What can debaters and debunkers agree upon regarding chemtrails.

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
To maximize the opportunities for agreement, we should split up topics as atomically as possible. Then we can refine out exactly what it is we disagree about.
OK . . . How about an experiment? Let's see what we agree to agree about . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
OK . . . How about an experiment? Let's see what we agree to agree about . . .

Well, we obviously agree on a nearly infinite number of things. Oranges are usually orange colored, cats usually have fur, iron is denser than water, that kind of thing. So I presume you have some limited domain in mind?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, we obviously agree on a nearly infinite number of things. Oranges are usually orange colored, cats usually have fur, iron is denser than water, that kind of thing. So I presume you have some limited domain in mind?
It may not be appropriate for this specific Thread . . . however, cut to the chase . . . I suggest we see what we agree to agree about the concept (in and around) of chemtrails . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Did they ever talk about geoengineering??

The premise of the chemtrails hoax has always been lines in the sky that persist. That was made quite clear in Finke's email that began the hoax on 9/17/97, and that premise still stands self-evident. You can't get around it without ending the whole premise of a "chemtrail".

It makes no difference what anyone says subsequent to the original hoax, people who have been hoaxed will take it anywhere they wish, from aliens to satan but the origination was a hoax. You can't change that, no more than you can go back and 'unring' a bell.

And, by calling yourself a "Chemtrails Advocate" and spending innumerable hours days and weeks advocating for this hoax, you know what that makes you, George?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The premise of the chemtrails hoax has always been lines in the sky that persist. That was made quite clear in Finke's email that began the hoax on 9/17/97, and that premise still stands self-evident. You can't get around it without ending the whole premise of a "chemtrail".

It makes no difference what anyone says subsequent to the original hoax, people who have been hoaxed will take it anywhere they wish, from aliens to satan but the origination was a hoax. You can't change that, no more than you can go back and 'unring' a bell.

And, by calling yourself a "Chemtrails Advocate" and spending innumerable hours days and weeks advocating for this hoax, you know what that makes you, George?
I don't expect you to understand my rational or reasoning anymore than I understand your obsession with debunking chemtrails . . . if you want to delve into deeper justifications I suggest we take it off line . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How about, "We can agree that George advocates for the chemtrails hoax?"
I have made it very clear here and on GLP what I believe . . . It has not substantially changed in over three years . . . I do not normally criticize advocates or debunkers unless they demonstrate disrespect for people's right to express their opinions or become vulgar and demeaning . . . you might mistake my lack of criticism for agreement . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It may not be appropriate for this specific Thread . . . however, cut to the chase . . . I suggest we see what we agree to agree about the concept (in and around) of chemtrails . . .

Would you agree there is no physical evidence that indicates chemtrails exist?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Would you agree there is no physical evidence that indicates chemtrails exist?
I would agree that there is no repeatable, scientifically validated, direct evidence that chemtrails exist as well as there is no evidence that can rule out the possibility they could exist in some form . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would agree that there is no repeatable, scientifically validated, direct evidence that chemtrails exist as well as there is no evidence that can rule out the possibility they could exist in some form . . .

I would agree with that.

Would you agree that all the climate scientists in the world who have expressed an opinion on Stratospheric SRM have denied that it's currently happening?

Would you agree that lots of research is going on into the possibility of SRM being used in the future?

Would you agree that this research is still in the very early stages, no public trials have been made, and that there are a huge number of unknowns and risks?

Would you agree that your theory would require a parallel secret scientific community that's 50+ year ahead of the public scientific community?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I would agree with that.

1) Would you agree that all the climate scientists in the world who have expressed an opinion on Stratospheric SRM have denied that it's currently happening?

2) Would you agree that lots of research is going on into the possibility of SRM being used in the future?

3) Would you agree that this research is still in the very early stages, no public trials have been made, and that there are a huge number of unknowns and risks?

4) Would you agree that your theory would require a parallel secret scientific community that's 50+ year ahead of the public scientific community?
1) I don't think I have heard a scientist say it is not being done; however, I don't think there is conclusive evidence to say it isn't possible nor do I believe a scientist would dare comment in support of the possibility for fear of peer pressure and loss of credibility . . .
2) Yes
3) Yes . . . at least that is publically available . . . unclassified
4) Yes and No . . . The decision to engage in geoengineering could be similar to the moon landing . . . high risk . . . having just enough technology available to barely carry it off . . . and yes I think secret technology is significantly more advanced than what is publicly understood . . . 50 years in some unique areas, possible . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
1) I don't think I have heard any scientist say it is not being done; however, I don't think there is conclusive evidence to say it isn't possible nor do I believe a scientist would dare comment on in support of the possibility for fear of peer pressure and loss of credibility . . .

David Keith, possibly the most well know climate scientist involved in geoengineering research, says it's not being done.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/16...y-meets-David-Keith-Chemtrail-Geo-engineering
alse
Ken Caldiera (another geoengineering superstar) feels similarly:
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
David Keith, possibly the most well know climate scientist involved in geoengineering research, says it's not being done.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/16...y-meets-David-Keith-Chemtrail-Geo-engineering
alse
Ken Caldiera (another geoengineering superstar) feels similarly:
I would accept this as evidence that they think chemtrails are not being injected into the atmosphere to their knowledge . . . however, they didn't comment on geoengineering in your posted quotes . . . do you have such sources?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would accept this as evidence that they think chemtrails are not being injected into the atmosphere to their knowledge . . . however, they didn't comment on geoengineering in your posted quotes . . . do you have such sources?

But I was asking about stratospheric SRM. It there a difference between that and "chemtrails being injected into the atmosphere"
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But I was asking about stratospheric SRM. It there a difference between that and "chemtrails being injected into the atmosphere"
I felt the quotes were addressing the injection of metallic aerosols or poisons to harm populations not sulfur containing aerosols for the purpose of mitigating global warming . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I felt the quotes were addressing the injection of metallic aerosols or poisons to harm populations not sulfur containing aerosols for the purpose of mitigating global warming . . .

Really, you need to watch the video.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I am sure that we could agree that airliners and other high flying aircraft sometimes leave white lines across clear skies.

And also that sometimes these lines dissipate quickly, other times they hang around - sometimes for hours.

and that these lines usually come from engine exhaust.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I will . . . just need some time to concentrate . . .
Seems the main evidence that David Keith is using to deny chemtrails in general is the inability to keep such a project quiet . . because of people would be unable to keep secrets and the logistics trail required for a massive program . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am sure that we could agree that airliners and other high flying aircraft sometimes leave white lines across clear skies.

And also that sometimes these lines dissipate quickly, other times they hang around - sometimes for hours.

and that these lines usually come from engine exhaust.
Of course . . . I have never said otherwise . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Seems the main evidence that David Keith is using to deny chemtrails in general is the inability to keep such a project quiet . . because of people would be unable to keep secrets and the logistics trail required for a massive program . . .

What he has actually said is that he has no knowledge of chemtrails, and does not beleive that they could exist, basically for the reasons you list.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
See also 1:20:20 in this video for Ken's take.



The point here, that I'm asking you to agree with, is that they don't think it is happening.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
See also 1:20:20 in this video for Ken's take.



The point here, that I'm asking you to agree with, is that they don't think it is happening.

I already agreed with that . . . but I also don't think they are receptive to the possibility . . . would require overwhelming evidence to change their minds . . .

If geoengineering were on going since circa 1999 and not detected it has to follow natural background fluctuations and go across multiple administrations . . . my personal choice about when the decision was made was during the same time SDI was being kicked around . . .
 
The premise of the chemtrails hoax has always been lines in the sky that persist. That was made quite clear in Finke's email that began the hoax on 9/17/97

It could have been a legitimate movement, with legitimate concerns and it was not very publicized, and then was co-opted by cointelpro to discredit the movement by turning it into a hoax by making outrageous claims in the name of the movement. Calling the subject a hoax is absurd. You can't disprove it, and therefore you can't debunk it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It could have been a legitimate movement, with legitimate concerns and it was not very publicized, and then was co-opted by cointelpro to discredit the movement by turning it into a hoax by making outrageous claims in the name of the movement. Calling the subject a hoax is absurd. You can't disprove it, and therefore you can't debunk it.

But you could say that about anything.

Of course you can't prove that chemtrails are not happening. That's impossible.

But you can point out the lack of evidence, and you can point out the various hoaxes.

Would you agree with George that that there's no physical evidence to support the chemtrail theory?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But you could say that about anything.

Of course you can't prove that chemtrails are not happening. That's impossible.

But you can point out the lack of evidence, and you can point out the various hoaxes.

Would you agree with George that that there's no physical evidence to support the chemtrail theory?
Do you consider Congressional testimony physical evidence or provable historical accounts ???

I stated the following . . .

 
Chemtrail hoaxes, is not the same as the chemtrail hoax.
As to agreeing with George, it depends on which theory you are referring to. There is more than one chemtrail theory. I personally have already shown sulfur chemtrails to be a fact, and the response I get from the debunkers is "So what?".
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Evidence is what it is - you can testify to nonsense at congressional hearings - that "it" is in congressional records does not make "it" true.

Such records are clearly historical accounts. Their veracity or otherwise is another question entirely.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Chemtrail hoaxes, is not the same as the chemtrail hoax.
As to agreeing with George, it depends on which theory you are referring to. There is more than one chemtrail theory. I personally have already shown sulfur chemtrails to be a fact, and the response I get from the debunkers is "So what?".

AFAIK all you have shown to be fact" is that jet exhaust includes sulphur compounds, which of course it always has, and does whether it is visible or not.

these chemtrails as you have decided to define them are nothing moer than you choosing to redefine chemtrails as being somethign you know exists, apparently in order to score some imaginary points for your efforts. Such effors are quiet common - people have from time to tiem chosen to prove chemtrails exist by saying that chemtrails are crop spraying, fire fighting, rocket (eg space shuttle) exhaust, etc.

All of these are just poor attempts to widen the definition of chemtails to "prove" that they exist. A common tactic, transparent and "so what" is an entirely appropriate response.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Evidence is what it is - you can testify to nonsense at congressional hearings - that "it" is in congressional records does not make "it" true.

Such records are clearly historical accounts. Their veracity or otherwise is another question entirely.
I don't disagree . . . Congressional testimony is often orchestrated more for political purposes than to determine the truth . . .
 
Let me enlighten you then.

1) I proved that jet fuel contains more sulfur than other fuels and that has not been debunked.
2) I proved that the sulfur in jet fuel is causing global climate change of 10% and that has not been debunked.
3) I Proved that desulfurizing jet fuel would cause 25% less atmospheric pollution and that has not been debunked.

Aren't #2 and #3 the same concerns as the chemtrail theorists have? global climate modification, and pollution?
#1 does not matter what they are spraying... aluminum.. barium.. strontium.. or sulfur.

As for a conspiracy, it really does not matter either... I have however shown the likelihood of a conspiracy.
I have shown that efforts were made to remove the sulfur from other fuel types and not jet fuel.

I am not redefining any term. I am proving a fact. Would you prefer I call it chemspraying? Who cares if it leaves a visible trail or not. They are spraying us.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Let me enlighten you then.

1) I proved that jet fuel contains more sulfur than other fuels and that has not been debunked.
2) I proved that the sulfur in jet fuel is causing global climate change of 10% and that has not been debunked.
3) I Proved that desulfurizing jet fuel would cause 25% less atmospheric pollution and that has not been debunked.

Aren't #2 and #3 the same concerns as the chemtrail theorists have? global climate modification, and pollution?
#1 does not matter what they are spraying... aluminum.. barium.. strontium.. or sulfur.

As for a conspiracy, it really does not matter either... I have however shown the likelihood of a conspiracy.
I have shown that efforts were made to remove the sulfur from other fuel types and not jet fuel.

Also significant research has been conducted to determine the exhaust characteristics of jet engines burning different sulfur concentrations . . . why would that be conducted ???

Different Sulfur findings with higher ppm. . . http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/97JD02209.xml


Page 1360 Conclusion Sulfur does not seem to alter contrails based on Appleman. . . . http://elib.dlr.de/31966/1/gltt-22.pdf
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I highly recommend you watch Keith's video. It's fascinating.

I have to agree, it's mesmerizing. He does a very good job (at least as of 20 minutes in) of remaining civil and respectful in the face of their statements, which I imagine must be rather bizarre from his perspective.
 
So let's say some idiot (chemtrail hoax believer) thinks that the visible water vapor (chemtrail) from a river is steam and that the river is boiling... We could care less either way but he is concerned about it because he might forget when he is drunk, and go swimming in it or something and burn himself. Because we are compassionate human beings, we attempt to put his concerns to rest by explaining to him that water does not need to be hot for it to produce water vapor.. all it needs is for the surrounding air to be cooler... and that is what he is seeing, water vapor not steam. Well then what if you tell him that it is safe to go in the water... and the water has some kind of bacteria or virus or toxic waste in it that shows up later?

This was an unnecessarily long analogy but I am making the point that just because you debunked the observations of most of the chemtrail believers, did not mean you debunked the concerns of the chemtrail believers. They were more concerned with whether or not we are being sprayed... and what the effects were, than exactly what chemical or chemicals were being sprayed. I could care less if a river is a safe temperature to swim in, if the water is still unsafe. I could care less if it is aluminum, barium, strontium OR sulfur, if breathing any one of them is bad for my health.

4 claims made by chemtrail theorists:

1) We are being sprayed with a chemical.
2) It is causing climate change.
3) it is causing pollution.
4) it's those persistent white lines in the sky.

#1, #2 and #3 are all facts.
3 out of 4 ain't bad wouldn't you say?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Let me enlighten you then.

1) I proved that jet fuel contains more sulfur than other fuels and that has not been debunked.
2) I proved that the sulfur in jet fuel is causing global climate change of 10% and that has not been debunked.
3) I Proved that desulfurizing jet fuel would cause 25% less atmospheric pollution and that has not been debunked.

Assertion is not proof.

If you proved it somewhere then I apologise for missing it entirely and not being able to find it now.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
4 claims made by chemtrail theorists:

1) We are being sprayed with a chemical.
2) It is causing climate change.
3) it is causing pollution.
4) it's those persistent white lines in the sky.

#1, #2 and #3 are all facts.
3 out of 4 ain't bad wouldn't you say?

not bad at all.

Except of course 1, 2 and 3 are not true either
to debunk these:

1/ the chemtrail myth claims that we are being sprayed by specific cheicals - usually barium, aluminium, strontium, and various other odds and ends. AFAIK such claims are well and truly debunked in various places, including on here, so that is wrong.
2/ Jet exhaust causes climate change just like any other pollution - whether it is visible or not. The chemtrail claim doesn't care about this - you are mixing it up with the geoengineering claims....probably because there is at least a little truth in the geoengineering side of things (it is being studied) therefore you are trying to get legitimacy for chemtrails by assocaiation. So that is wrong too.
3/ Jet exhaust is pollution whether it is visible or not. Again teh chemtrail claim doesn't care about this - in fact the chemtail claim more than doesn't care about this - it specifically EXCLUDES anything that is not visible as a problem at all!! So bzzt - also wrong.

2 and 3 may well be claims made by chemtrail beleivers - but they are not actually claims about eth chemtrail myth - except for people who feel the need to change the myth to try to include something, anything, that lends it legitimacy. They are much liek claims that crop dusting and cloud seeding are chemtrails - transparent attempts at shifting the goalposts.

And of course that the persistent white lines one is the fundamental one and without it the other 3 are completely trivail - trivial in the sense that "yes, that's always been the case...so what?"

And you left out that

5/ It started in the mid-late 1990's

Which has also been debunked

So we're down to only 60% - still not bad, but just measuring a percentage assumes that every claim is of equal value, and assuming that you include claims that aercompletely irrelevant to chemtrails except as a smoke screen (sdic) to try and gain some legitimacy for the myth by association with geo-engineering.

Taking out the misdirection, you are down to 0/5.

Sorry about that.
 

Related Articles

Top