw data would be impossible to get without vast expense using normal means. Hard science has emerged from S'COOL:

The CERES S’COOL Project:
Statistical Analysis of Cloud Data Collected by Satellites with Comparisons to Simultaneously Collected Ground Data

S'COOL emerged from SUCCESS, which I described as seminal as it was the first large scale observation program for contrails.

I know this is like smashing a brick on my head but...It's called Public Relations. It helps with nasa's goal of science education? Really? That the same Nasa had all the ex-nazis in? Nasa have been responsible for the dissemination of so much disinformation and done little to correct it when pasted all over the internet. Sorry - wrong meeting again - Nasa are 100% trustworthy and only act for the greater good, everyone knows that. Edward Bernays would likely consider you a success - for him.
Why am I persisting on met office and contrails? Let me spell it out again: the fact that a large contributing factor in the weather is ignored as a means of prediction by the people whose job it is to predict the weather. It's not a tricky equation. You make light of it, it's irrelevant - it doesn't count as evidence in your mind. There is a reason why it is not mentioned. You say it's because no-one is really bothered - and at the same time you argue they are bothered. Which is it? Bothered or not? Met people spend their lives being bothered about what makes clouds and when - why ignore this version when it is so prevalent? And it is very prevalent where I am.
Your bias, I'm sure, is clear to all.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Because contrails are not a large contributing factor to the weather. Could persistent contrails, which are in effect cirrus, have an effect on temperature. Possibly so. Are they a large contributing factor in weather? No, not at all.

Weather affects contrails, a lot more than contrails affect the weather.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I know this is like smashing a brick on my head but...It's called Public Relations.
Well, no. It's actual science. Perhaps you could explain how they could get those observations without crowd-sourcing.

And I think we get that you think the Met Office should be forecasting contrail condition. But basically you are saying that you think the public should care more about contrails. In your mind the fact that they do not is because of some kind of Orwellian mind-control. But unfortunately the facts (the lack of forecasting, and the lack of interest) are explained by the far more prosaic observation that contrails are not very interesting to the average person.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interestingly there were some brief periods of time in history when contrails WERE reported by the weathermen, probably because they were interesting:

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_images_L_1959_mansfield_2.jpg

Mansfield News Journal, August 11, 1957, Page 29:



From the first column there:

“Within the past few years, the weather bureau has begun to report the trails as actual cloud layers when there are sufficient trails to cover a portion of the sky.”

I imagine they stopped (in the 1950s or 60s), simply because people were not interested.
 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Because contrails are not a large contributing factor to the weather. Could persistent contrails, which are in effect cirrus, have an effect on temperature. Possibly so. Are they a large contributing factor in weather? No, not at all.

Weather affects contrails, a lot more than contrails affect the weather.

Where do you live? Because where I live the effect of aircraft emissions is a regular and large contributor to cloud cover. Actually, what you say is completely wrong where I come from.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Well now you are changing the goal posts. First you talk about contrails being a large factor in the weather, and now its just about cloud cover. Yes, when conditions are favorable, contrails can persist and result in a fair amount of cirrus. But its the existing weather conditions that influenced the contrails, the contrails did not cause the weather.

I do not think you are going to be able to show heat waves, storms, blizzards, precipitation events, caused by contrails.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So, let's get this straight.

Are you are suggesting:

A) That the Met Office (the UK Government weather forecasting service) is deliberately not forecasting contrails, even though people would like to know when contrails will be forming, because it often results in overcast skies.

Or

B) That some kind of brainwashing has made British people somehow indifferent to contrails, so there's no demand for contrail forecasts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's the current Met Office weather forecast:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_forecast_alltext.html

Please explain how you would expect this to be re-written if the conspiracy were not in place.

Headline:

Showers in south clearing. Rain spreading across north and west.
This Evening and Tonight:

Any showers in the south will clear this evening, although many areas becoming cloudy with mist and patchy fog. Rain will spread across Northern Ireland, Scotland and northwest England with brisk or strong southwesterly winds.
Tuesday:

Rather cloudy at first in many areas with mist and patchy fog, and rain in the north. Most parts of England and Wales will become dry, sunny and warm.
Updated: 1506 on Mon 26 Sep 2011


Outlook for Wednesday to Friday:

Warm and sunny for most people, although with some early mist or fog patches. Northern Ireland and northwest Scotland will though be cloudy at times, with outbreaks of rain.
Updated: 1506 on Mon 26 Sep 2011
UK Outlook for Saturday 1 Oct 2011 to Monday 10 Oct 2011:

On Saturday southern areas are forecast to remain dry and warm with sunny spells. Cloudier though over much of Scotland with rain in western Scotland. Some rain is expected to spread into Wales and northwest England on Sunday, and across Scotland, but the south and east of England staying mainly dry. As we go through the following week many areas may see a spell of rain for a time, although tending to be drier and brighter in the far south, and drier and brighter at times in the north and west. Conditions will be fresher with west to northwest winds expected. The north will be more unsettled with showers or spells of rain. The following weekend, and Monday will see drier conditions in south with rain or showers in north.
Updated: 1216 on Mon 26 Sep 2011
UK Outlook for Tuesday 11 Oct 2011 to Tuesday 25 Oct 2011:

The Trend will be for drier and brighter conditions in the south with more unsettled conditions likely in the north and west with occasional rain or showers, and perhaps windy at times here as well. As we head through October, and the nights get longer; temperatures consequently are likely to become lower, especially at night, although some pleasantly warm days are still possible.
Updated: 1215 on Mon 26 Sep 2011
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's the BBC review of the weather for September 23, the day you came here with your question about radiosonde reading and contrails:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/uk_reviews/newsid_9599000/9599277.stm

Review of UK weather on 23/09/11


Northern parts of the country had a rather cloudy morning with outbreaks of rain, mainly over Northern Ireland at first and later extending to parts of Scotland.
This rain was generally light and intermittent and did not amount to very much, but western Scotland caught a few heavier bursts for a time.
The rain largely died away by the afternoon with most places becoming dry and bright. Hazy sunshine developed particularly over Scotland, where it became rather warm, especially towards the Moray Firth.
Further rain developed over northwestern Scotland later in the day. The majority of England and Wales had a fine day after the clearance of any early mist and fog patches in the south.
Most places enjoyed long periods of sunshine, particularly in the east, although the sunshine did turn hazy at times.
After a chilly start in the south with temperatures starting in the low single figures Celsius in some rural places, it became rather warm with temperatures reaching the high teens Celsius by mid-afternoon.

Note the image.

The same conditions that result in Hazy Sunshine will also result in persistent contrails.

I really think you are flogging a dead horse with this argument.
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I really think you are flogging a dead horse with this argument.

What I am wondering is what will he do about it?
He set himself up as the victim, we flogged him a bit, he came back for more, got flogged again.
He never answered whether, or not, he was really interested in identifying the planes he sees.
But what does he intend to do besides come here and play victim/
If he just wanted to complain about his Met office, maybe he should complain to the source.

In fact, I'd bet he has never complained to them yet, or even mentioned it to them
as he did here.

If you did, show us the proof!
I doubt that he even felt it was worthwhile.
Except as part of the long laundry list which included some ridiculous complaint
about NASA being staffed by ex-nazis disinformationalists,
who would be about 90 years old,
That's stretching the goal posts, I think.........
:D
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think Lee feels like he understands how the world works, and that he's cracked through the matrix, and that all us debunkers are either useful idiots, or shills. He wants to either demonstrate the former, or expose the latter.

Either way, he's not got a lot to go on. The Met Office does not put contrails in their weather forecast is not exactly sterling evidence of anything - unless you are already convinced the Met Office is a propaganda arm of the PTB, in which case it must seem like a blindingly obvious Psy-ops move.

Lee, I'd urge you to take a step back and review what you think you know about contrails. Do you actually have any evidence to back up your belief? Or are you just assuming contrails are nefarious because it fits so nicely into your world view?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Contrails over Met Office, Exeter



....let's spread the info...

What a load of utter bollocks! 'The results will be analysed by Met Office scientists.' What??! 'You see, Johnny blew some bubbles on 9/11/11 and we've extrapolated from that information that everything is lovely and normal....bollocks!! No you haven't. Wtf is going on here? Can I put it more strongly? Are you seriously offering this as evidence that 'the met office is interested in contrails?'

Let's see - it's information from the Met Office asking for information on when contrails are visible.

So it seems to me perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Met has some interest in contrails .

Your bluster about it being ...well....I don't know what........not serious??.....is just that - bluster. You haven't actually offered any evidence for anything other than the Met Office being intersted in contrails - yet you expect us to think they are not interested in contrails??

The only thing I cannot take seriously is your unsupported assertion that something is somehow "wrong" here - you haven't actually articulated what it is you think is wrong (as far as I can see), and you haven't provided any evidence to support whatever it is that wrong thing may be.

If you could clearly state what it is you think the problem is, and what your evidence is, then that'd be a great help to me to understand what your position actually is.

thanks in advance
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Most chemtrail believers are embarassed to admit that there really isn't any evidence that hasn't been explained.
They've built a mountain out of a teacup, or a molehill into a tempest, but they haven't really thought it all through.

That's why I usually ask them what the single best incontrovertible evidence for chemtrails that they would present if they were on a national stage, an address before Parliament, in his case.

Not a laundry list of implied, sideways connected stuff. Show me the 'money'.

Care to try this one, lee?

Because if you can't, you've debunked yourself.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Is a lack of gov't response to any subject, proof that they're hiding it ?

If that's the case, everything they do not address, is suspect.
...and can apply to anything from "chemtrails".....to the tooth fairy.
They rarely speak of tooth fairies.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
what a little wasp nest

This from Jay:

What I am wondering is what will he do about it?
He set himself up as the victim, we flogged him a bit, he came back for more, got flogged again.
He never answered whether, or not, he was really interested in identifying the planes he sees.
But what does he intend to do besides come here and play victim/
If he just wanted to complain about his Met office, maybe he should complain to the source.

In fact, I'd bet he has never complained to them yet, or even mentioned it to them
as he did here.

If you did, show us the proof!
I doubt that he even felt it was worthwhile.
Except as part of the long laundry list which included some ridiculous complaint
about NASA being staffed by ex-nazis disinformationalists,
who would be about 90 years old,
That's stretching the goal posts, I think.........

The ramblings of a madman, you might think...but look, he says: In fact, I'd bet he has never complained to them yet, or even mentioned it to them as he did here. ....Actually, I've written to them twice and received no reply.

On Nasa Nazis:
Quote: However, The Birmingham News reported that the space center's director, James Thompson, vowed to make the von Braun celebration an annual event and urged current NASA employees to ''rub elbows with these old guys--maybe some of their experience will rub off on us."
Presumably, that "experience" will exclude their wartime activities. Von Braun's own admissions in U.S. Army records show that the man NASA touts as a hero was an S.S. major who frequently visited the underground rocket factory where a black American flyer and 25,000 other prisoners from the concentration camp Dora died. During one visit, according to documents shown on CNN, von Braun attended a meeting that discussed rounding up citizens off the streets of France to be brought to Dora.

When people learn that I cover stories on Nazis, they often ask if I know of groups supporting "nests" of Nazis in America, than react with surprise when my immediate answer is, "Yes, the Federal government." NASA should clean up this nest--soon. End quote.
That puts you somewhere to the right of CNN - some feat that!

Oh man - it's all in the past - we all make mistakes - forget it - poor Nazis, hounded at every turn - except in the US, where they're given top jobs. And that appears to be just fine with you guys - apologists for Nazis, how nice. I wonder why Nasa don't have a hall of fame on their website? I think that would be a grand idea. For some reason they don't mention it.


Then this from Stupid:
Stupid
Is a lack of gov't response to any subject, proof that they're hiding it ?

If that's the case, everything they do not address, is suspect.
...and can apply to anything from "chemtrails".....to the tooth fairy.
They rarely speak of tooth fairies.

Well spotted, Stupid. Your argument might work - if it made any sense. If the tooth fairy was flying around for three days straight, creating solid cloud cover over one of the world's largest cities - and the professors from the academy of tooth fairy studies never made reference to the phenomenon, despite it being pointed out to them by many people and it being as obvious as an elephant in the room, then it would be a little suspect - don't you think? By your brilliant logic, the government is also lacking a response to Snow White's kidnap by seven exceptionally small men.
Those whose job it is to understand and predict the weather should not ignore phenomena that are an increasingly big influence on exactly that. That would be unscientific. It is also true to say that the clouds made by aircraft are cirrus-like, but distinctions can be made and these man-made clouds should have a new nomenclature - have you seen them? Don't you think that's right?


And then there's Mick:
Mick
I think Lee feels like he understands how the world works, and that he's cracked through the matrix, and that all us debunkers are either useful idiots, or shills. He wants to either demonstrate the former, or expose the latter.

Either way, he's not got a lot to go on. The Met Office does not put contrails in their weather forecast is not exactly sterling evidence of anything - unless you are already convinced the Met Office is a propaganda arm of the PTB, in which case it must seem like a blindingly obvious Psy-ops move.

Lee, I'd urge you to take a step back and review what you think you know about contrails. Do you actually have any evidence to back up your belief? Or are you just assuming contrails are nefarious because it fits so nicely into your world view?


Hmmm, it might be interesting if it was. It's more projection than fact, which is what I thought you claimed as your reason to be here, not writing stories for kids. And what exactly is it that I think I know about contrails? Back up my 'belief'? What belief is that? You seem to have built an idea out of....well, do tell me where exactly I state these beliefs - and what they are. I'd be very intrigued to know what you have divined from the words I've written. Please highlight where I have stated any beliefs.
Oh yes, and there is a very long history of govt agencies being told what to and what no to do, by govt. It's one reason why they're called govt agencies. A good example of an unpleasant incident ? The EPA was instructed by the executive at the time of 9/11 to obfuscate the air quality readings - so, as Giuliani told New Yorkers to, people could carry on shopping without worrying themselves about the vast amounts of asbestos dust floating about - a lot of dust, there was. So you see that it's not out of the realms of possibility - in fact it's likely - that govt agencies don't tell you the truth about what's best for you, often it's about what's best for them - I know it's very hard to believe for you.

Then MikeC: Mike...

The only thing I cannot take seriously is your unsupported assertion that something is somehow "wrong" here - you haven't actually articulated what it is you think is wrong (as far as I can see), and you haven't provided any evidence to support whatever it is that wrong thing may be.

If you could clearly state what it is you think the problem is, and what your evidence is, then that'd be a great help to me to understand what your position actually is.

thanks in advance

No problem. I refer you to this, one of many statements I have made along the same lines, but for some reason none of you can see why it is relevant to the discourse and so skirt around it: Met people spend their lives being bothered about what makes clouds and when - why ignore this version when it is so prevalent? And it is very prevalent where I am.

Statements about 'the weather affects contrails rather than the other way round' - well Mike, I invite you to come to London and spend a day with me watching aircraft emissions turn into clouds - without the aircraft I cannot say whether those clouds would have formed or not - Mick says he knows that they would anyway, but for someone on the other side of the Atlantic it's a pretty tall order to make such a confident statement without actually being there, that's called conjecture and probably isn't right - and my experience gained from observing, has shown me that it is certainly the trails from the aircraft that are spreading and aggregating and covering the sky with clouds - not haze, clouds. Take away the aircraft and you take away the source of the clouds. This happens regularly and all methods of prediction, unreliable as they are (it's amusing how you shift from one foot to the other when it suits you on matters like this - if I use the methods then you say, ah, well actually - it's not quite accurate, you need to LOOK AT A SATELLITE IMAGE because that's really accurate, eh?) often do not support the reality of what is happening and this is plain to see.
As I'm sure you know, Nasa, Noaa and a couple others I can't recall brought out a joint 'contrail fact sheet' back in 2000 or 2001, it was in response to so many queries from the public on what was being observed. So, contrary to what Mick has said about it being a gradual increase, this suggests that there was a time when it became a lot more noticeable to Joe Public, so much so that they felt the need to produce a document to explain it.

Perhaps it's worthy of note that Russia and China have large scale geo-engineering infrastructure in place. They make no bones about spraying all kinds of stuff to prevent, mitigate, enhance or for whatever effect it is they want to induce. There was a story on the radio here a few weeks back: In Russia, a sack of cement had gone through someone's roof. How? It was dropped from an aircraft accidentally when they were using cement dust to dry up too much moisture in the air, ie. to prevent precipitation. Papers on sun-screens for mitigation of warming exist, the discussion has been going for decades, there are loads of 'research' stations, usually based at universities, around the world focused on weather manipulation; notably in Queensland Aus - for two years they were trying to mitigate the drought conditions and along came Yasi - a disaster. Did they overdo it? They were also aware of the danger of flooding in many of those areas, but did little to mitigate that. Man has always wanted to manipulate things - each other and the weather included. It appears the US and its allies are dragging their heels in this department - rooted helplessly to the spot and observing while 'rivals' develop more and more sophisticated methods. All this 'democracy' must be really slowing us down, eh? Get yer blinkers off.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Back up my 'belief'? What belief is that? You seem to have built an idea out of....well, do tell me where exactly I state these beliefs - and what they are. I'd be very intrigued to know what you have divined from the words I've written. Please highlight where I have stated any beliefs.


So you don't believe in anything you've stated so far?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's an example of what seems to be you stating a belief:

As I'm sure you know, Nasa, Noaa and a couple others I can't recall brought out a joint 'contrail fact sheet' back in 2000 or 2001, it was in response to so many queries from the public on what was being observed. So, contrary to what Mick has said about it being a gradual increase, this suggests that there was a time when it became a lot more noticeable to Joe Public, so much so that they felt the need to produce a document to explain it.

So you think if there was a gradual increase then they would NEVER produce a document?

Could it not also be possible that the popularity of the chemtrail conspiracy theory was what made them put out a document?

You know, if something increases gradually, there comes a point at which people notice it. If you look at the accounts of when people noticed "chemtrails", you'll see it varies over the last 20 years. A very large percentage of people only notice it AFTER they heard of the conspiracy theory. That makes a lot of sense. You don't notice what you are not looking for. So Art Bell starts talking about "chemtrails" in the late 1990's, and the theory starts to get popular. People call NASA, and they get tired of answering the same questions, so they make a document.

Here's the document:

http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/contrails.pdf

You can't find a single error in it. So what's wrong with it?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Yes, just as predicted, now he brings on the "Laundry List"

This from Jay: The ramblings of a madman, you might think...but look, he says: In fact, I'd bet he has never complained to them yet, or even mentioned it to them as he did here. ....Actually, I've written to them twice and received no reply.

This is not proof that you've written anyone.
If you have, show us the proof.

As I'm sure you know, Nasa, Noaa and a couple others I can't recall brought out a joint 'contrail fact sheet' back in 2000 or 2001, it was in response to so many queries from the public on what was being observed. So, contrary to what Mick has said about it being a gradual increase, this suggests that there was a time when it became a lot more noticeable to Joe Public, so much so that they felt the need to produce a document to explain it.

Actually, this was a response to the chemtrails hoax. It was first prompted after letters to Congressional members led to a report by the Congressional Research Service, which included my own work docuenting what was beig said to develop the chemtrails hoax. Later, Congresscritters asked the EPA, NOAA and USAF to develop their own fact sheets.
Here is what I wrote about it in 1999, the factsheet frp EPA came out the next year, 2000.
I was there, lee. Where were you?
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/congrep.html

So, exactly when did you notice the increase you claim was not gradual, and provide us some sort of evidence to back it up, otherwise it's just you-say......

In Russia, a sack of cement had gone through someone's roof. How? It was dropped from an aircraft accidentally when they were using cement dust to dry up too much moisture in the air, ie. to prevent precipitation.
Actually, I doubt that happened at all. Show us some evidence for that report, too.

Papers on sun-screens for mitigation of warming exist, the discussion has been going for decades, there are loads of 'research' stations, usually based at universities, around the world focused on weather manipulation; notably in Queensland Aus - for two years they were trying to mitigate the drought conditions and along came Yasi - a disaster. Did they overdo it? They were also aware of the danger of flooding in many of those areas, but did little to mitigate that. Man has always wanted to manipulate things - each other and the weather included. It appears the US and its allies are dragging their heels in this department - rooted helplessly to the spot and observing while 'rivals' develop more and more sophisticated methods. All this 'democracy' must be really slowing us down, eh? Get yer blinkers off.

Ah, the full blown laundry list components. Usually these are put forth as mere 'questions', yet the implication of their use at all is that all these 'questions' and[uncorrelated] facts are sufficient to manipulate the teacup into a mountain.

You have gone full circle now, lee. You have used up the last resort of the "conspiracy theorist" you said you were not, and demonstrated for all to see that despite everythig else, that's what you really are.

The problem with using the laundry list is that it expands the conspiracy to levels which are unsustainable, irrational, and frankly ridiculous. Sine you brought it up, however, don't expect it to be ignored!

Yes, indeed, thousands upon thousands of meteorologists, pilots, scientists of all description from NOAA, EPA, the British Met office, the US congess, air traffic controllers, the Australian government, all across the world these tens of thousands of tireless sots are conspiring to manipulate the sunshine over your home. And not one of them, not a single one of them ever got disgruntled, never got fired, never had a complaint, never a dispute, never spoke to anyone about it, never a word......... and some of them were EX-NAZI's, you say?

Yes, you have taken the red pill and have seen into the Matrix, you are sure of what is happening, you are a VICTIM of these unnamed forces all conspiring in secret for one goal, to STEAL YOUR SUNSHINE!

Mick was right.
Step back a while, lee. Think about what you are saying, how ridiculous you are looking.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps it's worthy of note that Russia and China have large scale geo-engineering infrastructure in place. They make no bones about spraying all kinds of stuff to prevent, mitigate, enhance or for whatever effect it is they want to induce. There was a story on the radio here a few weeks back: In Russia, a sack of cement had gone through someone's roof. How? It was dropped from an aircraft accidentally when they were using cement dust to dry up too much moisture in the air, ie. to prevent precipitation.

Actually, I doubt that happened at all. Show us some evidence for that report, too.

Well it didn't happen a few weeks ago, it was in 2008.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008...0080617?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

"A pack of cement used in creating ... good weather in the capital region ... failed to pulverize completely at high altitude and fell on the roof of a house, making a hole about 80-100 cm (2.5-3 ft)," police in Naro-Fominsk told agency RIA-Novosti.
Ahead of major public holidays the Russian Air Force often dispatches up to 12 cargo planes carrying loads of silver iodide, liquid nitrogen and cement powder to seed clouds above Moscow and empty the skies of moisture.

But really the point should be that that's not geo-engineering (which affects the climate of the planet). It's highly localized weather modification (which affects a small region for a few hours).

There's plenty of weather modification going on in the US, in the form of cloud seeding. It looks nothing like contrails.
 

Related Articles

Top