Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Last time I took physics at this level was when I was about 13 yo, and that unfortunately was in a distant past, so thanks for the post but I can't learn anything new from it.

Why do all debunkers display the stereo typical arrogant attitude of ignorance and denial?

reply to post by buddhasystem


You don't want to watch the videos because you can't handle the truth. Those videos are straight from NASA and some of the information in them wasn't even available when you were 13yrs old.

You apparently still have the patience and attention span of a 13 yr old. Watch the videos all the way through and maybe you'll see why they are relevant to chemtrails and HAARP.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You don't want to watch the videos because you can't handle the truth. Those videos are straight from NASA and some of the information in them wasn't even available when you were 13yrs old.

Microwaves, infrared light and radio in general are not a recent NASA discovery, sorry. What "truth" do I find there beyond kindergarten physics? If this is the level of your expertise, so be it, although it's about as relevant to chemtrail conspiracy as a French pastry recipe.

Now that is a long thread.

I've lurked a long time and finally decided to post and it'll probably sound like everyone else's first post. I don't have a dog in this hunt and I'm not big on conspiracies. I do love this site. There's some really interesting people here. It's a great read because I love the sociology of it all since I'm not attached emotionally to many of the topics.

However, for some reason, this extremely long discussion interests me.

I read up on the whole chemtrail thing and the people who think it's a hoax. Then I watched some video called "What are they spraying?" It was interesting. It was about geoengineering (which some people have posted about).

The video was slightly disingenuous at times with video inserts, but they actually had experts in the field talking about something that wasn't really "chemtrails" per se. If you know geoengineering, you know that it's a bunch of nerds talking about how to fight global warming by dropping strips of aluminum and stuff in the atmosphere from a plane. That is actually in the works.

Now that needs to be talked about. But it's not chemtrail conspiracy theory. That's a separate topic. But both topics would be a kick to read.

Thanks to everyone for a great read so far. You make my day with this stuff. Keep it up. And thank you ATS.

Interview with Murdered USAF officer Part 1 of 3

John Wheeler, Chemical Weapons Specialist was preparing to go public with the reason the birds and fish were dying. Our government was doing tests with Phosgene gas which was brought back from Iraq supposedly to be destroyed. Someone did not want Wheeler to make this information public and he was murdered. After examination of the birds it was discovered that the internal organs were liquified. You will not hear this on the mainstream media

Part 1
Part 2

Part 3

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

John Wheeler, Chemical Weapons Specialist was preparing to go public with the reason the birds and fish were dying. Our government was doing tests with Phosgene gas which was brought back from Iraq supposedly to be destroyed. Someone did not want Wheeler to make this information public and he was murdered. After examination of the birds it was discovered that the internal organs were liquified. You will not hear this on the mainstream media

A link to where this was taken from would be nice.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

John Wheeler, Chemical Weapons Specialist was preparing to go public with the reason the birds and fish were dying. Our government was doing tests with Phosgene gas which was brought back from Iraq supposedly to be destroyed. Someone did not want Wheeler to make this information public and he was murdered. After examination of the birds it was discovered that the internal organs were liquified. You will not hear this on the mainstream media

A link to where this was taken from would be nice.

It was commentary by the person who posted this video...stevebd1
Click the see more tab underneath the video
www.youtube.com...

Here's some more commentary from this youtube user DougandDonna7
www.youtube.com...

Wheeler's military career included writing one of the most important manuals on the effectiveness of biological and chemical weapons which led to his being hired in 2009 as a consultant to the Mitre Corporation, whose aviation system development department, the GRU reports, is at the forefront of creating the computer command and control systems used by the US Air Force in their fleet of aerial spraying planes.

These aerial spraying planes, this report continues, are based at the Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas that over the past few months have been involved with 'test dispersants' of poisonous gasses in the Afghanistan War Theater using chemical weapons stocks obtained from Iraq and held at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, also located in Arkansas.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

These aerial spraying planes, this report continues, are based at the Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas that over the past few months have been involved with 'test dispersants' of poisonous gasses in the Afghanistan War Theater using chemical weapons stocks obtained from Iraq and held at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, also located in Arkansas.

Where can one find this report?

Sounds like it may be interesting to see.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


www.eutimes.net...

A shocking report prepared for Prime Minister Putin by the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) states that one of the United States top experts in biological and chemical weapons was brutally murdered after he threatened to expose a US Military test of poison gas that killed hundreds of thousands of animals in Arkansas this past week

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

These aerial spraying planes, this report continues, are based at the Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas that over the past few months have been involved with 'test dispersants' of poisonous gasses in the Afghanistan War Theater using chemical weapons stocks obtained from Iraq and held at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, also located in Arkansas.

Where can one find this report?

Sounds like it may be interesting to see.

Sounds like another BS report by chemmies making things up. wait, they would never do that would they? Its not like I have seen endless nonsense "reports", photos that are altered, and video clips that are absolutely not what is claimed.

Reminds me of that chemmie report that the air in Phoenix is 4 percent aluminum

Fascinating read on persistent contrails

Salient points:
a) correlation of contrail density and fuel consumption for a particular plane that leaves the contrail
b) correlation of contrails and temperature (as one would expect, it's condensation after all)
c) properties of ice crystals of which contrails are made.

reply to post by firepilot


For an alternative viewpoint try this place - www.topsecretwriters.com...#

I.....it seems about as well founded as Matty's "stuff"!

A good video on chemtrail dis-info agents
www.youtube.com...

What in the World are They Spraying Part 1 of 7


David Keith Geo engineering PDF
people.ucalgary.ca...

Other papers by David Keith a leading geo engineering researcher
people.ucalgary.ca...

reply to post by buddhasystem

NASA report on persistent contrail science
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

5. Summary and concluding remarks
Straightforward application of the contrail formation criteria from SchmidtAppleman theory to diagnose persistent contrail occurrence is hindered by significant humidity errors within numerical weather prediction models. Logistic models of contrail occurrence have been proposed to overcome these problems, but basic questions remain about their accuracy.

More work is needed to realize the potential of logistic contrail forecasts. The most direct way to make the logistic models better is to reduce the errors within the meteorological data used to build the models. Meteorological errors directly affect the regressions developed in the logistic model, and if the errors are large enough, may cause the model to choose less pertinent predictors, further reducing model accuracy Meteorological analyses could be improved by using the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) onboard the Aqua satellite to supplement the temperature and relative humidity data in numerical weather models.

Some past weather modification experiments

NAWC Research.pdf

NORTH AMERICAN WEATHER CONSULTANTS
RESEARCH ORIENTED WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS AND STUDIES
Partial Listing (through July 2008)

Project: Weather Modification Feasibility Study for the Upper Snake River Basin in Idaho
Sponsor: Idaho Water Resource Board
Task: Evaluate winter cloud seeding potential for portions of the Upper Snake River watershed in Idaho, and develop a preliminary seeding project design
Time Period: 2007-2008

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


What you posted here is a statement that making meteorological predictions is an extremely hard problem due to physics and mathematics involved. Well, yes it is. It has been for a longest time. Is that all you had to say?

The source I posted is extremely detailed. Down to polarization of light in ice crystals that form the conversion trail.

I've noticed that a recurrent trend in "chemtrail" threads is manifesting itself here. We have several posters attempting to offer up various forms of typical "chemtrail" disinformation ranging from videos to deceptive and dishonest debate tactics.

First of all we are seeing the false association method being used quite a bit. The best example are those that speak of weather modification as proof of "chemtrails" existing. Weather modification through cloud seeding is a well documented, openly practiced, non conspiratorial activity engaged in by man to exert some influence on weather system. "Chemtrails", as spoken of in the true context of their supposed existence, do not occur anywhere near the low altitudes that cloud seeding is practiced. Another issue with associating "chemtrails" with cloud seeding is that the practice of cloud seeding leaves no persisting contrail as evidence of the practice. Being that a cornerstone of the "chemtrail" belief is that we can see these trails persisting for hours and blanketing out the sky cloud seeding is obviously, by the "chemtrailers" own definition of a "chemtrail", not a part of the supposed "chemtrail" conspiracy. To say that cloud seeding in any way adds legitimacy to the "chemtrail" hoax is contradictory to the very core of the "chemtrail" hoax. Many "chemtrailers" will employ this false association method knowing full well the two issues are completely unrelated. This is simply dishonest and truly exemplifies both what it is to form a false association and the motives of those which employ this methodology.

Another typical disinformation tactic is to accuse someone of being a "shill", "government employee", etc. etc. etc. I often times see these terms employed in responses to those which have offered up valid, scientific, rational, and logical reasons as to why the "chemtrail" hoax is only a hoax. I consider it a great compliment to receive a reply to my post in which I am branded with one of the aforementioned adjectives. This sort of tactic shows that rather than focus on a rebuttal to a counterpoint to the "chemtrail" hoax many "chemtrailers" will simply resort to insulting the poster. This conveys both the weakness of the "chemtrailer's" argument and their awareness that their viewpoint is indefensible.

There are those in the threads which offer up the notion that witnessing a persisting contrail is proof enough that "chemtrails" are real because "that just doesn't look right." Our ability to perceive our environment is not without it's flaws. A great example of this is my long standing open challenge for anyone to produce a picture of the moon where it looks as large in the photograph as it did on the horizon. This is an impossible shot to produce as our eyes are influenced by objects on the horizon line which "trick" our vision into seeing a larger moon. This example demonstrates that our vision is not without its faults and is not offered up as any sort of statement that since we cannot photograph the moon that persisting contrails are only persisting contrails. I am preempting the "strawman" adjective probably waiting to leap from some reader's fingers at this point in my post with this disclaimer.

Perception also must be considered when statements are made that "they are blocking out the sun" or its an "X" in the sky. I want to create a video to better explain how what looks like an X from one vantage can appear as two completely separate and unbroken contrails that do not intersect from another. I think the video is the easiest way to explain that particular optical illusion. The issue with "chemtrails" blocking out the sun is very simple. From where you see a "chemtrail" blocking the sun someone a few miles away will see the same trail to the right or left of the sun.

Probably my favorite method employed by proponents of the "chemtrail" hoax is to simply, and quite stubbornly, refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their perception but instantly and unquestioningly embrace that which seems to legitimize that same perception. This is called a confirmation bias; wherein those whom suffer from such a bias will behave exactly in the manner I have described above and only listen to that which appeals to the legitimacy of their viewpoint. This makes shedding the light of reason, logic, and rationality on those individuals quite difficult and sometimes impossible.

I am curious to see just what sort of tactic of disinformation will be next employed in this thread.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28

Probably my favorite method employed by proponents of the "chemtrail" hoax is to simply, and quite stubbornly, refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their perception but instantly and unquestioningly embrace that which seems to legitimize that same perception. This is called a confirmation bias; wherein those whom suffer from such a bias will behave exactly in the manner I have described above and only listen to that which appeals to the legitimacy of their viewpoint. This makes shedding the light of reason, logic, and rationality on those individuals quite difficult and sometimes impossible.

I am curious to see just what sort of tactic of disinformation will be next employed in this thread.

Sort of how they talk about the government is poisoning us, and that we cant trust anything the government tells us about it and anyone on here who debunks it, are paid government agents that cant be trusted.

And then, its all that Ted Gunderson nonsense, that they lapped up without thinking and without question, because well he was from the government, and told them what they wanted to hear. Never mind that the guy is a discredited crank who says utterly bizarre stuff.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28

Probably my favorite method employed by proponents of the "chemtrail" hoax is to simply, and quite stubbornly, refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their perception but instantly and unquestioningly embrace that which seems to legitimize that same perception. This is called a confirmation bias; wherein those whom suffer from such a bias will behave exactly in the manner I have described above and only listen to that which appeals to the legitimacy of their viewpoint. This makes shedding the light of reason, logic, and rationality on those individuals quite difficult and sometimes impossible.

Playing Devil's advocate, I suppose the same accusation coud be levelled at those of us claiming contrails are just contrails.

Though perhaps the difference is that we address alternative evidence - explain wy we find it wanting - rather than just ignore it as some chemtrailers seem wont to do.

Which lead to the question: can anyone prove that an alleged contrail cannot be a contrail? A starter for one, surely?