Wigington/West Geoengineering Debate

Rns

Member
Real truth is there a reason that you can't post pictures of your observed diseased trees now rather than in the spring?

Perhaps there is too much snow pack?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I won't. I will close with this, well thought out argument to see if I can clarify My frustration. I do not want to say it is or isn't happening. I don't frankly know. What I do know is that there is aluminum and barium of varying concentrations in the atmosphere.
As there has always been. The question being if the amounts are unusual. How much would you expect? How much was found?

What I do know is that trees all over My own town are suffering from excessive UVA and UVB rays,
The trees might be suffering, but it's not because of excessive UV. Dane's measurements are provably wrong, as he measures levels of UV that:

A) Are higher than exist in the raw vacuum of space
B) Would give you potentially fatal sunburn in less than an hour, and probably blind you
C) Would kill just about everything on earth in a few days

And they are not backed up by anyone else.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
What I do know is that there is aluminum and barium of varying concentrations in the atmosphere.
There truly is. It's known as airborne dust. And that is 7-8% aluminum for starters, as aluminum is the most prolific metal that is on the surface of the earth. Barium is twenty-ninth down the list, but will also be found in a fractional percentage, unless you sample the air, as some of your friends did, slap bang in the center of a barium mining area.

Believe it or not, such dusts exist, and will be manifest whenever you see exposed earth. Seen any?

What I do know is that trees all over My own town are suffering from excessive UVA and UVB rays
There have been no "excessive UVA and UVB rays" apparent in typical and ubiquitous measurements made the world over. Only in the "data" you have selected.

What there probably has been is a local increase in sulfur dioxide in the air due to the burning of increased amounts of hydrocarbon fuels other than pure methane. This leads to acid rain conditions, which I'm sure you know are deleterious to fir forests in particular, as they are high altitude forests which live without an internal water storage system of their own which would tend to buffer increased acidity.

I am listening to the data, which shows increased PH levels of soil and unusual amounts of aluminum. This is the data which I won't provide or get into again as there is plenty on Dane's site and plenty was offered to You in Your debate. My position is that this data points to and strongly suggests geoengineering based on logic from data I have seen. Negating DATA because it may have been windy or because You don't trust the instruments the scientist is using - that sounds like denial. And I am not convinced that any data, regardless how valid would be accepted by You. That's all. Thank You.
We have seen the standards of the amateur evidence-gathering that you quote, and from my experience it would get the perpetrators bottom place in a fifth-grade science class. Return when you can do better. I'm sorry I can't be more friendly about this, but my "prime directive" is immediate communication. The sooner, the better.

Someone has made of you a victim. It wasn't me.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Senior Member.
Sorry, Real Truth, I have mistyped, what I meant to say is you consistently fail to differentiate between geoengineering and cloud seeding (as well as other types of weather modification). Here is a recent example of this:

Your own quote defines cloud seeding as one form of geoengineering (weather modification), which You say is not happening.

Maybe my point is a bit clearer now.

Cloud seeding is not done by additives to fuel (or exhaust), AFAIK. It's done at low altitudes with low volumes of silver oxides, to already existing clouds. It is not making clouds appear where none are. It does not leave trails.

It would help your cause and your credibility to be clear in your use of these words
 
Last edited:

RealTruth

Member
It appears that you believe Dane to be a "scientist"

Is this true?
I suppose I should at least clarify this. No, not Dane Wigington. He has scientific data that I trust because he always quotes his sources and works with other geoengineers and 'real' scientists in the field. I would call him a scientist for those reasons, but I have no idea if he himself has any 'degree', if that's what You mean. But check out his work in detail, it is all well quoted and credited to those who help him gather data. He does an awful lot of work and gets a considerable amount of support from various professional communities.
 

Rns

Member
I suppose I should at least clarify this. No, not Dane Wigington. He has scientific data that I trust because he always quotes his sources and works with other geoengineers and 'real' scientists in the field. I would call him a scientist for those reasons, but I have no idea if he himself has any 'degree', if that's what You mean. But check out his work in detail, it is all well quoted and credited to those who help him gather data. He does an awful lot of work and gets a considerable amount of support from various professional communities.

If you take the time to look around this site you will find much discussion about Mr Wigingtons sources.

I ask you specifically which "verified scientists" you believe support chemtrail activity in adding fuel additives as metals or anything other than well known weather modification practice IE "rain making" and hail abatement.

Please resist the urge to utter the CT meme cry of "do my research" as I have and continue to do just that.

I am looking for what you consider credible evidence specifically not generally.

Could you please provide some links to your stated "professional communities"?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I suppose I should at least clarify this. No, not Dane Wigington. He has scientific data that I trust because he always quotes his sources and works with other geoengineers and 'real' scientists in the field. I would call him a scientist for those reasons, but I have no idea if he himself has any 'degree', if that's what You mean. But check out his work in detail, it is all well quoted and credited to those who help him gather data. He does an awful lot of work and gets a considerable amount of support from various professional communities.
he should have consulted some of those scientists perhaps, before claiming the ice scraped from his freezer is the same as a snow ball. ; /
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/ The government filing fees for a patent is $500. This guy estimates fees for legal services at %5,000 to $15,000 plus. However, he is a lawyer in the business of convincing inventors that they need a lawyer. I'm sure there are some inventors who just pay the filing fee and do everything themselves, including the drawings.
Been there, didn't buy the t-shirt.

I believe it more sensible to render such information free, and retroactively reward invention after, say a 10 year wait period. Some unaffiliated quango, or consumer panel, perhaps, for that task. Living on a desert island… …sorry, off-topic...
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
.... I don't care what You call it. Putting shit in engine exhaust of planes is what We are talking about. That is happening, We know it.

Any additives that are a part of Jet-A1 aviation fuel aren't appreciably any different from those in the gasoline you pump into your car's fuel tank (or diesel, if you have that type of vehicle). And then (again, presuming you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle), you pollute the atmosphere, just as we all do. And, this is occurring right down here at ground level.

Earlier you wrote "Just look up". What, exactly, were you referring to? Because I, just like every other current or former airline pilot see nothing out of the ordinary...we can recognize clouds when we see them, all types. It is part of our training, and experience. We have to know and understand clouds. This is why some have suggested for you go "go to a library"...they were not specific enough. I'd suggest some courses/books on meteorology for starters.

What You just quoted "fail to differential between cloud seeding and OTHER methods of weather modification."
Bonehead, weather modification is EXACTLY what We are talking about. ANOTHER FORM OF... Your own quote defines cloud seeding as one form of geoengineering (weather modification), which You say is not happening.

Again, with the misunderstanding and co-opting of the term "geoengineering". You are correct that so-called "cloud seeding" does occur. It is NOT, however, in the strictly accurate sense "geoengineering"...it produces localized weather effects. Regionally, not globally.

Perhaps you should re-check the definitions of "weather" and "climate", to better understand the difference.

EDIT: "Quote" BB tags, spell
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Putting shit in engine exhaust of planes is what We are talking about. That is happening, We know it. Mick said in the interview they are additives, like in Your car.

Sorry? Mick said what? What "additives" did Mick supposedly talk about?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I won't. I will close with this, well thought out argument to see if I can clarify My frustration. I do not want to say it is or isn't happening. I don't frankly know. What I do know is that there is aluminum and barium of varying concentrations in the atmosphere. What I do know is that trees all over My own town are suffering from excessive UVA and UVB rays, I can send pictures in the spring if You want to see the diseased trees. I am listening to the data, which shows increased PH levels of soil and unusual amounts of aluminum. This is the data which I won't provide or get into again as there is plenty on Dane's site and plenty was offered to You in Your debate. My position is that this data points to and strongly suggests geoengineering based on logic from data I have seen. Negating DATA because it may have been windy or because You don't trust the instruments the scientist is using - that sounds like denial. And I am not convinced that any data, regardless how valid would be accepted by You. That's all. Thank You.

But when asked to show some valid data, you refuse. How droll. Dane has claimed that the amount of UV reaching the ground is greater than that which is present above the atmosphere. How could that NOT suggest a possible problem with the instruments used to make the measurements?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry? Mick said what? What "additives" did Mick supposedly talk about?

It's near the end

John: ... talk about Spec Aid 8Q462 and JP-8+100, can you tell us what those are for?

Mick: I don't know

[...]

John:
Well, you guys may not be familiar with these terms, but I think that our viewers should listen and, look these terms up. It's called Spec-Air 8Q462 and JP-8+100, which is a jet additive. And there's also carbon black, which is carbon black dust. You want to comment on that Mick?

Mick: Well, carbon black isn't really an additive, it's....

John: It's an anti-coking device, I understand, but...

Mick: ... it's a byproduct...

John: ... what does it usually do?

Mick: These thing are just like very very small additives that are put in jet fuel, and they basically contain, you know, just some chemicals that do things like: they stop things getting clogged up, and stop static from building up...

John ...[inaudible] talking about coking in the engine ....

Mick: ... yeah, in the jet engine, they are basically, they are fuel additives like you add to your car sometimes. There is nothing unusual about them, they are usually like very complex hydrocarbons, with a few chemicals in them, but they are just
Content from External Source
John got the idea that because we don't known exactly what is in some additives, then it's proof we don't know what is in contrails, or something along those lines. I think he got the idea from Jim Lee. It's just a silly semantic argument. The fuel additives are too diluted to produce anything.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Dude, just look up. Seriously. It's not up for debate

What exactly are you referring to here? Surely not the existence of persistent contrails? Persistent, spreading contrails are a long observed, well studied and understood consequence of high altitude air travel.

http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pre-1995-persistent-contrail-archive.487/

Why do you believe "its not up for debate"? Is your mind closed to the possibility that you may be wrong? that you- and/or Dane et al - may be misinterpreting this supposed evidence?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
What I do know is that trees all over My own town are suffering from excessive UVA and UVB rays...

And what science, exactly, leads to this assertion? "Excessive UVA and UVB rays" would affect Humans, too...sunburns, right? And also...the "chem"trail believers usually cry out words like "Global dimming" as what they think this "aerial spraying" (that is not occurring) is meant to "accomplish". Wouldn't such an effort (if it were true) lead to less UVA & UVB? I once saw a cute joke, poking fun at some scientific illiteracy: "Tan = UV - SPF"

What I do know is that there is aluminum and barium of varying concentrations in the atmosphere.

The aluminium has been explained as naturally occurring bauxite that is present in the Earth's crust, and thus in some wind-borne dust. Any barium is most likely to be introduced into the environment from ground-based sources of pollution.

...this data points to and strongly suggests geoengineering based on logic from data I have seen.

You need to carefully vet any sources that make these claims. Furthermore, simply pointing and saying "Look up" is fruitless...think it critically and rationally:

In order for there to be an airborne, concerted effort of "spraying" something, then there has to be "something" manufactured, produced, and then shipped to the airports, where the loading of this "something" can take place. Only on the ground can this be accomplished, yes? So, keeping all of this in mind:

Why are there no photos of these "factories" were the "something" is produced? No photos of the "something" being shipped, nor loaded onto the airplanes. (Since there are probably more cellphone cameras now than there are people in the world...well, in the industrialized world, anyway...surely there would be tons of such photos, by now?)

And just to pre-empt...no, foreign materials like "aluminium" and "barium" (both metals) cannot just be "added" willy-nilly into jet fuel. For starters, research the melting points of both elements. Then, the temperatures of combustion inside a jet turbine engine (over 1,800 degrees C, by the way).

Additionally, foreign matter in aviation fuel would wreak havoc...it is a major safety aspect, and monitored heavily, and frequently. There are several filters in fuel systems, from the Tanks to the Fuel Control Units, and those would quickly become clogged. But, back to combustion: At those extreme temperatures, foreign matter would precipitate out, and accumulate very quickly on the internal components of the "hot sections" (the turbine blades and stator vanes), and thus would destroy the engines.

Are you aware, for example, of the extreme dangers to airplanes near volcanic eruptions? The volcanic dust clouds, when ingested, will begin to melt and then coat the internal parts (as mentioned above), and power losses then occur very quickly.

Here is a video that has a pretty good explanation and animation to show how the modern High-Bypass Turbofan engine works, and shows the internal components...just in case you were unaware. I have found this to be the case on multiple occasions -- the layperson has very little knowledge of the actual processes and mechanisms:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy4A-z2WKhw
 

RealTruth

Member
Real truth is there a reason that you can't post pictures of your observed diseased trees now rather than in the spring?

Perhaps there is too much snow pack?
No leaves. It's winter. In spring and summer, the leaves blister and turn black, many of them die and the beavers carry them away in the winter. If I get a camera soon, I will take a walk near the river by My house and I can show You how many trees have disappeared over the last two years as a result of disease (beavers don't cut live trees, only dead or dying - they limit tree diseases this way).
 

Rns

Member
No leaves. It's winter. In spring and summer, the leaves blister and turn black, many of them die and the beavers carry them away in the winter. If I get a camera soon, I will take a walk near the river by My house and I can show You how many trees have disappeared over the last two years as a result of disease (beavers don't cut live trees, only dead or dying - they limit tree diseases this way).

Where on earth did you get that idea?

That is 100% incorrect.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No leaves. It's winter. In spring and summer, the leaves blister and turn black, many of them die and the beavers carry them away in the winter. If I get a camera soon, I will take a walk near the river by My house and I can show You how many trees have disappeared over the last two years as a result of disease (beavers don't cut live trees, only dead or dying - they limit tree diseases this way).

And why do you think this is due to UV? Why not, say, the Emerald Ash Borer?
http://www.theontarion.com/2013/06/emerald-ash-borer-wanted-dead-or-alive/
 

RealTruth

Member
And what science, exactly, leads to this assertion? "Excessive UVA and UVB rays" would affect Humans, too...sunburns, right? And also...the "chem"trail believers usually cry out words like "Global dimming" as what they think this "aerial spraying" (that is not occurring) is meant to "accomplish". Wouldn't such an effort (if it were true) lead to less UVA & UVB? I once saw a cute joke, poking fun at some scientific illiteracy: "Tan = UV - SPF"



The aluminium has been explained as naturally occurring bauxite that is present in the Earth's crust, and thus in some wind-borne dust. Any barium is most likely to be introduced into the environment from ground-based sources of pollution.



You need to carefully vet any sources that make these claims. Furthermore, simply pointing and saying "Look up" is fruitless...think it critically and rationally:

In order for there to be an airborne, concerted effort of "spraying" something, then there has to be "something" manufactured, produced, and then shipped to the airports, where the loading of this "something" can take place. Only on the ground can this be accomplished, yes? So, keeping all of this in mind:

Why are there no photos of these "factories" were the "something" is produced? No photos of the "something" being shipped, nor loaded onto the airplanes. (Since there are probably more cellphone cameras now than there are people in the world...well, in the industrialized world, anyway...surely there would be tons of such photos, by now?)

And just to pre-empt...no, foreign materials like "aluminium" and "barium" (both metals) cannot just be "added" willy-nilly into jet fuel. For starters, research the melting points of both elements. Then, the temperatures of combustion inside a jet turbine engine (over 1,800 degrees C, by the way).

Additionally, foreign matter in aviation fuel would wreak havoc...it is a major safety aspect, and monitored heavily, and frequently. There are several filters in fuel systems, from the Tanks to the Fuel Control Units, and those would quickly become clogged. But, back to combustion: At those extreme temperatures, foreign matter would precipitate out, and accumulate very quickly on the internal components of the "hot sections" (the turbine blades and stator vanes), and thus would destroy the engines.

Are you aware, for example, of the extreme dangers to airplanes near volcanic eruptions? The volcanic dust clouds, when ingested, will begin to melt and then coat the internal parts (as mentioned above), and power losses then occur very quickly.

Here is a video that has a pretty good explanation and animation to show how the modern High-Bypass Turbofan engine works, and shows the internal components...just in case you were unaware. I have found this to be the case on multiple occasions -- the layperson has very little knowledge of the actual processes and mechanisms:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy4A-z2WKhw
First, My position is that the spraying is not necessarily related to jet fuel. Obviously (to Me), additives for fuel would be different from additives needed for environmental control and the chemical processes You describe. I'm suggesting these are separate nozzles from the actual jet stream, not part of it. And the 'look up' comment is something I know is not a scientific argument, that seems pretty obvious. What I'm saying, is that planes don't fly any higher than they did when I was a child and they never left contrails then, they would disappear only a few meters behind the plane, not stretch out and expand across the entire sky. I had never seen a phenomenon like that until My twenties. I trust My eyes and My intuition to lead Me to the right facts. As I've mentioned to the moderator, My position is not necessarily to suggest this is happening, but to keep everyone asking questions so that We can have full disclosure on these topics. We need transparency from Our government on this issue and many others. I don't feel We can trust that information because history demonstrates that governments do all kinds of horrific things without public knowledge. We don't see nuclear arms being shipped and deployed all over the country, either. Hasn't stopped America from detonating some 200 in the last 100 years. Just because We don't see them getting shipped around the country doesn't mean they are not there (in answer to why don't We see these things get loaded into planes). They are inside the planes, it's been photographed. Only question is if they are tanks of chemicals or water for test flying as this site suggests in another post. They are there, whether You see them loaded or not and that is a fact. What is in them is still up for debate and contention.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
First, My position is that the spraying is not necessarily related to jet fuel. Obviously (to Me), additives for fuel would be different from additives needed for environmental control and the chemical processes You describe. I'm suggesting these are separate nozzles from the actual jet stream, not part of it. .

So why are there no photos of this?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is from an environmental architect who was working on her thesis. She did a study on these leaves for her undergraduate degree and shared her findings with Me. She was a neighbour of mine, now off on an internship to restore sustainable vegetation to urban areas that support bee populations.

And what did she say?
 

RealTruth

Member
And why do you think this is due to UV? Why not, say, the Emerald Ash Borer?
http://www.theontarion.com/2013/06/emerald-ash-borer-wanted-dead-or-alive/
This is from an environmental architect who is working on her thesis. She did a study on these leaves for her undergraduate degree and shared her findings with Me. She was a neighbour of mine, now off on an internship to restore sustainable vegetation to urban areas that support bee populations.
So why are there no photos of this?
Again, I believe there are. This is what Dane was talking about with reference to three plumes or additional plumes aside from what appears to be propelling the plane. You have seen photos of this and dispute it as condensation on the wings or something. Again, a fine argument, but it negates everything I have seen from planes in the last twenty years compared with those previous. My own human experience. These condensation phenomenon You write off so quickly simply did not exist when I was a child. Trails from planes did not look the way they do now and clouds did not form from them. Cloud seeding IS a form of geoengineering and You did admit that this weather modification has been happening for some time. You simply claim it occurs without any chemical stimulation, that this is a natural process? Or did I misunderstand Your argument there?
 

Rns

Member
This is from an environmental architect who is working on her thesis. She did a study on these leaves for her undergraduate degree and shared her findings with Me. She was a neighbour of mine, now off on an internship to restore sustainable vegetation to urban areas that support bee populations.

Again, I believe there are. This is what Dane was talking about with reference to three plumes or additional plumes aside from what appears to be propelling the plane. You have seen photos of this and dispute it as condensation on the wings or something. Again, a fine argument, but it negates everything I have seen from planes in the last twenty years compared with those previous. My own human experience. These condensation phenomenon You write off so quickly simply did not exist when I was a child. Trails from planes did not look the way they do now and clouds did not form from them. Cloud seeding IS a form of geoengineering and You did admit that this weather modification has been happening for some time. You simply claim it occurs without any chemical stimulation, that this is a natural process? Or did I misunderstand Your argument there?

Is it OK to ask your approximate age or rather ask you to pinpoint the time frames you are comparing?

If you are of any significant age just the sheer increase in number of flights alone can be surprising when you discover the numbers.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
... I'm suggesting these are separate nozzles from the actual jet stream, not part of it.

I will say again, this is an assertion that lacks any merit. And also, it would be a simple matter to get photos of any such "separate nozzles". Of course, anyone who knows anything about aviation also understands that nothing that is on an airplane is not known about by every pilot who flies it, and every mechanic who works on it.

Furthermore, there is the problem (for "chem"trail believers) of the storage of this "whatever-it-is" that is claimed to be "sprayed". AND equipment and plumbing, etc, etc.

And the 'look up' comment is something I know is not a scientific argument, that seems pretty obvious. What I'm saying, is that planes don't fly any higher than they did when I was a child and they never left contrails then, they would disappear only a few meters behind the plane, not stretch out and expand across the entire sky.

This is a commonly mentioned meme, and it is only partly accurate...first, there is a level of "confirmation bias" and "selective memory" at work. Secondly, there are also significant difference in the type, duration and volume of contrails that are being produced nowadays, and this is (important to understand): Directly related to the engine designs.

The video I posted just above helps to explain: In your (and my) childhoods, the engine design was a Low-Bypass Turbojet engine...the majority of its thrust was from the exhaust force. These were very noisy, and burned very dirty...you can see it in old movies, from the early 1960s, the black soot in the exhaust. The modern High-Bypass TurboFAN design is much more fuel efficient, quieter, and just a better design for extracting more energy out of a given quantity of fuel. The differences in the exhaust, and the reason for more pronounced contrails resulting from these designs can be looked up online.

Think of this: The High-Bypass Turbofan produces about 85% of its thrust from the huge fan out front....much like a propeller that is powered by the big radial gasoline engines of years ago. And those engines could produce very similar contrails...they look almost the same, in any number of videos you can find online. From World War 2 for example. The large column of cooler ambient air that is shoved aft by the Fan (propeller) functions to modify the hot, centered exhaust gases...this moderates the temperature, and thus produces more prominent contrails, and under wider temperature/relative humidity ranges.

Your analogy to nuclear weapons? Well...it just isn't relevant.

They are inside the planes, it's been photographed. Only question is if they are tanks of chemicals or water for test flying as this site suggests in another post. They are there, whether You see them loaded or not and that is a fact. What is in them is still up for debate and contention.

No. Just, no. The water ballast tanks used for flight certification testing are a completely closed system, and they are only used for flight certification testing. Surprising that anyone would still attempt to use that as an 'argument", it has been thoroughly debunked and explained countless times.

It's interesting to note, though, that when those claims were first being made, it was by the con-artists who are in the "chem"trail hysteria "business", in order to keep it going. They resort to any number of lies and manipulations, in order to promote this scam, for their own personal benefit.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
She said that vegetation in general is under extreme, unprecedented stress. In trees, these effects can be seen more in some than others. Maples are hard hit as are oak trees. Plants like tomatoes and peppers have washed out leaves (whitening) caused by sun bleaching, or scorching. This does not prove geoengineering one way or the other, but it did show that UVA and UVB rays are substantially higher than what We are told (or more damaging than previously known). The media does know and promote this. Every year I hear at least once from radio or tv that UV indexes are getting higher, 'be sure to wear Your sunscreen' (which I don't). :p

UV can easily be measured. It is being measured. Increases have not been detected.

The UV index is not increasing. It's just there is a lot more awareness of UV now.

Have you read this thread?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-dane-wigingtons-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
What I'm saying, is that planes don't fly any higher than they did when I was a child and they never left contrails then, they would disappear only a few meters behind the plane, not stretch out and expand across the entire sky. I had never seen a phenomenon like that until My twenties. I trust My eyes and My intuition to lead Me to the right facts.

You're arguing based off of your memory, when you've already stated in another thread that you have bad memory.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ounts-of-ammo-by-tom-coburns-gao-report.3100/
I did misquote the amount at 2.2 billion (bad memory), it was 1.8.

The point is, our memory is not always right. You don't remember seeing persistent contrails long ago. Maybe you weren't interested in them at the time and didn't 'look up' as you like to say. I can tell you that I do remember seeing them 20 years ago. But that's just me...and I was only 6. Maybe my memories are wrong too..
 

Rns

Member
She said that vegetation in general is under extreme, unprecedented stress. In trees, these effects can be seen more in some than others. Maples are hard hit as are oak trees. Plants like tomatoes and peppers have washed out leaves (whitening) caused by sun bleaching, or scorching. This does not prove geoengineering one way or the other, but it did show that UVA and UVB rays are substantially higher than what We are told (or more damaging than previously known). The media does know and promote this. Every year I hear at least once from radio or tv that UV indexes are getting higher, 'be sure to wear Your sunscreen' (which I don't

I don't see anything like that in the link you supplied.

:confused:
 

RealTruth

Member
And why do you think this is due to UV? Why not, say, the Emerald Ash Borer?
http://www.theontarion.com/2013/06/emerald-ash-borer-wanted-dead-or-alive/
This is from an environmental architect who is working on her thesis. She did a study on these leaves for her undergraduate degree and shared her findings with Me. She was a neighbour of mine, now off on an internship to restore sustainable vegetation to urban areas that support bee populations.
So why are there no photos of this?
Again, I believe there are. This is what Dane was talking about with reference to three plumes or additional plumes aside from what appears to be propelling the plane. You have seen photos of this and dispute it as condensation on the wings or something. Again, a fine argument, but it negates everything I have seen from planes in the last twenty years compared with those previous. My own human experience. These condensation phenomenon You write off so quickly simply did not exist when I was a child. Trails from planes did not look the way they do now and clouds did not form from them. Cloud seeding IS a form of geoengineering and You did admit that this weather modification has been happening for some time. You simply claim it occurs without any chemical stimulation, that this is a natural process? Or did I misunderstand Your argument there?
Nothing in the link provided other than Ash borer information and very little of that.
She said that vegetation in general is under extreme, unprecedented stress. In trees, these effects can be seen more in some than others. Maples are hard hit as are oak trees. Plants like tomatoes and peppers have washed out leaves (whitening) caused by sun bleaching, or scorching. This does not prove geoengineering one way or the other, but it did show that UVA and UVB rays are substantially higher than what We are told (or more damaging than previously known). The media does know and promote this. Every year I hear at least once from radio or tv that UV indexes are getting higher, 'be sure to wear Your sunscreen' (which I don't
Okay, if You say so. I live in Canada, I'm 40. Planes would cross the sky and the contrail would disappear. I'm not suggesting that it wasn't happening then, only that it wasn't happening at this magnitude. Perhaps Canada hadn't started yet or I was just lucky enough that no planes showing those kind of patterns every passed across My childhood skies. Why is that some do and some don't? Why is it that (I live near an airport that has flights coming and going all the time) two planes can be flying in the same sky, one leaving no trail at all, the other leaving a plume that spreads, expands and eventually almost blocks out the sun entirely. Never happened when I was young. First time I ever saw this was in Vancouver sometime in the 90's. But I
I will say again, this is an assertion that lacks any merit. And also, it would be a simple matter to get photos of any such "separate nozzles". Of course, anyone who knows anything about aviation also understands that nothing that is on an airplane is not known about by every pilot who flies it, and every mechanic who works on it.

Furthermore, there is the problem (for "chem"trail believers) of the storage of this "whatever-it-is" that is claimed to be "sprayed". AND equipment and plumbing, etc, etc.



This is a commonly mentioned meme, and it is only partly accurate...first, there is a level of "confirmation bias" and "selective memory" at work. Secondly, there are also significant difference in the type, duration and volume of contrails that are being produced nowadays, and this is (important to understand): Directly related to the engine designs.

The video I posted just above helps to explain: In your (and my) childhoods, the engine design was a Low-Bypass Turbojet engine...the majority of its thrust was from the exhaust force. These were very noisy, and burned very dirty...you can see it in old movies, from the early 1960s, the black soot in the exhaust. The modern High-Bypass TurboFAN design is much more fuel efficient, quieter, and just a better design for extracting more energy out of a given quantity of fuel. The differences in the exhaust, and the reason for more pronounced contrails resulting from these designs can be looked up online.

Think of this: The High-Bypass Turbofan produces about 85% of its thrust from the huge fan out front....much like a propeller that is powered by the big radial gasoline engines of years ago. And those engines could produce very similar contrails...they look almost the same, in any number of videos you can find online. From World War 2 for example. The large column of cooler ambient air that is shoved aft by the Fan (propeller) functions to modify the hot, centered exhaust gases...this moderates the temperature, and thus produces more prominent contrails, and under wider temperature/relative humidity ranges.

Your analogy to nuclear weapons? Well...it just isn't relevant.



No. Just, no. The water ballast tanks used for flight certification testing are a completely closed system, and they are only used for flight certification testing. Surprising that anyone would still attempt to use that as an 'argument", it has been thoroughly debunked and explained countless times.

It's interesting to note, though, that when those claims were first being made, it was by the con-artists who are in the "chem"trail hysteria "business", in order to keep it going. They resort to any number of lies and manipulations, in order to promote this scam, for their own personal benefit.
Wow. 'Selective memory'. Good one. So the main argument is to tell people that when evidence fails (to produce conviction one way or the other as it has here) that We should not trust Our own reason, logic and observations? You will NEVER convince Me that I've made this shit up or that I simply 'don't remember' and it's always been there. Most futile argument put forth so far and frankly, evidence to support My claim. An article concerned with truth would never ask You to discount the accounts of others observing the same phenomenon. That kind of rhetoric is fodder for conspiracy theorists, just so You know.
 

RealTruth

Member
It's interesting to note, though, that when those claims were first being made, it was by the con-artists who are in the "chem"trail hysteria "business", in order to keep it going. They resort to any number of lies and manipulations, in order to promote this scam, for their own personal benefit.
This got My attention. What is the motivation behind keeping the conspiracy going, if not to discredit conspiracy theorists and make them seem 'nutty'? Really. If what You say is true, they fed the rumour, then debunked it? Is this to deliberately discredit conspiracy theories? What other motivation would there be?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but it did show that UVA and UVB rays are substantially higher than what We are told (or more damaging than previously known). The media does know and promote this. Every year I hear at least once from radio or tv that UV indexes are getting higher, 'be sure to wear Your sunscreen' (which I don't


Wow. 'Selective memory'. Good one. So the main argument is to tell people that when evidence fails (to produce conviction one way or the other as it has here) that We should not trust Our own reason, logic and observations? You will NEVER convince Me that I've made this shit up or that I simply 'don't remember' and it's always been there. .
are you trying to brainwash us with repetition?

as far as the news saying "uv indexes getting higher, wear your sunscreen" .. I hear that all the time too. there are certain summer days with higher indexes. they go up then down then up then down. just like humidity.
 

RealTruth

Member
Real Truth could you delete all your doubled posts?

It makes the thread hard to follow.
apologies, didn't know it was happening, not intentional. Not sure why, My posts are taking time to go through, perhaps they are posting more than once.
 

Rns

Member
apologies, didn't know it was happening, not intentional. Not sure why, My posts are taking time to go through, perhaps they are posting more than once.
It appears so and it happens in many other sites I have been on.

It looks like Mick is taking care of it.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Okay, if You say so. I live in Canada, I'm 40. Planes would cross the sky and the contrail would disappear. I'm not suggesting that it wasn't happening then, only that it wasn't happening at this magnitude. Perhaps Canada hadn't started yet or I was just lucky enough that no planes showing those kind of patterns every passed across My childhood skies. Why is that some do and some don't? Why is it that (I live near an airport that has flights coming and going all the time) two planes can be flying in the same sky, one leaving no trail at all, the other leaving a plume that spreads, expands and eventually almost blocks out the sun entirely. Never happened when I was young. First time I ever saw this was in Vancouver sometime in the 90's. But I don't doubt it was going on, just not as wide spread.

It did happen when you were young...if not then how do you explain all the photos to the contrary.

http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pre-1995-persistent-contrail-archive.487/

The atmosphere is not a uniform, static place and the conditions that allow a contrail to form and/or persist and spread vary from spot to spot- altitude to altitude-that is why you can see multiple types of trails in the same sky see here for more info:

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


EVERY observable behavior of supposed "chemtrails" is a well known, understood manifestation of ordinary contrails.

How many more planes are in the sky compared to when you were a kid?

http://contrailscience.com/30-years-of-airline-travel/


2planes1contrail.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rns

Member
Real Truth am I understanding that you have moved since you were younger?

I see that you are fairly close to an airport now but has that always been the case?

The area where I grew up had a fairly large air traffic flow and when I returned I was astounded at the increase from the late 90s when I left that area.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
You will NEVER convince Me that I've made this shit up or that I simply 'don't remember' and it's always been there. Most futile argument put forth so far and frankly, evidence to support My claim.

The human memory is notoriously unreliable.

Believers in "chemtrails" all have different times for when they first noticed...and often it wasnt until someone pointed them out. Were they there they day before??

Were you actively studying the sky for suspicious behavior as a child?

How to you explain the existence of the trails long before you first noticed?
 

RealTruth

Member
Real Truth am I understanding that you have moved since you were younger?

I see that you are fairly close to an airport now but has that always been the case?

The area where I grew up had a fairly large air traffic flow and when I returned I was astounded at the increase from the late 90s when I left that area.
No, same city. I moved away for a couple of years, but no more than that.
 

Latest posts

Top