Science aside...

Skirtz

New Member
I have been witnessing these trails in my area for quite some time now. From what I have seen and read, that's not news. I have read "science" and "facts" from both sides, and not being a chemist or physicist myself, it gets tough to decipher what is real and what is not. So, I would like to direct my questions away from the science involved. I have a number of anomalous questions, but I will just ask this one to start:

I live about 25 miles from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. It is one of the busiest airports in the world, if not the busiest. I have spoken to a longtime friend of mine, who works at a nearby air traffic control center, which handles the traffic leaving Atlanta once it is out of their immediate airspace. They are called AAC's - Area Control Centers. He has about 10 years of experience, so I trust his expertise as well as his word on the matter. My question to him was, "do commercial flights stick to 'lanes' in the sky, especially so close to a major airport." His answer was much as I expected it to be: yes, flights stick closely to these "lanes," and if they stray, they are contacted by the AAC and ordered to correct the error.

Given that the atmospheric properties are conducive for trails to appear, remain for hours, and spread across the sky, and that these commercial flights are made to stick to strict flight paths, why do I see new patterns in the sky daily? Why do I sometimes see criss-crossing trails, and sometimes parallel? Why would there be 5 trails one day, and 30 the next? Again, given that the atmosphere allows for these trails.

It seems logical, to me, that if any two given days have atmospheric conditions conducive to trails, that the patterns of these trails would be identical (not identical behavior - that would be determined by wind, humidity, etc.), because commercial planes follow specific routes (pilots and air traffic controllers obviously alter these routes for storms, etc., but these begin as clear days, from horizon to horizon, so that explanation would hold no water).

Again, I'm not arguing or interested in the science of why the trails are there. The fact is that they are there. I am sincerely hoping that somebody can attempt to account for these variations, because even if ALL of what the "debunkers" say is true, it doesn't account for varying trails day-to-day, in an area that has an extremely high volume of flights. The atmosphere here is obviously conducive to lingering and spreading trails almost daily, year-round.

I have dozens of photos of varying trails and patterns, and would be more than willing to share them with interested readers, or readers who disbelieve any part of this post.

My peace-of-mind thanks anyone, in advance, for taking the time to tackle this issue.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's because only a certain layer (or layers) of the atmosphere will allow the trails to form, and this varies.

It's not an on/off thing for all planes. The altitudes that contrails form at will vary from day to day. So you catch different traffic.

Also the planes themselves will not always fly at the same altitude. So combine those two things, you end up with some random patterns.

I also believe the degree to which planes stick to flight paths is not as strict as you describe for overflying traffic. The highways in the sky are more precise for traffic landing at or taking off from an airport, but it's the overflying traffic that makes the trails. Traffic for an airport 25 miles away would not result in any trails directly overhead.

The actually pattern itself is also greatly dictated by the wind. Have a look at this simulator:

http://contrailscience.com/contrail-simulations/

(maybe try to Java version, as the controls are bit off in the embedded one).

Alter the wind speed and directions. See the different grids that form.
 

Skirtz

New Member
Actually, the planes making the trails seem to be the "middle layer" of flight traffic. There are even smaller specks in the sky leaving the shorter, more quickly dissipating trails I was once accustomed to seeing. I have to assume the smaller objects are at a greater distance.

The planes landing and departing from the airport are at a much lower altitude than the planes leaving trails. I know that. That is obvious. But I don't know what the air traffic is supposed to be like at >30,000 ft in my area. According to the trails, there is a lot, but I'm not well-versed enough in this to know where and how to obtain that information.

Is there a way to find the info on the standard deviation of flight altitudes? You say they vary. I find it highly unlikely that, for instance, a flight from LA to NY would vary it's mid-flight altitude very much at all. Flying has become very much computerized and uniform. Again, unless they have to change for storms, or some atmospheric reason, I don't believe they would alter their altitude. And, if the flights going east-west over my house need to change their altitude, then so would the ones going north-south, and then I wouldn't see any trails... or more trails haha.

You'll have to excuse my skepticism... for both sides of the argument. A "simulator" ... really? A simulator follows the design of it's maker, so I find little value in that. Additionally, however, wind speed and wind direction wouldn't make a trail that is perpendicular to another simply disappear. What I mean is, some days I see criss-crossing trails, and others, parallel. You would have to be claiming that, on some days, the air traffic flies in all different directions, and on others, those planes on perpendicular flight paths just aren't in the sky, or, again, ALL changed their altitudes for no atmospheric reason. They are at the same altitude, in the same airspace, under the same wind influence. It seems too great a coincidence. Truly.

I very much appreciate your response. I don't yet have special feeling I get when my mind is put to ease, but it's on the right track. Once this question is resolved, or found to be unresolvable, I'll pose the rest of my questions.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Check some actual planes:

http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KATL

Click the icon in the lower right of the small map to open a larger map, then zoom out.

The planes are nearly live, delayed maybe 10-15 minutes.

The green planes are the flyover planes. If you hover the mouse over one you'll get some info on it:



That's
JIA283 CRJ7 (Flight and aircraft type)
250 367 (Altitude in 100s of feet, Speed in knots)
KCLT KBHM (Origin and destination airports).

You can click on the plane for more info:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/JIA283


This is just what happened to be flying overhead right now. Try it out for a while, you'll see a very wide range of altitudes.

Then look at the history of a frequent flight at contrail altitude, see the activity log:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/JIA564

Click on each of the dates there and look at the altitude graph. Sometimes 30,000, sometimes 32,000, sometime both. While the changes in the weather will have more of any impact, that shows it's not a fixed altitude.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You'll have to excuse my skepticism... for both sides of the argument. A "simulator" ... really? A simulator follows the design of it's maker, so I find little value in that. Additionally, however, wind speed and wind direction wouldn't make a trail that is perpendicular to another simply disappear. What I mean is, some days I see criss-crossing trails, and others, parallel. You would have to be claiming that, on some days, the air traffic flies in all different directions, and on others, those planes on perpendicular flight paths just aren't in the sky, or, again, ALL changed their altitudes for no atmospheric reason. They are at the same altitude, in the same airspace, under the same wind influence. It seems too great a coincidence. Truly.

I wrote the simulator. It's doing nothing at all contentious other than speeding up time. You can get the EXACT SAME RESULTS by looking at time-lapse video of contrails


I don't think there is ANY significant difference in the patterns of traffic over your house. Just sometimes the contrail layer only catches some planes, and sometimes it catches more.

ATC will keep perpendicular traffic separated in altitude for obvious reasons, whereas parallel traffic is more likely to be at the same altitude.

Have a look at the grids and parallel lines you are talking about. How many planes are involved? Are most planes flying in one direction? Try identifying flights on flightaware, and see what altitude they are at. Do east-west flights differ from north-south flights on average?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Stay with it, Skirtz. You can develop some information which will explain much to yourself and others.
Ken Bradley was able to identify a whopping 42 flights in one day. Though he says he still believes they are spraying, he documented the event very well along with distinct differences in constancy, persistence and spreading between the planes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvXVvahXw4M

During a road trip yesterday, I had the opportunity to observe some persistent contrails in the distance, maybe at 45 degrees above the horizon.
At 70 mph, it took me 30 minutes to arrive underneath the actual trail. I'm not sure what the wind speed and direction was at that altitude, which could have blown the trail in any direction, but when I reached the area, I had probably traveled 35 miles. so understand that you can probably expect to see some contrails as far as 50 miles away, perhaps more if they are close to the horizon.

Be sure to keep us aprised of your progress and conclusions.
Jay
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
The jet routes above Atlanta (100 square NM):

View attachment 308

Atlanta is also surrounded by other airports. Airports are denoted by the green circles with the tabs sticking out of the 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
I have spoken to a longtime friend of mine, who works at a nearby air traffic control center, which handles the traffic leaving Atlanta once it is out of their immediate airspace. They are called AAC's - Area Control Centers. He has about 10 years of experience, so I trust his expertise as well as his word on the matter. My question to him was, "do commercial flights stick to 'lanes' in the sky, especially so close to a major airport." His answer was much as I expected it to be: yes, flights stick closely to these "lanes," and if they stray, they are contacted by the AAC and ordered to correct the error.

Tell your air traffic control friend i said hi! I'm a retired air traffic controller from Washington Center (ZDC), an adjacent facility. I was the guy giving and taking airplanes from him!

Are you sure you understood your friend correctly? It's very possible Atlanta Center has some different rules-of-thumb regarding the shortening of routes (taking aircraft off of their assigned routes) to provide a more expeditious movement of traffic, but at ZDC we shortened routes when ever we could. Granted, we didn't clear them direct to their destination, but giving an aircraft clearance to a point 50 or 100 miles down their assigned route of flight is certainly not uncommon. Like i said, conditions at Atlanta Center may be different, i can only speak from my own experience.

Glad you stopped by this forum, nice to have you aboard!

:cool:

P.S. Just a terminology correction, the Atlanta and Washington facilities are technically called "Enroute Air Route Traffic Control Centers." (IE: Atlanta ARTCC, Washington ARTCC, etc.)
 

Skirtz

New Member
Thank you to everyone for the help! I'm a big fan of being able to do the research myself, and these are some great resources. My mind remains open.

PCWilliams,
From what I understood, the air traffic control tower at the Atlanta airport, itself, is used only for ground taxiing, gate organization and the very immediate airspace, and that the flights are very quickly transferred to outlying centers. I don't have any knowledge of other airports, so this could vary, I'm sure. I know that the air traffic control center in Peachtree City, GA (about 20 miles away from the airport) handles a massive amount of traffic in the airport's immediate vicinity. My guess is that the Atlanta airport, due to the intense volume of traffic, handles it a little differently than others. Interesting stuff, either way.

Mick, thanks for the info. I understand what you say about the simulator, and I will definitely play around with it. You understand, I'm sure, that I question the source of any info (one of the few things of value I got from college years ago). But seeing how the trails behave, as a group, under different conditions, is very helpful. I just have to account for the variances I witness daily before I can let my guard down when it comes to these trails. For instance, seeing two trails very close to each other, where one is very wide and fluffy, and the one next to it is thin and less prominent, but still, it lingers. I'm more than willing, even hoping, to accept that they are harmless, but seeing them behave so differently at the same time in the same space is what I'm working to wrap my head around.

One quick side question, if this fits the thread: Assuming that the trails are contrails, and are nothing more than jet fuel, yada yada, is there reason for concern when the jet fuel spreads to become cloud cover, and then it rains later that day? Would I be correct in assuming that this rain, although not insidiously containing all of the nasty things claimed to be present by chemtrailers, would still have reminents of this fuel? Would adverse health effects result from standing out in this rain, or breathing it in when it evaporates from the ground (during the summer, following the rainstorms, steam rises from the heated asphault, and is obviously inhaled)?

Thank you all, again. I believe there are far more pressing matters in this country, and around the world, that require our attention (I'm sure even chemtrailers can agree!), so it will be nice if/when this becomes a thing of the past.

PS. My grandfather was an avid photographer. My father tells me it was his one and only hobby when he wasn't working for the US Navy as a engineer for their submarine program. I'm hoping to be able to look through these photos in the very near future to possibly find some trails. It's probably a "needle in a haystack" sort of venture, but I think it will be worth the time. I will keep you updated.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
PS. My grandfather was an avid photographer. My father tells me it was his one and only hobby when he wasn't working for the US Navy as a engineer for their submarine program. I'm hoping to be able to look through these photos in the very near future to possibly find some trails. It's probably a "needle in a haystack" sort of venture, but I think it will be worth the time. I will keep you updated.

I will respond more later, but right now i have to go do some errands. I just thought you might want to view a video i made that might help answer some questions:

​.

It was the making of this video that introduced me to the fine folks here on this forum.

:rolleyes:
 

Skirtz

New Member
PC,
Very cool video, done from a good, calm perspective. I watched that video about a week ago when I stumbled upon contrailscience.com. Those are good pictures and videos of trails "back in the day." I have to say, for argument's sake only, that the videos of trails coming from the planes only shows the immediate space directly behind these planes, and that it only shows that trails of any kind are created by these high-altitude planes. It doesn't really show that they persist or spread. Playing the devil's advocate, if you don't mind, causes me to say that even the pictures that show a trail from one side of the picture to the other does little to indicate that they were there for longer than a couple of minutes (although a couple of them certainly look like they would persist - again, an assumption). I witness trails that last longer than the short, quickly dissipating trails, but do not linger for hours or cover the sky. So, there seems to be a great degree of variation, even in just what I witness, personally.

The 1965, Outter Limits photograph is, to me, the best evidence you provided. The videos showing the immediate aft of the planes producing trails is, to me, evidence of nothing more than the airplanes burning fuel. I wish they had filmed what they did, followed by filming the rest of the trails. I wouldn't argue against the fact that planes produced contrails back in the 40's, 50's, 60's, etc. I hope that my grandfather was as curious as I, and turned his camera upwards :)

I feel strongly that "chemclouds" are an ignorant classification of naturally occuring cloud formations. I remember being 8 years old and having a small book that showed all of the different kinds of clouds, why they form the way they do, and what they mean for the coming weather. I loved that book, and used it all of the time. There are many clouds that look bizarre, other-worldly, and artificial. But that appearance implies no evil-doing. You video demonstrates this well.

You know, though, that taking a newspaper blurb from one paper - one reporter's opinion, of which we know nothing concerning the motivations for writing an article - is not admissible as evidence. Just as debunkers do not lend credence today's news stories reporting on chemtrails as factual occurences, we can not do the same with a newspaper article supporting your side of the coin, regardless of when it was written. Don't worry, I understand why you included it... the date it was written. I believe it then becomes an issue of how persistent these trails were. The sentence preceding the highlighted segment calls them "moderately persistent." I, and thousands of others (perhaps even yourself?), would call today's trails "extremely persistent." Or, "insanely persistent." Or, "ridiculously persistent." You get the idea.

Fun stuff, though. I look forward to further discussion.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Skirtz, I cannot add to what has already been posted, but your plain-and-simple tone in investigating your visual suspicions is admirable.
I am not a scientist, nor do I have the real-world expertise that several others around here do. I try the best I can, having learned the basic science of contrails (and their history).
I encourage you to keep asking questions if you don't understand something, and pointing out anything that does not make sense to you, or to the further understanding of reality's mysteries.

It's best to investigate, before coming to a conclusion......as that is the scientific method, and is a sure way of understanding "how things happen" in this world, given what we know to this point.
No one here claims to invent antidotes to any certain situations.. They are regurgitating well known scientific understandings, but in plain simple words.

EDIT:
you typed....
....I, and thousands of others (perhaps even yourself?), would call today's trails "extremely persistent." Or, "insanely persistent." Or, "ridiculously persistent." You get the idea.
This is partly due to the heights that airliner fly at these days, set as a standard to fly at a more fuel efficient consumption rate. It is actually a combination of: monetary ($$) benifit to do so for the airlines...and also results in a more ecological benefit in that it uses less fuel to "cruise" at that altitude.....the altitude that is more prone to exhibit long, persistent contrails.


About the newspaper reporting issue you raised....it was the not the "opinion" of the author, but was of the science involved....again a re-description of well known, documented science.....put in "printed mass media terms", targeted at the often under-educated, or curious public.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For instance, seeing two trails very close to each other, where one is very wide and fluffy, and the one next to it is thin and less prominent, but still, it lingers. I'm more than willing, even hoping, to accept that they are harmless, but seeing them behave so differently at the same time in the same space is what I'm working to wrap my head around.

It's very unlikely that they were in the same space. If the trails form differently, then the most likely explanation is that they are at different altitudes. It does not take much - just 100 feet can make all the difference, but 1,000 feet would be more likely, and undetectable from the ground. See:

http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

One quick side question, if this fits the thread: Assuming that the trails are contrails, and are nothing more than jet fuel, yada yada, is there reason for concern when the jet fuel spreads to become cloud cover, and then it rains later that day? Would I be correct in assuming that this rain, although not insidiously containing all of the nasty things claimed to be present by chemtrailers, would still have reminents of this fuel? Would adverse health effects result from standing out in this rain, or breathing it in when it evaporates from the ground (during the summer, following the rainstorms, steam rises from the heated asphault, and is obviously inhaled)?

No. Because contrails are cirrus clouds it's very rare for their precipitation to reach the ground. Typically the ice crystals either sublimate away, or fall and melt at a lower altitude (see virga)

And contrails are not "nothing more than jet fuel", they are water. And between 70 and 99% of that is water that was already in the atmosphere. The toxic elements of the jet exhaust mix with the atmosphere exactly the same if a contrail forms or does not form.


Thank you all, again. I believe there are far more pressing matters in this country, and around the world, that require our attention (I'm sure even chemtrailers can agree!), so it will be nice if/when this becomes a thing of the past.
I totally agree with that, it's a little sad that people expend so much energy on conspiracy theories with no real evidence to support them.

PS. My grandfather was an avid photographer. My father tells me it was his one and only hobby when he wasn't working for the US Navy as a engineer for their submarine program. I'm hoping to be able to look through these photos in the very near future to possibly find some trails. It's probably a "needle in a haystack" sort of venture, but I think it will be worth the time. I will keep you updated.

That would be great, but old photos of contrails tend to be rare, simply because there were fewer contrails, and people took fewer photos, and the photos were of lower quality. They do exist, and I've collected quite a few from old collections of personal photos people posted on Flickr.
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Assuming that the trails are contrails, and are nothing more than jet fuel, yada yada, is there reason for concern when the jet fuel spreads to become cloud cover, and then it rains later that day? Would I be correct in assuming that this rain, although not insidiously containing all of the nasty things claimed to be present by chemtrailers, would still have reminents of this fuel? Would adverse health effects result from standing out in this rain, or breathing it in when it evaporates from the ground (during the summer, following the rainstorms, steam rises from the heated asphault, and is obviously inhaled)?

Unburned fuel is minimal in jet engines. Fuel is the greatest cost of aviation, and they won't stay in business if they waste it.
Jet fuel is kerosene, a hydrocarbon fuel, the hydrogen in the fuel combines during combustion with oxygen to form water vapor(H+O2=H2O), and the carbon combines with oxygen(C+O2=CO2) to form CO2 and some(C+O=CO) CO(carbon monoxide), since air is mainly nitrogen, some of that also combines during combustion to form various compounds usually labeled NOx, and some sulphur which is in fuel combines with oxygen to form SOx compounds, and some unburned carbon known as soot'.

It is the H2O(water) which forms the contrail, and as Mick noted, much of the contrail is water that was already in the atmosphere but needed some extra water and soot to become visible.

An interesting video I ran across recently shows how even very cold air can hold significant amounts of invisible water vapor, yet unless there are particles, the vapor will not condense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EneDwu0HrVg

Regarding unburned fuel, at flight level and cruise power output, over 99% of all fuel is burned. Ironically, much higher levels of unburned fuel are released at airports than at cruise, so unless you live near the airport, not much to worry about.

EPA has spent our tax dollars to look at that, nevertheless, and here is what they found (2009):
At engine power conditions significantly higher that ~15% rated thrust, the engine combustion efficiency is so close to 100% that measurement of many HCs[hydrocarbons-JR] becomes difficult or impossible due to instrument detection levels for diluted exhaust gases (either with 1 m dilution probes or downwind sampling): the HC concentrations are too small to measure. Thus, when considering the total emissions contribution from a given aircraft operation, the amount of HCs is dominated by the low power conditions.
http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/aviation/420r09902.pdf

Yes, airplanes pollute, as does all fossil fuel combustion for cars, trains, and power generation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Jay, I was just thinking about this very subject and that (excellent) video. Contrails do not really need the soot - the air is unlikely to be as clean as that Arctic air. It just increases the density of condensation nuclei, allowing a larger number of initial ice crystals to form. This results in a very large number of very small ice crystals, which then grow from ambient humidity, so the optical depth of the contrail remains high longer.

Very clean exhaust would possibly (depending on ambient nuclei) result in a smaller number of larger ice crystals, giving a thinner (less dense) trail, that would fall quicker due to larger particle sizes.
 

Skirtz

New Member
Very good stuff, everyone. Thank you!

Jay, that makes sense regarding living close to airports. Those populations have historically had much higher levels of respiratory illnesses and the like, and live shorter lives. Hopefully I'm in a lot less danger, living 25 miles away from it.

I have a total lack of trust for the EPA and the FDA (which caused me to look into the chemtrail issue). I believe this lack of trust to be well founded. Sadly, we are misinformed, as a public, on many pertinant issues, by these governemnt agencies. I always like to look into the real dangers of what is around us. Our food supply is a fantastic example. A good deal of the "ingredients" in what is mass-fed in this country is illegal for distribution in other parts of the world. But that's an issue for a different thread entirely. Thanks, again!
 

Skirtz

New Member
I am sure that you have seen this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wshBhDlI1dY

A man, suspicious of the actions of a company called Weather Modification, Inc. secretly takes a video camera in to their offices and asks an employee there a series of questions. Now, I know that cloud seeding is a real thing, not disputed by those who do/ have done it. My father remembers this practice being public back in the 60's, and hearing about it in the news. What do the good people of this website think of this interview? Is it nothing more than cloud seeding? They apparently receive funding from both public and private institutions.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think it's just cloud seeding. That's all the guy talks about. He's quite open and articulate about it. There's nothing at all unusual or unexpected in anything he says.

The thing is that many in the chemtrail community have NOT heard about cloud seeding, and so they think this is some huge revelation. But as you note, it's been common knowledge since the 50's and 60's. Most states have public notification laws, where cloud seeding is announced in advance in the newspapers.

WMI just uses small planes, at relatively low altitudes, to seed existing clouds to make them rain more.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
I am sure that you have seen this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wshBhDlI1dY

A man, suspicious of the actions of a company called Weather Modification, Inc. secretly takes a video camera in to their offices and asks an employee there a series of questions. Now, I know that cloud seeding is a real thing, not disputed by those who do/ have done it. My father remembers this practice being public back in the 60's, and hearing about it in the news. What do the good people of this website think of this interview? Is it nothing more than cloud seeding? They apparently receive funding from both public and private institutions.

Yeah, they do seasonal cloud seeding with small propeller twin engine aircraft. Usually either for research, precipitation enhancement (rain, snow) or hail suppresion.

They are at the Fargo airport, totally out there in the open.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
I am sure that you have seen this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wshBhDlI1dY

A man, suspicious of the actions of a company called Weather Modification, Inc. secretly takes a video camera in to their offices and asks an employee there a series of questions. Now, I know that cloud seeding is a real thing, not disputed by those who do/ have done it. My father remembers this practice being public back in the 60's, and hearing about it in the news. What do the good people of this website think of this interview? Is it nothing more than cloud seeding? They apparently receive funding from both public and private institutions.

What I am noticing in your postings, is not so much that you have any evidence, its just that you have suspicions. You should have those same suspicions to those who promote the chemtrail hoax.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Another thing that causes the pattern of trails to vary (in addition to differences in the altitude at which formation occurs from day to day) is the direction and speed of winds in the jet stream. Here in Florida if we have contrails forming in a ripping westerly jet a lot of our traffic will want to fly above that to get out of the cross wind as they head north/south to/from various east coast hubs. We end up with somewhat short (depending on the depth of the layer) but persistent and very heavily sheered trails (lateral spreading) as the planes only leave trails as they climb or descend through that layer. Sometimes the crossing trails are caused by a plane heading from Ft. Lauderdale to Houston leaving a SE/NW oriented trail. That trail gets advected toward the east over the Peninsula and ends up with fresher trails from Ft. Lauderdale to NYC traffic. The planes never actually crossed paths but the paths of some traffic end up crossing a trail that was created 100s of miles away.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting mix there of what is following the Victor airways, and what is not. Some planes clearly are, but some are just flying direct.

The airways are really just navigational aids, and not legally prescribed highways. Planes can fly pretty much anywhere over the US.
 

Skirtz

New Member
Geeze, here we go again... I run into people like "firepilot" far too often, and they hurt the learning process. "GregOrca" tried the same approach on me over on contrailscience.com. Mick, you probably saw that.

"Firepilot,"
With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? I'm on here BECAUSE I am suspicious of the claims made that these trails are dangerous. Because I see these trails almost daily, directly over my home, I seek to find answers to what I can not answer myself. Don't tell me who to be suspicious of, or in what manner I should question any topic. Everyone who has replied and discussed what I have brought forth has been polite, informative, and convey themselves as credible, unemotional participators in a functional debate. You, however, seek to make me feel small for not being on a chemtrailer's message board asking these questions of them. Do you think I would gain any info if I went about this in the manner which you suggest?

That aside, here's an ideological question for you, firepilot, that will shed a lot of light on YOUR mentality. Do you believe it is any different for someone to blindly believe something they read/hear/see, than it is to blindly reject something they read/hear/see? Both are blind. Both are uneducated, naive, neanderthal ways of thinking. But, I shouldn't be too surprised. Most of the world's population thinks like you.

Why don't you excuse yourself from this one.

I come to this message board with the hope of bettering myself. I think you should retool your approach, or nobody is going to take you, or what you say, seriously.

And, again, a big "thank you" goes out to the rest of you, who have helped me a great deal.
 

Skirtz

New Member
And, yes. Mick, the real-time flight maps are a huge help. It is a resource I didn't know existed. Very cool!
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Geeze, here we go again... I run into people like "firepilot" far too often, and they hurt the learning process. "GregOrca" tried the same approach on me over on contrailscience.com. Mick, you probably saw that.

"Firepilot,"
With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? I'm on here BECAUSE I am suspicious of the claims made that these trails are dangerous. Because I see these trails almost daily, directly over my home, I seek to find answers to what I can not answer myself. Don't tell me who to be suspicious of, or in what manner I should question any topic. Everyone who has replied and discussed what I have brought forth has been polite, informative, and convey themselves as credible, unemotional participators in a functional debate. You, however, seek to make me feel small for not being on a chemtrailer's message board asking these questions of them. Do you think I would gain any info if I went about this in the manner which you suggest?

That aside, here's an ideological question for you, firepilot, that will shed a lot of light on YOUR mentality. Do you believe it is any different for someone to blindly believe something they read/hear/see, than it is to blindly reject something they read/hear/see? Both are blind. Both are uneducated, naive, neanderthal ways of thinking. But, I shouldn't be too surprised. Most of the world's population thinks like you.

Why don't you excuse yourself from this one.

I come to this message board with the hope of bettering myself. I think you should retool your approach, or nobody is going to take you, or what you say, seriously.

And, again, a big "thank you" goes out to the rest of you, who have helped me a great deal.

But my point is valid. It was not that you had real concrete reasons to be suspicious, there were just things that you did not understand, and you were leaning towards filling in those gaps, with conspiracy beliefs.

People have done this for eons, and the most common way they filling in their gaps of understanding, was that "God did it". Now, especially with the internet, many just use conspiracies to fill in those gaps, and certain chemtrail promoters and conspiracy entrepreneurs take advantage of that, and promote conspiracies in order to make a buck.

I can list several conspiracy promoters online, who take part in promoting the chemtrails hoax, who spread nothing but false facts, and just by coincidence, have things for sale, whether it is books, dvds, or even "remedies"

And regarding Weather Modification Inc ,what about that business is suspicious to you? What I said about them, is factual ; they are a small business at a public airport, that uses twin engine propellor aircraft on seasonal cloud seeding projects and occasional research.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Skirtz,
Regardless of Firepilot's bluntness, he is correct.
You may not like his directness, but if suspicions are the only basis for and idea (while real answers are also available) , sometimes you just have to swallow the hard pill, and acknowledge your err and ways of thoughts. It happens to all of us at some point, and is not a sign of defeat.....for you have just gained new knowledge. That is not a defeat.
Don't let your defensive instinct get riled-up over frank talk.
 

Skirtz

New Member
My "concrete" reason for being suspicious originates from noticing something in the sky that looked, to me, to be very unusual. I had never noticed these persistent, spreading trails before. If you can, for just one moment, attempt to understand that seeing these for the first time is quite jolting when not knowing what they really are.

Don't label certain explanations as conspiracies, and others, not. Without the truth - the REAL truth - either can be, in reality, the "conspiracy."

Don't tell me which way I "lean," on any subject. You know nothing of my mind-set, and nothing of my beliefs. Suspicion fed my need to seek answers, which is what I have done. Suspicion is what I now hold for you. You seem very hung-up on the WMI post. In my posting of the video, I even said that they have been explained as simple cloud seeding. I didn't say that what you said about WMI was incorrect. I thought/knew that someone on here would be familiar with WMI, and would be able to debunk the viewpoint of the man who filmed the video. I don't question Micks motives, or PCWilliams, or the others who have contributed substance. I do, however, question you. I question your motives.

I believe others on this thread would agree with me in saying that I haven't taken a side, and have done so respectfully. I didn't begin a thread attacking debunkers, supporting chemtrails, or taking any hard stance. I seek information.

I pose this as a suggestion, in an attempt to put an end to your useless comments: don't post here anymore. You offer nothing of substance. You are a waste of time and energy. Leave it alone.
 

Skirtz

New Member
Skirtz,
Regardless of Firepilot's bluntness, he is correct.
You may not like his directness, but if suspicions are the only basis for and idea (while real answers are also available) , sometimes you just have to swallow the hard pill, and acknowledge your err and ways of thoughts. It happens to all of us at some point, and is not a sign of defeat.....for you have just gained new knowledge. That is not a defeat.
Don't let your defensive instinct get riled-up over frank talk.

I couldn't disagree more. Both the consiracy theorists and the debunkers take a side. How am I to know, without ANY previous knowledge, what is right and wrong? I researched both sides, and then came here to ask the couple of questions I felt were still unanswered. It is NOT an err in a way of thought to remain open until satisfied with the information at hand. I think you, and firepilot, are both out of line here. I'm so incredibly close to being convinced that these trails are perfectly harmless, and then the two of you come along.

In any situation, I have no problem with being wrong or admitting fault. But, how can I be wrong in asking these questions? Is that not the purpose of this? Is this not why Mick and the others are here? You represent yourself as a small-minded person when you assume we are all at the same point in our journey to learn any truth. I will not be made to seem wrong for not knowing what you know, when you know it. I am saddened that you and firepilot have begun to ruin this process for me.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Don't label certain explanations as conspiracies, and others, not. Without the truth - the REAL truth - either can be, in reality, the "conspiracy."
The two ideas can't both be a conspiracy. One has to outweigh the other. That is what we are trying to explain to you. We are attempting to reveal more truth to one side, than the other.

Don't tell me which way I "lean," on any subject. .......I don't question Micks motives, or PCWilliams, or the others who have contributed substance. I do, however, question you. I question your motives.
...again, don't let your defensiveness cloud the information provided.

I pose this as a suggestion, in an attempt to put an end to your useless comments: don't post here anymore. You offer nothing of substance. You are a waste of time and energy. Leave it alone.
...this would be censorship to the ideas that you do not subscribe to. You don't want your ideas to be censored, do you ?
Allow others the same freedom.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Skirtz, I think you do in some part ruin it for yourself. Perhaps Firepilot of Stupid have come across to you as as insensitive, maybe they have mischaracterized your position somewhat, but can't we just swiftly note that, move past it, and continue discussing what's actually important?

Do you still have outstanding questions about the chemtrail theory or suchlike?
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I couldn't disagree more. Both the consiracy theorists and the debunkers take a side. How am I to know, without ANY previous knowledge, what is right and wrong? I researched both sides, and then came here to ask the couple of questions I felt were still unanswered. It is NOT an err in a way of thought to remain open until satisfied with the information at hand. I think you, and firepilot, are both out of line here. I'm so incredibly close to being convinced that these trails are perfectly harmless, and then the two of you come along.
I apologize if I came across as assuming what your ideas and intentions are (were).
You must realize the context and content we are bombarded with...the patently innacurate youtube videos, unfounded suspicions, invented science... and such.
It becomes difficult to not speak directly to such thoughts, even if they are just suggested and asked..."why".
In the same way we need to reel-back our frankness, I'd hope you can understand, and reel-back your defensiveness in light of gaining some understandings.
Maybe you can help us ....help you....and others.
If you think any content or science is wrong, I'm sure we will become the students.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I, too see merit in what firepilot said. After all, you came here and found answers you will never find on any chemtrail believer oriented site.
This should give you pause to think about why, since some of those sites are dedicated to the issue, why have they not addressed the issues and dealt with them? To me, this is why firepilot mentioned that you should be truly skeptical. It doesn't hurt the learning process to point out that one side of an argument is offering up bunk as truth if they really are, does it?

For example, were I to even attempt to create an account......, well, I'll simply let you see what happens....
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/798

What I've seen of the chemtrails believer side is that by not addressing the real sort of issues that will eventually come up, they effectively neuter those folks on their side by leaving them in such ignorance.

For example, at Michael J. Murphy's site above, I intended to show them how to utilize flightaware to learn about aviation flight paths over their area, just as you did above. By deleting my account within an hour, Murphy denied his people that knowledge. This has happened to firepilot as well on many occasions. This is why he warned you to remain skeptical of the other side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skirtz

New Member
I really hope this can end, just as you do. I still feel, very strongly, that I'm being misunderstood here. I can easily understand where the reaction would come from, originally, seeing as how you deal with a lot of angry, emotional, non-constructive people on a daily basis. I cringe at the thought of being grouped with these people, because I don't act or think like these people. My intentions here have, from the beginning, been of the purest need to come to a conclusion - for myself and my peace of mind.

Stupid - I'm not going to respond to your first response, because we'll go back and forth on an issue that can't be resolved. I still believe that by responding the way you and firepilot have only serves to hurt the process, and you still believe that I'm upset about being wrong and am getting defensive. I'm simply aware that misinformation exists. Perhaps the title I chose for the thread is the source of you saying that I may think some of the science is wrong. I don't think that at all. I just don't know enough about a lot of the terms and language associated with the really in-depth scientific explanations( I was an English and Sociology double major in college - science just simply wasn't my strong suit). So, having read as much as I could on the science which debunks, and the "science" claimed to suppport chemtrails, I knew that asking more questions about the science involved wouldn't answer my questions. And, I was right. My questions here were answered. I am satisfied with these answers. I just needed to complete this process, for myself, and in my own way.

Jay - Again, I'm aware of misinformation. I know that chemtrailers like to censor those who oppose them. This is one of the biggest reasons why I came here. I agree with everything you are all saying about these other sites and their censorship. I have seen it first hand, and it sent up red flags. I just can't agree that I went about this incorrectly, just because I didn't bring hard facts to this message board - I brought suspicions. I'm surprised that someone who is obviously not a "chemtrailer" is met with scrutiny just because I don't have any facts, myself. I came seeking facts.

Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to leave. I got what I came for, and as I posted previously, there far more pressing matters. Thank you to everyone who helped, and I apologize to anyone I upset.

All the best.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
My "concrete" reason for being suspicious originates from noticing something in the sky that looked, to me, to be very unusual. I had never noticed these persistent, spreading trails before. If you can, for just one moment, attempt to understand that seeing these for the first time is quite jolting when not knowing what they really are.

Don't label certain explanations as conspiracies, and others, not. Without the truth - the REAL truth - either can be, in reality, the "conspiracy."

Don't tell me which way I "lean," on any subject. You know nothing of my mind-set, and nothing of my beliefs. Suspicion fed my need to seek answers, which is what I have done. Suspicion is what I now hold for you. You seem very hung-up on the WMI post. In my posting of the video, I even said that they have been explained as simple cloud seeding. I didn't say that what you said about WMI was incorrect. I thought/knew that someone on here would be familiar with WMI, and would be able to debunk the viewpoint of the man who filmed the video. I don't question Micks motives, or PCWilliams, or the others who have contributed substance. I do, however, question you. I question your motives.

I believe others on this thread would agree with me in saying that I haven't taken a side, and have done so respectfully. I didn't begin a thread attacking debunkers, supporting chemtrails, or taking any hard stance. I seek information.

I pose this as a suggestion, in an attempt to put an end to your useless comments: don't post here anymore. You offer nothing of substance. You are a waste of time and energy. Leave it alone.

I have every right to post here, and I do not quite understand what has made you so defensive, when I did not insult you at all, merely pointed out that you that you have not applied skepticism equally, and that your suspicious are not founded in anything real.

And no, it is not a natural reaction to be alarmed or jolted when you see something that you do not understand. This is not an insult, so do not take it as that. I think the natural reaction is to want to find knowledge, and I am glad that you decided to post here. However, you need to tone down a bit on the anger and defensiveness.

If you look up and see one plane making a longer contrail, and one that does not, there are a variety of reasons for that, with no conspiracy or anything sinister involved whatsoever. I realize that Chemtraill hoax promotion websites claim that most all trails should be short lived and relatively uniform, and that is not correct one bit.

Being alarmed every time you see something you do not quite understand, is not a healthy way to become knowledgable and informed. Here is a prime example of this, and why you need to stay out of such a trap. She did not understand how you can get colors from the sunlight through her water sprinker, and instead of applying some basic logical thinking, she was alarmed by it and assumed it was due to spraying conspiracy.

 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Maybe she had a big letdown, or believed more than she thought, and transferred the anger onto us when
it became clear that chemtrails weren't a big deal anymore.

Oh, well. I've already had a girl say, "You ruined it for me."
This probably won't be the last time.......

They're from Venus, right?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
People can be unusually sensitive to criticism. It's something to be aware of, and work with, even if you don't condone it.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
Occasionally, I wonder if it is a good thing to have many "residents" here replying to postings of a visitor, may it be a 'seeker' or a 'disruptor'.

In some cases it can be helpful, particularly when the "paid shill" accusation comes up. It will show to readers how lively and inhomogenous the debunker's ranks are.

In other cases, like the one at hand, I think that it is preferable to have a dialogue with only one person replying at a time (helpful additions like maps or links notwithstanding).
It may feel threatening to sensitive persons if they realize there is at once a whole group facing them.

Also, I strongly believe that evaluating a visitor in any way in replies will achieve nothing. Depending on his/her stance it will either reaffirm or be perceived as a personal attack.

I don't think we are censoring ourselves if we try to optimize our way of communicating and sometimes refrain from saying what may be "right" or "just".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
JFDee, I agree. Part of the theme of this site is "meta" debunking, meaning it's about the subject of debunking. So I'm always trying to figure out what the best way of debunking a topic is. As we see on sites like ATS, people get suspicious when multiple people reply at once (or even when people reply too quickly, or spent too much time replying).

Any suggestion to a person that they need to think a different way should always be approached with the utmost care. There's always a risk it will be interpreted as "you are crazy" or "you are stupid". Even if they are, in fact, a little bit crazy or stupid in some slight way, it's generally counterproductive to even hint at this.

People are looking for facts, not judgements. Give them the right facts, and if they are at all open to it they will realize for themselves that they perhaps have been a little silly. If they don't realize it themselves, then pointing it out will not help.

Consider though the exceptions. I'm trying to debunk in the aggregate, not one person at a time. Each time I write something to help debunk a claim, I'm not just doing it for one person, but for multiple people who might later read the conversation. So if someone has an extremely ridiculous view, it might not be effective to be seen to be "playing along", and some candor might work better for the more neutral audience. I think such cases are more the exception though - and still so fraught with problems that I prefer to avoid them.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Claim: The Indian/Chinese systems of nadis/meridians have been proved by science because of hyaluronic acid and piezoelectricity Health and Quackery 14
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Sandor Szekely Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any. Flat Earth 1027
Mick West Orgonite Experiments Science and Pseudoscience 38
Inti Presenting the good stuff in Metabunk and Contrail Science in a different way? Practical Debunking 6
Leifer "What on Earth ?" science channel fail ? Practical Debunking 11
Georgie G Debunked: SpaceX Rocket Crash Landing Anomalies General Discussion 21
Mick West 1952 - Condensation Trails From Aircraft - With a 1937 Persistent Contrail Photo - Oldest Ever? Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Balance Met Office - Case Study Contrail-induced Cirrus Contrails and Chemtrails 0
MikeG Debunked: Fukushima Causing Bloody Tumors in Fish [Old Photos] Science and Pseudoscience 15
tadaaa Debunked: The Equator Drain Trick (direction of water flow) Science and Pseudoscience 11
JFDee Child Victim of "Alternative Medicine" Health and Quackery 4
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
Bruno D. Chocolate Diet hoax - interesting case about junk science General Discussion 4
MikeC 95,000 kids, 20 years of science - no connection between Autism and MMR Health and Quackery 1
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
MikeC Contrail Science on Skeptic.com Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West History and Science of Weather Modification Contrails and Chemtrails 11
JFDee "Escaping the Prison of Belief" - Science as a Remedy, by Ex-Scientologist General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Leifer Investigated: "Why are massive numbers of sea creatures dying along the west coast" Science and Pseudoscience 19
Zane O'Neill Is Contrail Science a CIA Disinformation site? Contrails and Chemtrails 51
Leifer What books are you reading ? (conspiracy related, science, etc...) General Discussion 145
Critical Thinker Scientific American: Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior General Discussion 2
Keef Wivaneff Faith v Science General Discussion 4
Gavriel Psychology Is Not a Science Science and Pseudoscience 3
Mick West Bad science in the paper 'Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant GM maize' Science and Pseudoscience 120
Jay Reynolds The Day Italians United for Science Practical Debunking 0
Mick West Paper: Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Critical Thinker Links to science related educational websites Science and Pseudoscience 11
Mick West Closing comments on Contrail Science Site Feedback & News 14
RolandD Deceptive Headlines misrepresenting science Science and Pseudoscience 3
MikeC The Science about not believing Science General Discussion 4
FreiZeitGeist Australian Science: Chemtrails – Conspiracy Theory? Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Mick West Contrail Science Interactive Flights Map (beta) Contrails and Chemtrails 18
HappyMonday The science of persistence Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Popular Science 1958: Weather As A Weapon Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science Contrails and Chemtrails 8
P Facebook group dedicated to spamming contrail science Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Part II Science and Pseudoscience 6
Farganne Anyone care to apply REAL science to explain THIS? Science and Pseudoscience 16
tryblinking The 'Bad Science' of quackery , and other sterling TED talks. Health and Quackery 0
Mick West Contrail Science and Metabunk on the Critical Wit Podcast General Discussion 0
ThorGoLucky Contrail Science in Skeptical Inquirer Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Celebrities and Science 2010 Science and Pseudoscience 0
Related Articles














































Related Articles

Top