SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
What's the difference?
That someone who is not caught, continues to do what they have always been doing.
What's the difference?
Has ANYONE examined some? Preferably from different airliners, in different areas, over an extended period of time?
External Quote:[h=2]Q13: What testing has been performed on cabin air filters after they have been in-service?[/h]One of the objectives of the EC Cabinair project was to establish the current in-service performance of filtration systems through the programme of Measurements in the Sky.
In order to evaluate the performance of the filtration systems installed on current commercial aircraft, Pall are continually monitoring the in-flight performance of their filtration equipment. Pall have been involved in cabin air filtration for over 20 years and in the last 5 years alone, more than 300 cabin air filter elements have been returned from service, either at the request of Pall or by the airlines themselves. Overall, this monitoring programme has confirmed that the cabin air filter elements are performing satisfactorily in-service.
The types of test performed include: weight measurement, differential pressure across the filter element, particulate removal efficiency, and analysis of contamination.
That someone who is not caught, continues to do what they have always been doing.
But you did not present evidence of people doing it and not getting caught. Obviously such a thing might exist - but again there's no evidence
SD said:What needs to be done is a test showing the accumulation of metals such as aluminum over many years like from a varve core or an ice core.
Well you have seen much of the evidence already, of course none of it is conclusive evidence as the tests are fundamentally flawed....
Yes:
http://www.pall.com/main/Aerospace-Defense-Marine/Literature-Library-Details.page?id=46181#46193
External Quote:Q13: What testing has been performed on cabin air filters after they have been in-service?
One of the objectives of the EC Cabinair project was to establish the current in-service performance of filtration systems through the programme of Measurements in the Sky.
In order to evaluate the performance of the filtration systems installed on current commercial aircraft, Pall are continually monitoring the in-flight performance of their filtration equipment. Pall have been involved in cabin air filtration for over 20 years and in the last 5 years alone, more than 300 cabin air filter elements have been returned from service, either at the request of Pall or by the airlines themselves. Overall, this monitoring programme has confirmed that the cabin air filter elements are performing satisfactorily in-service.
The types of test performed include: weight measurement, differential pressure across the filter element, particulate removal efficiency, and analysis of contamination.
It is this interpretation that you speak of which keeps my mind open. Nobody has gone wrong in anything, they just have not gotten it right yet. This is a new arena of investigation and of course there is going to be some controversy along the way. There still yet remains unanswered questions, even if some have been answered. Perhaps you can debunk a film, because the authors did not get the analysis correct, but it does not debunk the issue itself. There could be new information or new types of tests which may come in the future which will change everything.Some of the tests were not so bad, but the interpretation of the results was horrid.
I don't think you understand at all what we have done here.
There is no need for further testing, they can do all the tests they want, all more testsing will do is to bring their averages down lower.
Please pay close attention to this accounting:
'Chemtrails' observations:
First, people saw something in the sky.
They never established the basic physics behind what they saw, thus thinking it was unsusual.
They accepted the statements of unreliable people and added layer upon layer of bunk.
After awhile, the bunk got repeated enough so that a herd of people accepted it.
They never looked back and re-examined the statements for accuracy.
Rain Water Samples
They proceeded to look specifically for several elements in rain water.
They never established a baseline norm for the elements they found.
They never looked back and re-examined the statements for accuracy.
Enter the debunkers.
We established the basic physics behind the trails they saw.
We established that what they saw was not historically out of the norm.
We found the bunk and outed the unreliable people spreading it.
We re-examined the statements for accuracy, found more bunk and outed those people spreading it.
We examined their rain water samples, compared them to baseline norms forty years old and found nothing out of the ordinary.
We examined the statements about the rain water samples, found the bunk and outed those people spreading it.
We began outreach to notify the bunk spreaders and their followers of what was going on.
SD, why make more tests to look at accumulations in ice cores or varves when current tests show nothing above the baseline norms established forty years ago?
Where did they go wrong?
Where did we go wrong?
They most likely are contrails that you see. It does not mean that a plane with a contrail cannot also be spraying something invisible.
Bottom line:
We compared the claimed abnormals to the norm, they did not exceed the norms.
What more would it take to get it right?
There is no sense in us using money to take tests they would discount simply because we are not of their fold.
I think I proved that they have existed... and that they were secret. That is compelling evidence in itself. Hitler was not caught immediately either... hell he was on the cover of time magazine as man of the year... twice!
No... not in airplane trails, but if you said just airplanes, then yes. I have not suspected, I have been aware. I was aware of aerial spraying before the "chemtrails" movement, and I do not claim persistent visible contrails are chemtrails, but I am also not discounting every single contrail, as some seem suspicious.SeriouslyDebatable, when I asked you who gave you the idea that there might be something sinister in the trails, I tried to make this point:
You are researching and pondering in a thorough and serious way an idea that started as a true hoax, blown up over time by unqualified promoters. (Jay Reynolds has pretty much followed the "chemtrail" word and the 'movement' right to the original sources.)
Again: would you have suspected bad intentions in airplane trails if you hadn't read about it? Purely by observation?
I think you won't object to the statement that even if a share of the visible trails was in fact intended spraying of chemicals, there would be no way to tell apart "normal" from "chemical" just by observation from the ground.
I am doing the opposite of assuming. I claimed there was secret spraying in the past, and I have proven it. Determining that there is no secret program currently just because you personally don't have any evidence for it would be assuming.So why assume the extraordinary in sight of the ordinary? Solely because of implicated historical analogies?
It was once, in 1938 (Stalin got the nod twice: in 1939 and 1942). As Time magazine point out, the Person of the Year title isn't necessarily an honour, it is given to the person who "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." In 1938, it would be hard to argue that anyone was influencing world events more than Hitler.
No... not in airplane trails, but if you said just airplanes, then yes. I have not suspected, I have been aware. I was aware of areal spraying before the "chemtrails" movement, and I do not claim persistent visible contrails are chemtrails, but I am also not discounting every single contrail, as some seem suspicious.
Suspicious how?
Of course, you must be aware of the problems with disproving a universal negative, and why the burden of evidence is on those making positive claims.
The burden does not fall on nonbelievers to demonstrate that no contrails are "chemtrails" - the burden logically falls on chemtrails believers and promoters to provide evidence that even ONE of them IS.
It is fallacious to conflate other, known forms of aerial spraying (such as cloud seeding, crop dusting, or even the past secret projects you've referred to) with what "chemtrails" are claimed to be. And while you might not see any connection between "chemtrails" and persistent contrails, the claim that ordinary contrails can't persist (and thus, that any trails that do are evidence of "chemtrails") is indeed central to the chemtrails idea as it is accepted and promoted by believers.
What you're doing is creating your own separate and distinct idea for the sake of debate.
Well sure, I never asked anyone to PROVE that it was NOT happening... I only ask people to not dismiss the possibility due to lack of evidence... which does not mean there is no evidence, it only means that at the present moment, no evidence has been found.Regardless, the burden of evidence still falls on the positive claim.
Seems he is not the only one to suspect that historical trends are to be concerned about . . . do thieves stop stealing after they get caught . . . sometimes they do but I bet the recidivism rate is high. . . loL!!Suspicious how?
Of course, you must be aware of the problems with disproving a universal negative, and why the burden of evidence is on those making positive claims. The burden does not fall on nonbelievers to demonstrate that no contrails are "chemtrails" - the burden logically falls on chemtrails believers and promoters to provide evidence that even ONE of them IS.
It is fallacious to conflate other, known forms of aerial spraying (such as cloud seeding, crop dusting, or even the past secret projects you've referred to) with what "chemtrails" are claimed to be. And while you might not see any connection between "chemtrails" and persistent contrails, the claim that ordinary contrails can't persist (and thus, that any trails that do are evidence of "chemtrails") is indeed central to the chemtrails idea as it is accepted and promoted by believers. What you're doing is creating your own separate and distinct idea for the sake of debate. Regardless, the burden of evidence still falls on the positive claim.
There are certainly reasons that jets can go around in circles, most notably because they are in a holding pattern. This has been previously discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/120-Rosalind-Peterson-s-maps. I have actually done "suspicious" flying myself, although at low altitudes - and I organize a program to do the same thing in half the counties in my state. It must seem very strange to the general public if anyone pays attention, but it's really just an annual aerial pest survey program.Well, flying in loops seems suspicious.
Rosalind Peterson showed a map provided by the FAA which revealed how "intra-flights" – mainly of military origin – are flying in loops around counties in flight paths that differ substantially from normal airline trajectories. The flights have no meaningful purpose because they have no fixed destination, they merely fly around and around in circles.
As I said, that's fine, but I'm talking about what chemtrails believers claim.SD said:Agreed for the most part, except that I do not lump myself into the category of a chemtrail believer... I am a chemtrail skeptic.
Im not a chemtrail believer.
It certainly is the position of chemtrails believers that persistent contrails are actually "chemtrails", and this claim is found through both of those WITWATS movies. I don't know whose position you are clarifying, specifying etc., but it does not accurately or completely represent that of chemtrails believers.SD said:I am actually specifying, defining and clarifying the position. "what in the world are they SPRAYING" right? Not what in the world are those "TRAILS". And the idea of spraying, is certainly not MY idea.
There are certainly reasons that jets can go around in circles, most notably because they are in a holding pattern. This has been previously discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/120-Rosalind-Peterson-s-maps. I have actually done "suspicious" flying myself, although at low altitudes - and I organize a statewide program to do the same thing in half the counties in my state. It must seem very strange to the general public if anyone pays attention, but it's really just an annual aerial pest survey program.
As I said, that's fine, but it's "chemtrails" that are the topic of conversation here.
It certainly is the position of chemtrails believers that persistent contrails are actually "chemtrails", and this claim is found through both of those WITWATS movies. I don't know whose position you are clarifying, specifying etc., but it does not accurately or completely represent that of chemtrails believers.
As I said, that's fine, but it's "chemtrails" that are the topic of conversation here.
there would be no way to tell apart "normal" from "chemical" just by observation from the ground.
It certainly is the position of chemtrails believers that persistent contrails are actually "chemtrails", and this claim is found through both of those WITWATS movies. I don't know whose position you are clarifying, specifying etc., but it does not accurately or completely represent that of chemtrails believers.
The abnormals were results from tests that were flawed. Spending money on the same types of test would be stupid. We need new types of tests as I have been stating, and I suggested Ice cores and Varve cores
Sure, but as shown by the titles of those movies, the question of whether or not we are being sprayed is generally not addressed among believers - it is assumed at the outset, based primarily on this false claim that contrails can't be persistent.What is more important? Whether or not we are being sprayed, or whether or not the spraying is visible? I mean.. come on!
Well, flying in loops seems suspicious.
Rosalind Peterson showed a map provided by the FAA which revealed how "intra-flights" – mainly of military origin – are flying in loops around counties in flight paths that differ substantially from normal airline trajectories. The flights have no meaningful purpose because they have no fixed destination, they merely fly around and around in circles.
SD, I can't understand why you still don't get it. The idea of testing for contamination of the environment the way they did with rainwater wasn't fundamentally flawed.
They tested fairly properly, even if none of the tests were documented, had no standardization, and they only tested for three elements, ignoring other significant elements such as silica which would have unmistakeably shown the signature of ordinary alumino-silicate mineral dust.
What I am saying is that, in every respect, THE RESULTS OF THEIR TESTS SHOWED THAT THE RAIN WATER WAS NORMAL.
There is NO USE in proceeding to test ice cores, varves, or tree rings BECAUSE THE TEST RESULTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE NORMAL.
\Do I make myself clear?
It would provide an accurate reading of accumulation of chemicals on a yearly basis, with today's updated testing technology. We could then see if there has been an increase in these chemicals over a given amount of time. Of course the source could still be in question, but there would be no doubt that it was something that has contaminated the atmosphere. Depending on what is found, sources of the contamination could be eliminated. Only specifically testing in an investigative sense would be sufficient in adding enough weight to the case because as the saying goes, "You cannot find what you are not looking for".Explain to me what use testing ice cores would accomplish beyond what the chemtrails conscious activist people have already done, if you don't agree.
Sure, but as shown by the titles of those movies, the question of whether or not we are being sprayed is generally not addressed among believers - it is assumed at the outset, based primarily on this false claim that contrails can't be persistent.
Edit: As I was told in the banning message when I posted on a chemtrails forum: "The existence of chemtrails has been well established and is considered trolling and is not allowed on this forum" (sic).
Ok, well now we can begin, since you have made a positive claim.
let's look here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/120-Rosalind-Peterson-s-maps
If that isn't a good enough explanation, let me know your questions on that thread.
Other than the claim that aluminum testing has not been included for most tests until recent years has not been addressed yet, Show me the test results please from independent sources and we can debate the facts, and determine from that whether the tests are accurate and fundamentally sound.
Yes, you must compare like with like. If you point me to tests of varves or ice cores that are explained, then I can research them. I have not found any tests. Suspicious or otherwise.You have to compare like with like. Why don't you point to a "suspicious" test, and then we can explain that particular test, with references.
I just said it looked suspicious. This is not a claim of fact, only a claim that I do not understand something and I have questions. Another user agreed that it would look suspicious or "strange" to the general public. I have not had any time to research the facts or make any claims of them. I will have to come back to this one.
Well, flying in loops seems suspicious.
Rosalind Peterson showed a map provided by the FAA which revealed how "intra-flights" – mainly of military origin – are flying in loops around counties in flight paths that differ substantially from normal airline trajectories. The flights have no meaningful purpose because they have no fixed destination, they merely fly around and around in circles.
Yes, you must compare like with like. If you point me to tests of varves or ice cores that are explained, then I can research them. I have not found any tests. Suspicious or otherwise.
Well, you have to have a belief or question before you test something. What they are doing is justifying their beliefs. To make my position clear, I agree with Jay that the conclusions of the Shasta tests do not provide ample evidence of chemtrails.SD, I confess that I'm not totally following your responses with regard to Jay's statements. He is saying that the main problem with the rainwater results by the Shasta group and others is not their methodology, documentation, etc. (although there are some problems there, too). It's in the conclusions that they draw from the results. The chemtrails activists (including Mangels and the Shasta group) frequently claim that there should be zero aluminum, barium, or strontium in rainwater samples. However, there is ample evidence in the scientific literature - including sampling results going back at least to the 1960s, well before believers think that "chemtrails" started - showing that this is a false claim. This documentation shows that is entirely normal for these elements to be in airborne dust and in rainfall, and indeed that the levels the chemtrails believers are finding are within the same range as has always been seen. This is another fundamental, provably false claim that they base their idea on: that there should be absolutely no amount of these trace metals in ordinary rainfall, therefore any detectable amount is extraordinary. It's disprovable with just a cursory literature search. See this thread for some examples: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow
This is nothing at all personal, SD, but I feel a little frustrated by responses like these. I originally set up contrailscience.com because it seemed like I could just put up all the explanations for the various "suspicious" things, and then the chemtrail theory would be over. But of course the best explanation in the world is useless if nobody reads it, or if nobody watches the video.
The explanation for looping contrails is here:
http://contrailscience.com/racetrack-contrails/
So my question to you is: what could I have done to help you find the answer to your question easier? Did you do a Google search after you saw the suspicious loops? What did you search for?
Did you look at Jay's link? Is it too boring looking? lacking in pictures (again, nothing personal here, it's just about effective communications, meta debunking).
I'm thinking that we really need some more visual debunks, as an entry level thing - as people just really don't have the time of patience to read long explanations. I had a lot of trouble with the "Mystery Missile" story, and so I ended up telling it in kind of a picture story:
http://contrailscience.com/los-angeles-missile-contrail-explained-in-pictures/
But it almost seems like a single image info-graphic might be what's needed for immediate use.
Anyway, help me out here. Debunkers like Jay and myself have a mountain of facts at our fingertips - how do we effectively get those facts across?