Chemtrail / Contrail Experiment?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey mate, don't you think trying to debunk chemtrailers is a bit like fighting the hydra. As soon as one assertion is shown to be wrong they present another and another and another It's impossible to conclude the argument without saying:

Okay, you win, tens of thousands of US military aircraft are flying the world every day spraying chemicals into the sky to do whatever you think they do. They all started in 1997 or whenever and since then normal contrails have ceased to appear. You've spotted it and are thus far cleverer than all the meteorologists and climate scientists and weather observers and pilots etc etc in the world.

Happy now?



If someone wishes to present a testable hypothesis fine (preferably one which includes a means of identifying chemtrails), if not I see no point in furthering this discussion.

reply to post by Essan


Well, yes Essan....problem is, clear thinkers don't always prevail in these 'discussions'. Pity.

Again, for 'chemtrail' advocates....look to the Militaries, NOT the commercial airlines, if you want to pursue this endeavour.

'Nuf said about that!

Well, I'm glad you two agree with each other, because if you haven't noticed you're functioning on a closed circuit these days.

You guys keep trying to link chemtrails either to fiction, or to made up factoids to try and weaken the meme. Let me remind you, they are real, aircraft do indeed spray for whatever reason, and no, it's not only 30 000 ft, my personal sighting was lower, I would estimate between 3000 and 6000ft, probably closer to the former than the latter. And the payload of a commercial jetliner converted to spraying duties is pretty large. And if worse case scenarios are true, it dosen't have to be. Pathogens are light little things...

You're fighting a losing battle here.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'd tend to agree with you about the military side as opposed to commercial. several of us agreed earlier in this thread that that was likely the case. I disagree this is a silly discussion. When i feel that way I don't participate.

reply to post by Essan

Depends on what it is

But why do we think anything is being deliberately sprayed and if, so, by what mechanism?

We might as well ask whether huge amounts of chemicals are being deliberately sprayed into the oceans. Or, for that matter, dozens of nuclear bombs are being detonated in the atmosphere. It's possible to do it but there's no evidence its being done. Some as chemtrails.

What's interesting is that those who believe in chemtrails do not seem to know what they are, why they're being sprayed, or how they're being sprayed. They can provide no verifiable evidence of anything. They just 'know' they are being sprayed. And they refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise.

Maybe if you produced a coherent hypothesis to test we might get somewhere? Otherwise this argument will just go round and round in circles for ever.

Essan, if we had you participating it would go round and round forever. Case in point, you just raised points that have already been discussed in this thread. There are people who know lots of things are a miss in society others chose to ignore and laugh at these truths as impossible. I asked you a list of questions earlier on in this thread that i suspect you would answer no to on almost all counts. Maybe not but thats my guess. You never responded to my questions, and I didn't think you would. Some debunkers like to make smart comments and belittle people to limit discussion thereby proving that they are "right" however many people will not participate, many people don't find arguing a sport, and are more interested in discussion that moves forward.

reply to post by Essan


Why are you ignoring the questions posed to you by Swingarm?

You know we always answer your questions - no matter how irrelevant you make them...

It really is the least you could do.

Here's another thread here
where people have been coalescing against this depopulation weapon.

reply to post by Zepherian


Hey Zeph, give us more info on that personal observation! Then we could possibly settle this issue. When, where and what kind of airplane?

reply to post by weedwhacker


DisinformationRule8: Invoke authority
You are always doing it....
You actually think it works.

reply to post by TruthTellist


TT, you really need a chill pill, or just a nice, cool bevarage.

'Invoke authority'?? Wow, that is funny....Mods have authority, otherwise it's a level playing feel, now ain't it?

I'm actuually genuinely interested in hearing from Zeph. At least then it would be hard-core personal experience rather than wild conjecture.

AND, btw, that 'mechanic's' story that popped up months ago, I read it thoroughly. Pretty well written, but complete fantasy. The 'hollowed-out' static wicks, that was priceless.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Oh? So now you aren't an authority on aeroplanes and airports and piloting planes etc?

DisinformationRule9: Play Dumb

DisinformationRule5: Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule


"I read it thoroughly. Pretty well written, but complete fantasy."

This is what you do to every post citing evidence of chemtrails - dismiss it out of hand and ridicule the one who reported it.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by TruthTellist]

reply to post by TruthTellist


TT, I really wish you would stop baiting tactics, maybe you should add that to the list. Your last post did its job though, baited me one last time.

You see, my ego compels me to respond, although I am contributing to a clear violation of the T&C, which you started.

NEVER have I 'played dumb', and please show me ONE instance of 'name calling'. OK, your attempt at continued squabbling is pointless.

Let's find a way to experiment and conclusively ascertain the 'Chemtrail/Contrail' question once and for all. It would best be accomplished with an airplane equipped with sensors to take air samples. It could fly through the contrails and 'sniff' for anything that shouldn't be there (jet exhaust, water vapor, etc.)

Now, who's gonna fund it?

reply to post by weedwhacker


I have already done tests to ascertain whether of not anything nefarious is going on with chemtrails.

I was able to determine that several species of mold were more likely to appear within the sterile medium than on days where there was no chemtrail activity.

I am currently awaiting the results of several FOIA requests.

I conducted my tests with about forty dollars worth of equipment you can get at your local pharmacy or science hobby shop.


Got forty dollars to prove us all wrong? Or do think we will just do as you do and dismiss you evidence out of hand?

reply to post by TruthTellist


Well, you're already well on the experiment already. Do you have controls? Document, and continue your research, but I'd suggest a rigorous scientific approach if you intend to publish results.

Good luck.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Now you are putting words in my mouth. No need to "wish" me luck. I never said I would publish anything.

Such experiments are for people to prove to themselves or disprove to themselves what they have been hearing for so long.

And since I mentioned nothing about my hypothesis or how the experiment was peformed- so it is surprising that you would "suggest a rigorous scientific approach if you intend to publish results. "

Stop making things up - stop putting words into other member's mouths - figuratively speaking. You've been found out.


[edit on 7-8-2008 by TruthTellist]

reply to post by TruthTellist


Sorry. thought I was offering encouragement.

I feel bad that you mis-interpreted my intent.

Felt I was responding in the spirit of the OP's premise, and you had something to offer in support. I say, I'm listening.

This thread needed a 'bump'

Those that continually argue FOR 'chemtrails' seem to flock to a real discussion against their pet theories.

And this thread, is left to languish...when, in fact, it raised some pretty good points.

Experiment!! Don't argue endlessly, back and forth...make some real-world observations....with science to back it up.

How's THAT for an idea???

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This thread needed a 'bump'

Those that continually argue FOR 'chemtrails' seem to flock to a real discussion against their pet theories.

And this thread, is left to languish...when, in fact, it raised some pretty good points.

Experiment!! Don't argue endlessly, back and forth...make some real-world observations....with science to back it up.

How's THAT for an idea???

ok,what are chemtrails? i heard essan saying this,...me personally i have always thought it was the unknown spraying of the populus with certain chemicals,bacteria,metals etc etc....like i said there is evidence for that.But what chemtrails are we talking about here? Is it only visible lines etc in the sky....so it doesnt matter if governemnts are spraying us with crazy stuff...if it doesnt leave lines in the sky all is cool? i know this is a common stance of chemtrailers...but i dont know if the things in question sprayed by the British Government left trails...but i dont think it really matters...

reply to post by Lethil


Lethil....

You asked a lot of questions, and that is really the point.

What it seems to boil down to is this: Eyewitness reports from non-qualified observers compared to actual professionals who have knowledge of their respective fields.

So, in a legal parlance....we have hearsay 'evidence'....admittedly, from both sides. 'Hearsay' is when "Somebody told me they saw this...."

Occasionally, there is direct testimony from 'eyewitnesses' of their actual experience. That is not 'hearsay'. HOWEVER, this is an anonymous forum, and there is no way to verify ANY of the people who contribute to the discussions. So again, the dilemma.....

Those who are professionals attempt to 'prove' that, in this forum, by showing through how they write. We don't all write that good....(joke)...because just because you're a professional meteorologist or a professional pilot.....it won't be evident to a layman, not skilled in your profession.

Hence, the problem.....

I challenge ANYONE to refute the credentials of any serious person who posts on ATS....by imagining that they achieve their knowledge from online research, or some such thing. That is why I, for instance, take great pains to supply extra info....to 'defend' my credibility...info that you won't find on Wikipedia, for example.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lethil

 

Lethil....

You asked a lot of questions, and that is really the point.

What it seems to boil down to is this: Eyewitness reports from non-qualified observers compared to actual professionals who have knowledge of their respective fields.

So, in a legal parlance....we have hearsay 'evidence'....admittedly, from both sides. 'Hearsay' is when "Somebody told me they saw this...."

Occasionally, there is direct testimony from 'eyewitnesses' of their actual experience. That is not 'hearsay'. HOWEVER, this is an anonymous forum, and there is no way to verify ANY of the people who contribute to the discussions. So again, the dilemma.....

Those who are professionals attempt to 'prove' that, in this forum, by showing through how they write. We don't all write that good....(joke)...because just because you're a professional meteorologist or a professional pilot.....it won't be evident to a layman, not skilled in your profession.

Hence, the problem.....

I challenge ANYONE to refute the credentials of any serious person who posts on ATS....by imagining that they achieve their knowledge from online research, or some such thing. That is why I, for instance, take great pains to supply extra info....to 'defend' my credibility...info that you won't find on Wikipedia, for example.....

Yah i understand what you mean,weather people like Essan etc telling people why the lines in the sky are not *chemtrails*...but like i said...the evidence is there for governemnts spraying populus with bacteria etc....So should we be nitpicking at tiny parts of the theory or looking at the fact governments are spraying us with things regardless if it doesnt make fancy lines in the sky?