A Chemtrail Challenge - FACT or BELIEF?

Originally posted by Vanishr
Its interesting, all the people who would be labelled 'non believers' what is your purpose for 'debunking' ?

To defend myself against slander - see www.abovetopsecret.com...

Someone on another thread said, its a means of self verification ?

No - self defence.

Well is it, what purpose do you serve, you see more people denieing chemtrails than any other theory it seems, Why,

Because there is actually a lot of science and history and study and fact to do with the topic. Also because it has a lot of unfortunate credibility - a lot of people are afraid of something that simply doesn't exist.

If debunking the hoax stops a few people living in fear - then that is a public service.

what do you have to gain by 'informing' others, of effectively, your opinions, not facts, yes we are aware contrails are exist, this is not in dispute, chemtrails and contrails are not the same.

So what is the difference?

Please stop the bickering on chemtrail threads, believers and non believers.

Peace.

It's not bickering - it is unfounded drivel inspiring fear in members of the public and slandering millions of people worldwide - why should it be allowed to propagate without denial?

Why do you want me to be quiet?? What do you have to hide?? Hmm????

Originally posted by GringoViejo

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

Obviously you have comprehension issues..
Have fun in your delusion......

Still waiting.

WTF are you waiting for..
The proof is already there in my posts..
You seriously can't be that stupid..
It's a NASA site FFS, saying the Applement Chart is unreliable..

I'm over wasting my time on idiots...

Originally posted by backinblack

WTF are you waiting for..
The proof is already there in my posts..
You seriously can't be that stupid..
It's a NASA site FFS, saying the Applement Chart is unreliable..

Here's a NASA site that predicts contrail formation.

www-angler.larc.nasa.gov...

The Appleman chart is accurate in that it describes the conditions required for contrail formation, but it's not that accurate for prediction, mostly because of the problems in measuring the precise state of the air where the contrail is.

Contrail forecasting, like all weather forecasting, is still an inexact science. If you google for "contrail forecasting" you'll see lots of papers on the subject. Most use the Appleman chart as a basis, but then refine it.

Most chemtrail believers actually seem to think the Appleman chart is 100% accurate, as they are always referencing it in conjunction with atmospheric soundings to "prove" a trail should not persist. They never quote the actual NASA contrail forecast though.

reply to post by Uncinus

Most chemtrail believers actually seem to think the Appleman chart is 100% accurate, as they are always referencing it in conjunction with atmospheric soundings to "prove" a trail should not persist. They never quote the actual NASA contrail forecast though.

Actually I've seen many debunkers quote the Appleman Chart..
When it fits their view it's fine, when it doesn't it's because it's unreliable..

I stated ages ago that it should NOT be used in these threads.

reply to post by backinblack


Not used for what? It's a chart that shows the conditions needed for contrail persistence. There's nothing really scientifically wrong with it. Just that BY ITSELF it's not perfect - it's a simplification. How exactly would someone "use" it in a way you disapprove of?

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by backinblack

 

Not used for what? It's a chart that shows the conditions needed for contrail persistence. There's nothing really scientifically wrong with it. Just that BY ITSELF it's not perfect - it's a simplification. How exactly would someone "use" it in a way you disapprove of?

It's more than not perfect..

However, when contrails were forecast to occur, the forecast was correct only 25 to 35 percent of the time, and often failed to predict the occurrence of contrails.

It's actually wrong 65 to 75 percent of the time forecasting contrails...

Originally posted by backinblack
It's actually wrong 65 to 75 percent of the time forecasting contrails...

Should we also forbid discussion of meteorology because weather forecasts are frequently wrong?

I really don't think you have a point here. The Appleman chart correctly describes the underlying physics of contrail formation. It does this because it's just basic physics.

The reality of the weather and atmospheric conditions is a bit more complex, so more sophisticated methods have been developed to forecast contrail formation.

We know how accurate it is. So what's your point?

reply to post by Uncinus


lol, yep, as I said earlier, a debunkers star feast here..

If you don't get my point then I'm obviously wasting my time here..
Have fun with your mates..
Seems deceit is part and parcel of debunking on ATS now.

reply to post by backinblack


Why is it that you don't make your point crystal clear instead of alluding to it here or there, being obtuse and snide?

I find a lot of chemmies practice similar "tactics" of refusing to actually make a clear point.

You say you never claim that chemtrails exist - but why is it that you only ever argue against the debunking? Why don't you argue as much against the "evidence" that believers propose?

IMO it's all part of your disingeneous approach - you know there's no evidence, you've seen others get hammered for providing shoddy "evidence", and you don't wish to suffer the same fate. which is completely understandable.

So you hide your support behind "I'm on the fence" and "I have never said that chetmrails exist" while all the time arguing almost exclusively against the wealth of evidence that they do not exist.

Your actions betray your true belief.

I am still confused as to how the Appleman chart is inaccurate when it is used to determine whether or not conditions were conducive to contrails.

And who is trying to predict them, and what does that have to do with "chemtrails?"

Oh well, I guess we shall let our resident "chem-sage" explain

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Uncinus

 

lol, yep, as I said earlier, a debunkers star feast here..

If you don't get my point then I'm obviously wasting my time here..
Have fun with your mates..
Seems deceit is part and parcel of debunking on ATS now.

You seem rather concerned with stars, why is that?

And how is that relevant anyways?