An Attempt to Debunk Chemtrails For Good

Originally posted by Zepherian

I, as a tax paying citized of a democratic country, do not like my weather manipulated without being informed and without popular consent. And if it was more than that... well, sooner or later heads will roll.

Good point. So obviously this project falls under the Black Ops budget.

reply to post by Zepherian


What you offer is an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated first hand account. Unfortunately, it does not count as real evidence. Ideally we'd need good resolution photographs or video of the aircraft showing full context - ie a wide view so that relative heights etc can be determined and close ups to determine the actual aircraft involved. We'd also need to know date, time and location so that known aircraft movements and atmospheric conditions can be compared.

It's amazing that with so many people seeing 'chemtrails' no-one has ever been able to provide such evidence.

reply to post by Essan


"What you offer is an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated first hand account. Unfortunately, it does not count as real evidence."

This is what I mean by "dismissing out of hand all of the evidence that is shown to you by anyone - no matter what".

You are predictable. You have lost all credibility - perhaps it is time for you to change usernames

In any caseYou wouldn't even be able to prove such a thing over the internet.

Just like you can't prove aliens exist over the internet.

You were just baiting him into a strawman argument - predictably so.

You can only do so much with a monitor mouse and keyboard.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by TruthTellist]

One of us needs to invest in a telescope with a camera attachment or something.
That could at least identify the planes.

I have watched my sky become crisscrossed with "contrails". I don't believe it's high air traffic. I watched and took photos one day of what I believe to be one plane--making all these criss cross patterns in the sky. What would the explanation for that be?

reply to post by Essan


What you offer is ad hoc debunking and blanket dismissiveness of all evidence, of which witness testimony is part. What you offer is a biased and ignorant pov that is totally out of tune with the reality of the chemtrail situation. What you offer is a curtain for the wizzard of oz, who is probably pulling the knobs behind the whole show, to hide.

What I offer isn't much, granted, but what you are debating it with is less than nothing.

I'm sorry, but your intention in this thread is obvious and you are flying in the face of truth. Because there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people seeing these things and it WILL be dragged up into public discussion. If I were you I would realise the time, from now on, is to stay quiet, lest not you fall victim to whatever chaos might come of this despicable situation.





[edit on 7-8-2008 by Zepherian]

reply to post by Zepherian


Zeph, if you saw two jets, in formation, at the same time between 3000 and 6000 feet spraying something, then you have a legitimate claim to having witnessed an event.

Perhaps we aren't communicating well, and if so, my apologies.

I just did not pick up on your point about seeing two airplanes, at low altitudes, tandemly spraying.

edit just for spellin'

[edit on 8/7/0808 by weedwhacker]

I've uploaded photos of a plane making chemtrails. You can see all of these photos were taken within 30 min. by what I believe to be one plane, possibly two. The time is shown. The newer ones are the last ones. If you really want to look, just take a look at the timestamps. These are from 2004.

s328.photobucket.com...

[edit on 7-8-2008 by virraszto]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by virraszto]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, and for GoldenFleece, that alleged 'mechanic' and his 'story' was on ATS some months ago and thoroughly debunked. Completely bogus.

Now Captain Weedwhacker, we both know that when these frequent claims are made of something being "thoroughly debunked" without giving any details or corroboration, it's almost always the debunker's claims that are bogus. And frankly, I'm a little disappointed that you've lowered yourself to this level, as I don't consider you to be a typical ethics-challenged debunker along the lines of a Throat Yogurt or Gavron:

CHEMTRAILS
Did An Airline Mechanic Stumble Upon The Truth?

Response To Those Who Claim The Mechanic's Story Is A Hoax
From Craig Roberts
[email protected]
5-23-00

As a former airlines mechanic (Western Airlines in Los Angeles), I read the mechanic's letter on the spray gear with interest. I can say with authority that they guy knows airlines maintenance terminology, technics, pecking order, etc. Those who say that it is a complete hoax, or that this guy is a phony, do not know what they are talking about. Especially those who say "I am a commercial pilot, so I know these things are bogus." Being a "commercial pilot" only means one has passed a written test and a flight test for a license above "private pilot." The requirement is 250 hours for fixed wing, and 150 hours for helicopter. I am both a commercial pilot fixed wing (land and sea) and helicopter. I have over 3500 hours, mostly turbine helicopter. I also am an A&P mechanic (airframe and powerplant), and worked at one time on the Boeing airliners for Western Airlines. So I know the terminology and airlines maintenance buisness.

Airlines now often hold reciprical agreements to do maintenance on each other's planes at various outlying stations. Here, American Airlines does work on various companies aircraft, and sometimes foreign and military as well. As for having room in the jet for spray gear, I would need to know exactly what type of aircraft the writer is talking about. Any of the larger jets have various places gear can be installed, expecially in the aft baggage compartment. Also, in some, the center fuel tank is not used unless the plane does overseas long distance flights. Here, at American, a large plane was being worked on that belonged to another company and a friend of mine opened up a floor plate during a "heavy check" inspection and found several mysterious black boxes and cable bundles. When he tried to find out what they were he was told to button it up and forget he saw it all. The plane belonged to Evergreen Air (CIA). So anything is possible.

It should be noted that Evergreen Aviation is the company that a previous poster said had "weather modification" planes for sale.

reply to post by virraszto


Thanks for that, virraszto....I clicked and saw one pic, could you help me see more? Maybe you're still working on them, I understand.

Hint to all: I AM open to verifiable chemtrail stuff. Really, I am. And, if I were being paid to Dis-Info, then I daresay I'd know how to import pictures....hint, I still have no clue. I've tried to bring UTube stuff, but I 'embed' which is a no-no....so, I am just a dinosaur who happens to know stuff, writing on a web forum to hopefully impart a bit of my knowledge.

Sorry, I'm new to photobucket. I believe you can see all photos in this album by this link.

s328.photobucket.com...

If that doesn't work, pls. let me know.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Yeah....OK, Golden....I like the link you provided. But, you do know that Western Airlines was bought out by Delta Airlines in the 1980s....I know, because I applied for Western, while I was flying for Scenic Airlines in Las Vegas. I also applied to every airline as well....but I was most familar with Western and CalAir, since I grew up in LA. (CalAir was absorbed by American Airlines).

Here's the thing....I've crawled around a few airplanes in my time, especially when they are 'opened up' in a 'D' Check (also called the 'heavy check').

Here is my point: According to this story, there were pipes running from a pressurized section (the cargo areas) out to the wings. This would be a BIG DEAL, requiring equipment that penetrated the pressure bulkheads, and would have to be undetectable from the regular stuff, such as hydraulic lines, etc. Hint....the Hydraulic reservoirs are in the Wheel Wells....unpressurized areas of the airframe.

Fuel pumps, in wing tanks and the center tanks, are 'submerged'....the plumbing from them goes to the fuel distribution matrix, where there is something called a 'cross-flow' valve. The APU, in the case of the B757 and B767 is fed directly from the left main tank, in the wing. (Other airplanes have similar dedicated systems for the APU)

Point is, these systems are NOT in the pressurized portion of the airplane.

Control wiring, of course, must exit through the pressure bulkheads, but this is part of the original design.

Could an airplane be retrofitted? With CIA and Black Budget funding, of course!! Could a regular passenger jet, that we pilots flew and mechanics crawled around on be retrofitted, and none of us noticed? No.

See...pilots and mechanics pre-flight every airplane, before a departure. Every time. We know our equipment. Passenger airplanes, unmodified, just do not have the ability to 'spray'.

Modified jets, now there's a whole new can-o-worms!! Brings me back, to the Military. Of which, I have NO knowledge on this subject.

I DO know, however, that even Military airplanes flying in civilian airspace MUST communicate with ATC. However, they can do that on UHF....we, civilians, use VHF....never the 'twain shall meet (or hear) if that's what THEY want.

reply to post by virraszto


And what makes you say they are not normal aircraft contrails?







Just saying you don't think they are normal contrails - when they appear in all respect identical to normal contrails, which as I keep demonstrating have been extensively studied for many decades - does not make then chemtrails

It's clear to me that most people claiming to have seen chemtrails have little or no knowledge nor understanding of basic atmospheric processes including contrail formation and have deliberately not read any of the links I have frequently posted in this and many other threads on the subject.

Does the truth scare you?

If you believe chemtrails are real, give me some evidence that what you see are not normal contrails

reply to post by weedwhacker

Fair enough. It seems only certain planes in any given fleet are modified and I think as that former Western Airlines A & P says, most airline managers, pilots and mechanics know to keep their mouths shut even if they do see suspicious tanks, wiring, pumps, etc.

All I know is that what I'm seeing are definitely not "persistent contrails." On chemtrail spraying days, I see commercial air traffic at all flight levels which aren't leaving any contrails, let alone the "persistent" variety that linger for hours and spread out to turn a bright blue sky into dull gray chemcrud. Also, chemtrail planes are usually all white.

You're smart enough to know that the explanations for chemtrails lack credulity and are highly implausible at best, so I'm really surprised that you've chosen the debunkers side on this one.

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Essan

 

What you offer is ad hoc debunking and blanket dismissiveness of all evidence

Not at all. You have provided only a verbal testimony of which the most significant part is your estimation of the altitude at which these aircraft were flying. I don't know whether your estimate is correct or not. Nor do I know where and when the observation took place.

What you offer is a biased and ignorant pov that is totally out of tune with the reality of the chemtrail situation.

In what respect? I offer an explanation of how and why contrails form and how and why their persistence varies. I offer a wealth of evidence that contrails identical in description to those alleged to be chemtrails have been observed and studied for many decades - long before chemtrails alleged came on the scene.

I have not seen any attempt to refute these things.

I'm sorry, but your intention in this thread is obvious and you are flying in the face of truth.

My intention is to deny ignorance. To educate people so that they did not misunderstand what they see and so that if any real chemtrails are being laid they might be better identified. Remember: I have consistently stated that chemtrails may be real, I simply maintain that what people think are chemtrails are simply normal contrails. And that people are being misled - perhaps deliberately so - but certain disingenuous person on the internet.

But because I know a bit about a subject and am able to provide plenty of evdience to support my stance, I am insulted and abused by those who have little or no knowledge of it. Why?

reply to post by Essan


Essan....I realize I run a risk here, because you bring a good picture to the forum, and I've been accused of being a...and I laugh...a 'paid disinfo agent'....(I wish!!!)

Anyway....your photo, and for all to see, is obvious. It is a four-engined jet, photographed, likely, from another airplane below it (I have been there, done that). To my eye, it appears to be an Airbus A-340. Of course, I have a 50/50 chance of being correct, since the other four-engined jet in current service is the B747. BUT, the fuselage is narrower, so I'm sticking with the A340.

Alright...if you have stayed with me so far, you'd have noticed that each engine, of this four-engined jetliner, is producing a contrail. Nothing is coming from anywhere else EXCEPT the exhaust of the four engines.

Some have speculated that something is put into the jet fuel....well, jet fuel has weight, and anything to contanimate it would be measured, and likely burnt up anyway, in the 1200 degree Celsius environment in the combustion chamber of the engine....

So....we see a jet, at altitude, producing a contrail, one from each engine....which is what airplanes do, when conditions warrant. We know that an additive to the fuel would be detected, and would be unlikely to survive the combustion process....and we know it is horribly inefficient to 'spray' from altitudes in the Troposphere, with any hope of being able to direct their eventual return to ground, if it even happens....

OK, your turn.....

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by mantic

A nice true color image from NASA looking at the back edge of a storm that is just clearing the western Great Lakes states. This is a very dry atmospheric environment in that the passing storm has cleared the area of available moisture for clouds formation plus the inherent stabilization, post storm, leads to very clear skies. So we have many thick contrails that are lasting in an environment that shouldn’t support their visible existence. Hence we have evidence of the contrail markers versus natural contrails. Abundant rippling over Michigan tells us that we have EM energies stimulating the atmosphere and thus the weather makers need to fly the contrails to measure this action and decide whether to employ counter measures as needed. A couple of arrows have been added to point out the thick spreading contrails laid down just along the back edge of this storm, and the interesting dissipation over central Lake Superior marked earlier by the fading three north/south contrails.

Where's the back edge of the storm? Whoever wrote that has no idea how to interpret satellite imagery, lol

I am actually stationed at one of the most storm prone areas of tropical Australia and being with the bureau of meteorology I obviously get first hand satellite imagery as it comes through. I have never seen storm clouds look like that before

I only post these things to inspire thought and response.

I have never seen storm clouds look like that before

That is exactly my point. Barring the commentary on the photo and utilizing your experience, what are they?

reply to post by Essan


Essan, how can you expect me to take your posts seriously when you end this one with a request for someone else to prove a negative? "prove they are not normal contrails" indeed...

As debating goes, that's about as dishonest as it gets.

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Essan

 

Essan, how can you expect me to take your posts seriously when you end this one with a request for someone else to prove a negative? "prove they are not normal contrails" indeed...

As debating goes, that's about as dishonest as it gets.

It's easy to prove they are not normal contrails by demonstrating the conditions under which normal contrails form and showing that on this occasion such conditions did not occur

It's called scientific process. A theory is testable and falsifiable. Chemtrail theory, in this case, is also testable and falsifiable by the same process: showing that normal contrails would be expected to form under the given atmospheric conditions.

reply to post by Essan


What you meant then was for the poster to prove they were indeed artificially produced chemtrails, not prove they weren't normal. People don't have to have a degree in meteorology to prove a chemtrail is a chemtrail, they just need to document an aircraft out of place laying down artificial clouds.

It's probably been done plenty of times already, but them someone like you comes on and starts talking about the weather and where normal contrails appear, muddying the waters. Soon someone out there will make time lapse filmography of this phenomenon and upload it, and it will go viral. And then all the denial will work against the people who are doing this.