Chemtrail Debunkers....

Originally posted by jdub297

 

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I think it is a fair statement to say that chemtrails do exist. They exist in many different ways. The purpose is not clear and they are obviously still in dispute. That is all I have to say for now.

Please state a hypothesis or four to which your gathered "evidence" is relevant.

Merely gathering unrelated snippets of out-of-context quotes and articles into a melange of information would not ever be considered "evidence", much less a preponderance.

So, now "chemtrails" exist in "many different ways."

OK. Name three or four.

The purpose is "unclear?"

Name three or four of these. Can you tie them to the "ways" they exist? .
jw

edit on 21-3-2011 by jdub297 because: close quote

EXAMPLES of chemtrails

1 ) Space Shuttle exhaust

2 ) Chemical dumping for extinguishing fires

3 ) Fuel dumping for emergency and other required scenarios

4 ) ICBM exhaust other military rockets

5 ) Cloud seeding by plane and other cloud seeding methods (rockets)

6 ) Other methods used for aerosol Geo engineering (ex. balloons)

7 ) Jet exhaust with anomalous persistent contrails

I would only hypothesize about the first 4 listed below. As there is not enough supporting evidence to the others listed

PURPOSES in order of my hypothesized reasons and speculations.

1 ) Geo engineering (albedo temp. reduction, solar radiative force reflectivity/absorbing)

2 ) Weather modification (cloud seeding, atmospheric control)

3 ) Satellite image enhancement for understanding weather, ionosphere, magnetosphere)

4 ) Weather warfare (rain forcing and rain prevention, HAARP, satellite/radar image enhancement/reduction)

5 ) Atmospheric alteration into plasma state for secret black aviation projects

6 ) Reduction of the harmful qualities of toxic waste and toxic industrial by products.
(cheap disposal by ignition and dispersal methods)

7 ) Bio and chemical research projects (disease, depopulation)

reply to post by jdub297


I already responded to why the TARFOX program is relevant earlier in this thread. Go back and read my answer.

Wow, so the space shuttle is a chemplane, as are firefighting airtankers. You are just trying to again throw everything including the proverbial kitchen sink.

Small general aviation planes shooting flares inside storms are chemplanes too. Although I think that you now include firefighting airtankers.

So, tell us, how to do firefighting airtankers make persistent contrails?

reply to post by djcarlosa

i have water samples from rain but they are not samples from the source [contrail's/chemtrail's]

I know exactly what you said. You collected samples at elevation to prove the contents of "chemtrails." Are you now acknowledging that collecting samples at ground level, or elevated a few dozen feet above it, cannot be attributed to something you observed in the stratosphere?

As for what they are spraying again I can not say factually ... because I lack the means to get a sample from the source.

So, if it's baby powder or rat poison, you can't tell from the ground? Since you do not know what makes up "chemtrails," how do you know they are harmful. Ever thought of a FOIA request to the nearest military facilities for their records?

How can you say that the cost is apparent after all would these be flight's that wouldn't need to be used if the project was not undertaken

Again, a FOIA request or basic records research would reveal the presence or absence of additional flights. I do not know if "these would be flights that wouldn't need to used." How did you come to the conclusion that these flights are exclusively for "chemtrails," and not just regular flights with an added purpose?

When I brought forward that chemical where sprayed in the UK I was answered that yes it was fact but the test was only done with one aircraft so yes they would have to adapt more in order to implement this project

What about the Battelle pictures you and Mat share so much love for? That is not a WWII plane. How many planes do you contend are being used and "outfitted?"
If it has been "debunked," are you saying they are not outfitting planes now?
What, exactly, is your contention?

Please state your hypothesis for "chemtrails."

I have never stated anywhere that this is a plan to kill anybody the side effects from the spraying may not really help your heath

"Side effects" of what? Water? Baby powder? Rat poison? If, as you say below, it is for obscuration, which chemicals are they using for tat purpose, and what are their side effects?

but like new drugs tests you can't really know what the side effects are until after the human trials are over.

That is patently not true. Side effects are readily observable in real time and measurable. It is the cumulative totals that you do not know until the experiment is over. At any given time during the experiment, all observed side effects should have been well documented and themselves studied.

I can think of only 2 reasons why that have any real merit.
1. to reduce climate change after all if sea levels where to rise by 7 meters our living space would be greatly reduced.
2.they are trying to hide something going on in space that is only visible during the day.

So, if the reason is climate change mitigation, who is doing it? What are they using? How does it work on the climate if it falls to the ground? How much are they using? Where are they using it? (Wouldn't do much good to cover Arizona if the problem is GLOBAL warming, would it?

As for space objects, why do you limit it to daylight?
What about space-based observations?
Do you contend that there are no "chemtrails" at night?
Do you contend that the only way to detect space objects is in visible light wavelengths? What about radio telescopes, and x-ray, gamma-ray, infrared and ultraviolet detection?

If there is something in space we shouldn't see, what are they doing in Europe, China, Africa, Australia, Russia, India, Eurasia, Indonesia, and the United States to obscure everyone's view?

If Oregon's sky is covered, does that mean that Florida can't see it?

How, exactly, would "they" be able to prevent everyone in the world from seeing an object in space 24/7?

You do realize, don't you, that it is presently impossible to do ANYTHING globally 24/7, much less obscure otherwise clear skies.

And wouldn't someone notice sooner or later that they couldn't observe what they used to from the daylight side of the Earth?

the danger to people in general I have already spoke about

What dangers? Rashes? Sleeplessness? Death? Lack of suntan?

and we can put these down to side effects.

Are you talking about self-reported asthma? Who has pinpointed any cause? Who has confirmed these self-diagnoses? Who has attributed ONE case of asthma to "chemtrails?"

Side effects of what, the chemical or the effects of lack of sunlight?
I haven't seen anyone elaborate on the "side effects" of "chemtrails."

What causes them and what are they? Who is suffering these?

Please state your favorite hypothesis. Apparently it has something to do with making the atmosphere less transparent.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

TARFOX's connection to chemtrails IMO , is that it was the study used to help develop the techniques behind some of the suggested purposes involved with chemtrails.

Which techniques? What are the "suggested purposes" to which they are relevant?
Other than your opinion, what independent evidence do you have for this assertion?

I also think that the TARFOX studies used small tests of there own aerosol dispersals.

Why would you think this? What independent evidence to you have of "small tests?" Which tests? What aerosols were dispersed? What were the observations of the time aloft and at what altitudes?

But that is just speculation on my part.

What, other than your speculation supports any of the foregoing assertions?

jw

Originally posted by firepilot
Wow, so the space shuttle is a chemplane, as are firefighting airtankers. You are just trying to again throw everything including the proverbial kitchen sink.

Small general aviation planes shooting flares inside storms are chemplanes too. Although I think that you now include firefighting airtankers.

So, tell us, how to do firefighting airtankers make persistent contrails?

The space shuttle is the biggest chemtrail plane in existence. FACT

A few of the other examples were given to answer a question about my statement that "chemtrails exist in many forms." I didn't say that firefighting planes leave their chemtrail in persistent contrails. It was just an example of a chem-plane not a chemtrail plane in the normal sense we usually think. I was just giving examples of how chemtrails exist in other forms than the persistent contrail. OK

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I have evidence based opinions about who and where the airplanes are based with and at.

Video and Satellite View of Evergreen Planes with Aerosol Tanks Attached
Click here for a satellite view of Pinal Airpark in Marana, AZ, which includes living quarters with a swimming pool. You can zoom in all the way and there are crystal clear images of various sized planes (some of which have extra tanks attached to the back), Apaches, , Humvees, storage tanks. It’s all there.

Pinal Airpark is a well-known airplane graveyard or "boneyard."

If this cut & paste is an example of your "evidence," it is clear that you do not take the time to see what you are posting or whether it is even relevant.

Your reliance on pictures of decommissioned planes and a YouTube video as "evidence" of "who and where the airplanes are based with and at," renders your theory 100% false.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Please state your hypothesis for the existence of "chemtrails."

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

TARFOX's connection to chemtrails IMO , is that it was the study used to help develop the techniques behind some of the suggested purposes involved with chemtrails.

Which techniques? What are the "suggested purposes" to which they are relevant?
Other than your opinion, what independent evidence do you have for this assertion?

I also think that the TARFOX studies used small tests of there own aerosol dispersals.

Why would you think this? What independent evidence to you have of "small tests?" Which tests? What aerosols were dispersed? What were the observations of the time aloft and at what altitudes?

But that is just speculation on my part.

What, other than your speculation supports any of the foregoing assertions?

jw

Look through all my posts in the many different chemtrail threads for the evidence I have. Go to my posts or a thread and select "posts in this thread" under my name in the drop down menu.

These techniques
www.nasa.gov...

The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab296bf26c0a.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0012ec508e8.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

It has been pointed out that scattering techniques would not be visible even if they were being done. No "chemtrails".

reply to post by MathiasAndrew
Mat, your specious assertions about the existence of contrails and persistent contrails are signs of desperation. Your faith has been shaken, so you irrationally lash out.

more study and data is required to make accurate predictions and forcast models? Do you remember agreeing with me that it is a new and speculative theory for predicting when the conditions for persistent contrails might occur and that the predictions thus far have not been proven to be accurate?

Here, you concede the reality of contrails and persistent contrails, but you dwell on the difficulties of predicting them. Do you not see the difference? Look at what you posted: "more study and data is required to make accurate predictions and forcast models."

The problem, as you imply, is not in observing persistent contrails, it is in predicting them!

Now, if they did not exist why would you or NASA give a rat's ass about predicting them?

Please take a breath, relax and state your hypothesis for the existence of "chemtrails."

You could start with the raison d'etre of aircrap.org:

Our goal is to educate people and collect data about the toxic Chemtrails that are being sprayed on the population of the world.
...
War has been declared upon the planet and every living life form on it.
...
The Illuminati elite wants to rule the world, but also want to own it and everyone on it.
...
[T]hose they considered “useless eaters” are going to have to die. The Death Dumps (Chemtrails) ... is the method that they are using to carry out mass murder.

www.aircrap.org...

Now, that's not really a hypothesis, but you could piece one out of it. It states "who," "what," "why" and a little bit of "how." (Saying "toxic chemtrails" doesn't really describe the toxins involved.) "Where" is the entire world, and "when" is right now.

So, try it yourself. Please state your "chemtrails" hypothesis.

jw

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

It has been pointed out that scattering techniques would not be visible even if they were being done. No "chemtrails".

I saw your quote where you think that is what was said but you're mistaken Phage. It said "the perceived environmental impact would be zero." Not the visible effects would be zero.

Originally posted by: Phage

 

It’s also worth noting-in-passing that the resonant transitions chosen to be intercalation-broadened – or those glassed-in dyes chosen to absorb-&-fluoresce – likely could be selected to lie exclusively in the near-UV or -IR portions of the solar spectral radiance on the Earth’s atmosphere, so that the resulting ‘spectral notching’ of sunlight as seen at or near the Earth’s surface would be invisible to people, just as the near-IR solar spectral notchings due to absorption by atmospheric H2O already are. The a s -perceive d ‘‘environmental impact’’ of such spectrally-notched insolation subtraction would thereby be essentially zero.

reply to post by jdub297

First
You are really annoying me by clipping my quotes and taking them out of context. If you can't quote it properly and keep it in the context of the original conversation, when I made the quote. You really shouldn't be half quoting me and then applying it to a different subject in your contrived manner.
Second
Get real Jdub297 you are the one getting desperate. You're taking everything I have said way out of context. Go back and read what I wrote and why I wrote it. I wrote it because I was answering a specific question from someone else. Keep it up, you're only exposing your ignorance.
Third
I don't need to follow your suggestion of create hypothesis because you want one.. This isn't a laboratory. I tried to present my evidence in a formal legal manner and no one went along with that. I was told "this isn't a court of law". So you can take your request back to the barn and feed it to your goats for all I care.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Mat, you are grasping at straws. No one here has posted anything about predicting persistent contrails except you.

You specifically questioned proof of the existence of persistent contrails, much as L'Etranger questions their existence.

Unfortunately, your compatriot carlosa has already quoted from a study of the persistence and evolution into cirrus of contrails: Microphysical properties of upper-tropospheric contrails and cirrus clouds

You and your faithful congregation should just google carlosa's topic and see the hundreds of studies of the phenomena; not one of which contends that contrails do not exist, bo not persist, or do not form cirrus.

Here, Google this: microphysical properties of upper-tropospheric contrails and cirrus clouds

The desperation of the "chemtrail" faithful mounts in the face of the obvious lack of factual support.

jw

It’s also worth noting-in-passing that the resonant transitions chosen to be intercalation-broadened – or those glassed-in dyes chosen to absorb-&-fluoresce – likely could be selected to lie exclusively in the near-UV or -IR portions of the solar spectral radiance on the Earth’s atmosphere, so that the resulting ‘spectral notching’ of sunlight as seen at or near the Earth’s surface would be invisible to people, just as the near-IR solar spectral notchings due to absorption by atmospheric H2O already are. The as -perceived ‘‘environmental impact’’ of such spectrally-notched insolation subtraction would thereby be essentially zero.

The effects would be invisible. Not perceptible.

The problem, as you imply, is not in observing persistent contrails, it is in predicting them! Now, if they did not exist why would you or NASA give a rat's ass about predicting them? Please take a breath, relax and state your hypothesis for the existence of "chemtrails." You could start with the raison d'etre of aircrap.org:

reply to post by jdub297

No that is not what I said. I was explaining that a regular persistent contrail lasts only 20 minutes to an hour max. The ones that last longer than an hour are the ones that I suspect to be chemtrails.

Originally posted by Phage

It’s also worth noting-in-passing that the resonant transitions chosen to be intercalation-broadened – or those glassed-in dyes chosen to absorb-&-fluoresce – likely could be selected to lie exclusively in the near-UV or -IR portions of the solar spectral radiance on the Earth’s atmosphere, so that the resulting ‘spectral notching’ of sunlight as seen at or near the Earth’s surface would be invisible to people, just as the near-IR solar spectral notchings due to absorption by atmospheric H2O already are. The a s -perceive d ‘‘environmental impact’’ of such spectrally-notched insolation subtraction would thereby be essentially zero.

The effects would be invisible.

edit on 3/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Where do you get "the effects would be invisible " They are only invisible once the cloud of particulates has dispersed. It's not saying that when they are sprayed they are immediately invisible is it now. Phage I consider you to be one of the more polite and well researched debunkers. But you are making a mistake in your interpretation this time.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

I thought you could tell they were "chemtrails" because they spread out and get thicker, covering the sky. The doesn't sound like dispersing.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

the "natural persistent contrails" do not persist for more than 20 minutes to an hour tops.

Source? Is this another of your beliefs stated as fact? Show me scientific authority, like carlosa did, that shows how long contrails can, or cannot, persist. The referenced article does.

Your friend's source used contrails greater than one hour old for their studies. Do the search I suggested and you will see that contrails can persist for multiple hours.

jw

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

I thought you could tell they were "chemtrails" because they spread out and get thicker, covering the sky. The doesn't sound like dispersing.

Exactly it takes much longer to disperse a contrail with highly concentrated particulate matter in it, than it does a normal contrail from jet exhaust.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

" if " the aluminum particles are in the persistent contrails that form, the they should appear similar to chaff when viewed using infra red satellite and "Dopplar" radar images.

The point is that aluminum "particles" do not exist in contrails of any type; and, if they are "particulate" in size (i.e. millimeters and smaller), they will NOT show up in infrared or Doppler images.

jw