Chemtrail Debunkers....

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I've proven that there at least 4 different types of chemtrails that have already.been used.

www.rense.com...

The first project is an effort to block the rays of the sun from hitting the Earth

The second and most secret project is the Navy's Radio Frequency Mission Planner (RFMP) program

The third project also utilizes the mixture of barium salts in the atmosphere and involves weather control

The fourth atmospheric project is being run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as a means to detect and decontaminate enemy biological attacks

And not a skerrick of evidence for any of them - heck even you havent' tried to provide "evidential links" for those one!

Here's my own list
1) At least 500 tons of chaff per year in the being unnecessarily dumped.
www.iemr.org...

who says it's unneccessarily dumped? Not that paper- it specifically says there's no need to change practices at all.

What - you didnt' read it? Why does that not surprise me!!

Prior studies and the analysis provided here do not warrant modification of current DOD RF
chaff training practices based on environmental concerns.

And since when was chaff "chemtrails"?

Oh that's right - you're the guy that says that firefighting and the space shuttle are chemtrails too.....so everythign in the sky is a chemtrail to you!

2) Barium being injected into the atmosphere for radar and satellite communications studies of weather, ionosphere and magnetosphere
www.nasa.gov...

Payloads of 3.3lb and 1.6 lb, injected BY SATELLITE into space - this is now your chemtrails??

Nothing to do with aircraft at all? nothing to do with weather modification or geo-engineering??

3) Cloud and weather modification techniques that are not using the typical methods of silver iodide cloud seeding.
www.met.reading.ac.uk...

No it isn't - it's looking at the effects of a pre-existing contrail and studying how it progressed after the fact.

A distinct coil-shaped contrail evolving into cirrus (hereafter CCC) that is thought to have originated from
maneuvers performed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft was observed in satellite imagery during March 2009.

So someone saw an interesting contrail in satellite photos, and then checked what happened to it with later photos, meteorlogical records, and whatever else they could find. Yet another case of research into contrails in order to understand them better

4) Testing of SRM geoengineering techniques
www.srmgi.org...

Nope - no testing whatsoever - not even a call for proposals for testing - it's a call:

To produce discussion papersfor the SRMGl conference in March 2011 that consider, and make practical recommendations on, possible governance arangements for Solar Radiation Managment (SRM) research.

So it isnt' even calling for information on hoe to test - it's asking for information on how testing should be governed - what rules should be in place befoer it's allowed!!

Show me where I posted something that was irrelevant.

All 4 of your so-called proven chemtails above

I'll have to explain it to you better

I guess you will.....

I never misrepresented the content of any paper.

And the sad thing is you might actually believe that to be true!

That statement actually applies to you.

And yet you cannot show examples where I have done so, despite repeating the claim so often - you've had plenty of chances - what's the problem?

I never said I don't care if photos are true or not. You've fabricated that statement.

I posted the link to your mesage.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You really are being quite ignorant and it's showing more and more. It's almost become childlike behavior playing the game "but why, but why?" or the other childish word game "I know you are but what am I ?". It's become absolutely ridiculous for me to try and communicate with people like yourself. Anyone who investigates this topic will see right through you. I'm so tired and bored of your long rants and foolishness. You have nothing but ignorant opinion to offer and it's getting old.

I proved all my points. Prove me wrong.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Obviously my actually reading the papers you offered as "evidence" really pissed you off and I'm sure you now regret nt having done so yourself.

I pointed out why I think you're "analysis" of them is faulty - why can't you discuss their actual content rationally without resorting to name-calling?

It doesn't surprise me of course - every time you have tried to engage in rational discussion of the papers you provide as "evidence" you show that you havent' read them and/or don't understand them. your search engine skills are well developed....but you are obviously finding so much stuff you don't have time to read it all!!

Oh and if it's all so secret......how come so much of it is so easily available on the 'net in the first place??

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

You really are being quite ignorant and it's showing more and more. It's almost become childlike behavior playing the game "but why, but why?" or the other childish word game "I know you are but what am I ?". It's become absolutely ridiculous for me to try and communicate with people like yourself. Anyone who investigates this topic will see right through you. I'm so tired and bored of your long rants and foolishness. You have nothing but ignorant opinion to offer and it's getting old. I proved all my points. Prove me wrong.

What points, and you have been proven wrong many times over. In case you forgot you would rather start a new thread when you couldn't back up your claims.

If you are tired and bored of long rants and and foolishness then maybe you should quit posting then because that's how many feel about your posts.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

I haven't been proven wrong. Especially not by you and I'm still here in this thread.

IMO all you debunkers were proven wrong

Shortwave Climate Engineering
www2.novim.org...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

In a one-week study, the authors of this report conducted a technical review and evaluation of proposed climate engineering concepts that might serve as a rapid palliative response to such climate emergency scenarios.

So a study of proposals.....not any actual engineering at all

I wonder if anyone is surprised that you have misrepresented information yet again?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

I haven't been proven wrong. Especially not by you and I'm still here in this thread.

IMO all you debunkers were proven wrong

Shortwave Climate Engineering
www2.novim.org...

Uh huh, care to tell us again about rear mounted aerosol tanks, or how aircraft with parts removed and in storage, can somehow go fly.

Or how that doctored photo from the interior of the 777 from CG testing, is somehow the actual photo and the one from the book is the fake one?

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Sounds to me like you need a lesson in CHEMTRAIL 101

Have you done your homework?

Aerosol crimes / chemtrail crimes Clifford Carnicom
www.youtube.com...

Rosalind Peterson: The Chemtrail Cover-Up
www.youtube.com...

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)
www.youtube.com...

So I want everyone to closely examine this picture again.

The bunktoids here claim the difference we are seeing in these two trails is due to ENOUGH of a difference in the 'atmospheric conditions' of the airspace THESE two planes are flying through to cause the massive difference in THESE two trails. Does that really seem reasonable??? Likely??? Look closely. This is a night and day difference. And they don't have a shred of proof in the first place to show the atmosphere is in ANY way *substantially* different, much less so radically different that it causes this HUGE disparity.

I'm saying I think it is much MORE likely (IMO) that the actual makeup of the exhaust would better explain the difference considering the HUGE disparity and the somewhat close proximity.

This post seems to have been unresponded to.

I think it's worth examining.

reply to post by Tecumte


What's to say?

We know the temperature changes with height, we know humidity is different in different parts of the atmosphere - if you can see a cloud in the sky then you can see parts of the atmospehre that are suitable for formatin of clouds and parts that are not.

how much difference does it take to maek a contrail persistant? How far is it from inside a cloud to outside a cloud - 100 feet is enough - if you can see a partly cloudy sky then you can see the edges of clouds - inside hte cloud conditions are right, outside they are not.

Your inability to comprehend the atmosphere is the only thing remarkable in your diatribe above.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Your inability to answer my question directly looks evasive.

What exactly has caused the difference in these two trails?

Give me the exact altitude, relative humidity and temperature differences that would explain the huge disparity.

reply to post by Tecumte


Ah the old strawman argument - knowing full well that no-one actualy knows what the flights are and hte question can't be answered.

Well 2 can play that same stupid game - if you think that there is a difference in the exhaust how about you tell me exactly what hte difference is, how the materials are delivered, how they affect the engines, who pays for them, wher they are manufactured and what they are. In precise detail please.

I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer using simple and obvious examples of how conditions can differ that you can check by looking out the window on a partly cloudy day.

You can look out a window and see a cloud - does the cloud not exist because you do not know the PRECISE temperature, pressure, altitude and humidity?

Apparently in your chemmie-land it does not. Instead it seems that to you the cloud is actually a concoction of chemicals designed to do something you dont' like. I don't know what it is you don't like, because I'm not thick enough to believe such fantasies, and nor do I

IMO your response is typical of chemmies who choose to ignore the real world and construct fantastical scenarios and impossible tales to justify ignoring history, physics, sience, logic and plane (sic) common sense.

I wish you a nice paranoia.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Ah the old strawman argument - knowing full well that no-one actualy knows what the flights are and hte question can't be answered.

Well thanks at least for the honesty of that statement and recognizing that we both realize you are simply working on a theory as well.

But in truth I wasn't really trying to set up a 'straw-man' arguement, what I am after is simply a PLAUSIBLE set of ACTUAL atmospheric parameters that COULD explain EXACTLY what we are seeing as far as difference in the footage. Let's admit, these two trails are DRASTICALLY different in appearance.

I assumed that the bunktoids here who try and act so very knowledgeable as if they know it all, and ridicule and insult all other potential explanations other than their own would have atmospheric science down to the letter. I've never claimed I'm an 'expert, just someone making what I feel is a rational hypothesis.

So again. Give a PLAUSIBLE set of differences in altitude, relative humidity, and temperature that COULD explain THESE two planes vastly different trails (not just two planes in general we already understand that), first look at the picture thoroughly and then simply give your best estimate.

reply to post by Tecumte


It's clearly has nothing to do with humidity or altitude.

The dfference between the two trails is that one is a contrail and the other is a chemtrail.

There is absolutely no factual explanation based on atmospheric conditions that can account for the huge disparity between the two trails. Any attempts to use that excuse is completely bogus.

Only a debunker like Aloysius would think that anybody could believe such a ridiculous excuse.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Tecumte

 

It's clearly has nothing to do with humidity or altitude.

The dfference between the two trails is that one is a contrail and the other is a chemtrail.

There is absolutely no factual explanation based on atmospheric conditions that can account for the huge disparity between the two trails. Any attempts to use that excuse is completely bogus.

Only a debunker like Aloysius would think that anybody could believe such a ridiculous excuse.

Mathis I agree in principle with what you are saying, but I would like to see the bunktoids attempt to put actual comparison data behind this great video. How far apart do the planes appear to be? Just a best guess. Which trail appears to be at a lower altitude? To me it looks as though the huge spreading one does, but obviously we can't be sure (can we?). Whatever the difference in air space, I don't personally believe it would ALONE account for THIS difference we are seeing here. The bunktoids always try and generalize and talk about other planes in general but that's not what I'm asking about.

What is the best guess regarding temperature difference between the reasonably small space we *appear* to see and what is a potential difference in relative humidity between the trail that immediately disapates and the huge smokey looking one. It's as I've said before a night and day difference, I want these bunksters to explian their theory with some valid numbers. Too, air mixes.

Also to each their own, but I don't like to use the terms 'contrail' and 'chemtrail' first because I don't find them especially accurate, all trails probably have SOME chemicals, rather we are talking about the potential difference in chemical makeup, as you well know some atmospheric modification protocols call for little more than burning a dirtier exhaust to add carbon for cloud building nuclei, in fact I wonder if some (likely not all) of what we are seeing is more or less this, seeding FOR cloud creation to modify weather rather than just INTO 'naturally' present clouds.

In any case as I've said we know cloud seeding exists, we are aware of some of the older more open techniques, to actually create clouds for ready seeding shouldn't be such a drastic mental jump for these guys other than that maybe they have to have some guy in a white coat spoon feed them in order to even consider it.

Originally posted by Tecumte
....In any case as I've said we know cloud seeding exists, we are aware of some of the older more open techniques, to actually create clouds for ready seeding shouldn't be such a drastic mental jump for these guys other than that maybe they have to have some guy in a white coat spoon feed them in order to even consider it.

Perhaps I do need to be spoon-fed. So please tell me how to create a rain cloud that is ready for seeding.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Tecumte
....In any case as I've said we know cloud seeding exists, we are aware of some of the older more open techniques, to actually create clouds for ready seeding shouldn't be such a drastic mental jump for these guys other than that maybe they have to have some guy in a white coat spoon feed them in order to even consider it.

Perhaps I do need to be spoon-fed. So please tell me how to create a rain cloud that is ready for seeding.

You ignored my questions that I asked first.

Can't you answer them?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Tecumte

 

It's clearly has nothing to do with humidity or altitude.

The dfference between the two trails is that one is a contrail and the other is a chemtrail.

and yuo can tell this because of what?

There is absolutely no factual explanation based on atmospheric conditions that can account for the huge disparity between the two trails. Any attempts to use that excuse is completely bogus.

and with that Matty shows that 100 years of atmospheric science has conspired to fool everyone in the 2000's - wow man - you should get a nobel prize for science for such a well researched revellation

Yeah right!

He's saying that there's no such thing a a persistant contrail at all under any circumstances, and so all those WW2 B-17's were part of the plot too.

Here's the video again just to rub it in -

Only a debunker like Aloysius would think that anybody could believe such a ridiculous excuse.

And clouds can't exist either........

Cool - i've neve seen such a blatantly stupid piece of posting - usually Matty is quite circumspect with what he posts - hedging his bets, not actually saying anything conclusive at all.

But he's finally blown it - lost his cool & revealed just how ignorant he is.

Thanks Matty

reply to post by Tecumte


You're absolutely correct and it's called Shortwave Climate Engiineering

www2.novim.org...

the study focused the research agenda on one particular SWCE concept—stratospheric aerosol injection—and in doing so developed several conceptual frameworks and methods valuable for assessing any SWCE proposal.

arxiv.org...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

and with that Matty shows that 100 years of atmospheric science has conspired to fool everyone in the 2000's - wow man - you should get a nobel prize for science for such a well researched revellation

You're the one conspiring to try and fool everybody..

There's not one shred of evidence to back up your ridiculous claims about the difference between the two trails in that video

How many times are you going to spam that stupid WW2 video?

He's saying that there's no such thing a a persistant contrail at all under any circumstances, and so all those WW2 B-17's were part of the plot too.

Show me where I said this. You're just showing how ignorant you are. More lies, is that all you got?

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Tecumte
....In any case as I've said we know cloud seeding exists, we are aware of some of the older more open techniques, to actually create clouds for ready seeding shouldn't be such a drastic mental jump for these guys other than that maybe they have to have some guy in a white coat spoon feed them in order to even consider it.

Perhaps I do need to be spoon-fed. So please tell me how to create a rain cloud that is ready for seeding.

You ignored my questions that I asked first.

Can't you answer them?

I answered these before a few days ago (maybe on one of the other myriads of threads this video appeared on).

The answer is that I don't know how far apart the planes are -- and neither do you. However, it is a known fact that a couple thousand feet of altitude could make a difference in trail persistence. I don't know if these two planes are at different altitudes, but it would be SOP to do so, rather than have them flying so close together at the same altitude.

So the bottom line is that the altitudes are unknown, so this video is not evidence for the chemtrail theory, nor is it evidence for people who say contrails could be different at different altitudes. In short this video is meaningless for both sides.


...now your turn:
if artificially creating a rain cloud that is ripe for seeding is so easy, please explain to me how it is done.

Plus, the spreading trails that some people call chemtrails are cirrus clouds -- but cirrus clouds are not rain clouds. So if you are saying the purpose of chemtrails is to produce clouds ready for seeding to create rain, then why are they producing cirrus clouds?