"Chemtrails are "BS"

Best thread I have seen you post Jenn...

The fatal flaw of the 'chemtrail' joke is that the proponents can never give a logical reason 'why'...

Mrhand says:

"I want to know why many of these planes are unmarked."

Mrhand, you're looking at aircraft that are about 30,000-38,000 feet high. Even with a 300 mm telephoto lens on a 35mm camera, the planes will still "look" as though they're 5000-6000 feet high. Given that kind of lens, the picture is going to be pretty blurry, due to the magnification of the hand motion as well as the object itself.

Finally, since the planes are mostly overhead, all you will see is the bottom of the wings and the belly of the aircraft. In other words, you're not going to see any markings anyway, since commercial aircraft have their markings on the side and on the tail.

If you want to know what the aircraft is (and you're really serious about it) why not get a subscription to Flight Explorer [link to www.flightexplorer.com] ?

Is Jenn our old banjo playing tobacco chewing friend Hazard who has learnt that a pic of a woman much like idol will get a better response.

They do say the dog resembles the owner. Has Jenn got huge pointy ears much like mine?

Reveal those ears you must!!!

67427 said, "Is Jenn our old banjo playing tobacco chewing friend Hazard who has learnt that a pic of a woman much like idol will get a better response.

They do say the dog resembles the owner. Has Jenn got huge pointy ears much like mine?

Reveal those ears you must!!!"



I don't play the banjo but I would like to . I don't chew tobacco. As a matter of fact I think it would be really disgusting to kiss some guy that does. (especially french kissing, ECK). I don't know who Hazard is, I'm fairly new here.

I don't have a dog, I am a cat person.

Getting back on track here. Merely taking a picture of something won't prove or disprove anything. I could fake some dinosaur footprints, take a picture of them, and claim they are real. Science is based in hard evidence. Anything else is just conjecture.

This is really great. Someone like Jenn++ comes up with some common-sense stuff that some of you can't refute, so you switch to personal attacks and innuendos.

As far as I'm concerned, that shows you've already lost the argument!

I haven't seen any unrefutable information on this thread to debunk chemtrails....just the standard pin-headed refusal to look facts in the fact that debunkers rely upon to get them through.

"PISS POT HEAD" said in the above that you lost the argument.

anyone wanna take a guess why you rarely hear planes flying overhead anymore... anyone?

Folks, you're arguing with people who are either full-blown psychotics or are pretending to be (and doing it very well). In either case, you might as well try to nail Jell-O to the wall. Of course, you do have them gibbering and frothing, which is fun to watch...

Just don't expect to disabuse them of their delusions.

monty says:

"I haven't seen any unrefutable information on this thread to debunk chemtrails...."

I've seen a lot of stuff, especially at the ATS site. There's tons of threads on chemtrails, and people get into detail on the pros and cons of chemtrails versus contrails.

And we're talking pilots, engineers, and a bunch of others, including a moderator of a weather forum in the UK. If you look just at the chemtrail sites, you won't see any of that stuff, because many of those sites ban people who don't buy into chemtrails.

As far as this site is concerned, all the chemtrail stuff I see falls into two categories:

The ANTI-chemtrail people say that the reasons for contrails are thus-and-so and they quote basic science. Then they ask for evidence that there really ARE such thing as chemtrails, looking for lab results, or health studies, or anything concrete.

The PRO-chemtrail people say that contrails and chemtrails are different, but they don't say how. Their typical explanation is that "chemtrails perisist and contrails don't".

But the ANTI-contrail people say that, since contrails are just like clouds, some are going to persist or not persist ANYWAY, depending on the temperature and the relative humidity.

The PRO-chemtrail people don't ever talk about stuff like relative humidity and temperature and supersaturation and sublimation and any sort of basic scientific ideas to support their beliefs.

The ANTI-chemtrail people say that if the PRO-chemtrail people have this belief, where's their evidence?

The PRO-chemtrail people say that it's the ANTI-chemtrail people's job to prove them wrong, but it's not. If I say I'm Adolf Hitler's granddaughter and expect anyone to buy into that, I can't just say "well, you can't prove I'm NOT, can you?" Who would believe me if I made an assertion like that and demanded someone to prove me wrong?

The PRO-chemtrail people show all these pictures of aircraft contrails and say they're chemtrails, but that ANTI-chemtrail people say that they're just contrails which persist.

It's like someone here said once that showing pictures of contrails to prove the existence of chemtrails is like showing pictures of Christmas presents to prove the existence of Santa Claus.

I don't think that the ANTI-chemtrail people have the obligation to prove the chemtrails DON'T exist, I think you have an obligation to prove (or at least show) that they do.

And so far, you haven't done that.

"just the standard pin-headed refusal..."

And that seems to be another difference; the PRO-chemtrail people seem to call people idiots or pinheads or dis-info specialists instead of answering honest questions like

"how exactly do chemtrails differ from contrails?"

or

"Has anyone actually sampled the contrails to see what kind of weird stuff is in there?"

You know, simple questions that need to be asked -- and answered.

So what do you EXPECT us to believe?

UNO WHO....the problem with debunkers in teh sciences is that they keep ASKING for evidecne and them refusing to SEE it. Go over to Cliff Carnicom's site for a good beginning on Chemtrail evidence.

Monty's citing Carnicom's hilarious site as a source of "evidence" just confirms one more time that the chemazoids have no idea at all what constitutes evidence.

Chemtrails first appeared 7 years ago.

283...so what DOES constitute evidence then? You have to rememebr that for some of us who have followed the issue for quite a few years, we have our own anecdotal evidence that gives us a certain perspective, rather than a set of links for your perusal.

monty says:

"UNO WHO....the problem with debunkers in teh sciences is that they keep ASKING for evidecne and them refusing to SEE it."

Well, I haven't seen any evidence, outside of photographs of contrails 9or chemtrails). I haven't seen any results of stuff captured "in situ" and sent to a laboratory for evaluation, and I haven't seen any studies correlating chemtrails with health issues such as people showing up at clinics or hospital ERs with pulmonary disorders or anything like that.

What kind of evidence is there? Maybe I've missed something, but I've been following this for a while too.

"Go over to Cliff Carnicom's site for a good beginning on Chemtrail evidence."

Are you talking about the Therese Aigner study? All of the stuff I've seen at Carnicom's site doesn't have the name of a lab or anything. in one case, they had a report which says that they got some stuff on the ground in the woods and it turned out to look like erythrocytes (red blood cells).

Well, there are animals in the woods and some of them get eaten by other animals. Blood on the ground in the woods is not exactly a mystery.

Carnicom also talks about collecting snow in a bucket and having someone look at it. But the stuff he claims to have analyzed (and he never says where he got it analyzed) could just be the result of normal atmospheric pollution.

Lot of attention seems to be paid to finding barium compounds and saying they're from chemtrails, but barium is a pretty common atmospheric pollution from coal-burning generating plants --which are all over the place. So you can't really tie barium to chemtrails, even though it may have fallen out of the sky in a rain or snow fall.

The answer is yes, I have been to Cliff Carnicom's site a lot and read a lot on these "studies", but they turn out to not really be studies that you can trust.

Maybe if you have some specific studies that you can point me to, it would help. I'm assuming, that as someone who believes in chemtrails, you have seen some evidence which convinces you. I'd be happy to look at the evidence if you care to share it.

"1283...so what DOES constitute evidence then?"

Well, I can't speak for 1283, but for me, it would be someone collecting chemtrail stuff while it was in the air (from a light plane, maybe) and taken to a laboratory and analyzed, with the collection methodology documented and an evidentiary chain kept intact.

Or, it could be a LIDAR spectroscope tag of a contrail which shows something other than what’s normally in the clouds, i.e., lots of ice crystals with some trace amounts of jet fuel byproducts and normal atmospheric pollution.

Or, it could be tracking the chemtrails as they dispersed to the ground and then checking doctors' offices and hospitals to see if there's a statistical correlation between spraying chemtrails and people getting sick.

None of these studies are easy, but then, real science seldom is. I would think, with all the people who believe in chemtrails over the past five or ten years, someone would've gotten the resources together to actually do some real research into chemtrails.

I'm not saying that no one ever has done any real research, but I haven't seen any yet, and none of the chemtrail people I talk with can show me any, either.

"You have to rememebr that for some of us who have followed the issue for quite a few years, we have our own anecdotal evidence that gives us a certain perspective, rather than a set of links for your perusal."

I can understand that. But ANECDOTAL evidence is often tainted because there is no way for the researcher to know whether his INTERPRETATION of the phenomena is correct.

For example, I have heard people tell me that "dashed chemtrails" or "start-and-stop chemtrails" are proof that they're being deliberately sprayed. And yet the ANTI-chemtrail people have an explanation for dashed chemtrails that makes a whole lot more sense to me (dynamic changes in the atmosphere which causes "edges" to the chemtrails just like "edges" to clouds).

And the PRO-chemtrail people, when asked to explain how the "dashed" chemtrails prove deliberate spraying, say that maybe the sprayers on the airplane get stuck, then they start working again, then they get stuck again, then they start working again, and so on.

I know clouds have edges and I know why. If chemtrails are just normal ice-crystal clouds which come from the airplanes' exhaust, then under those circumstances, the chemtrails would be "dashed", too. That explanation of "dashed chemtrails" makes a lot more sense to me that the belief that you have this top-secret state-of-the-art program with all these sophisticated bazillion-dollar airplanes, and a hundred-dollar valve keeps getting stuck and unstuck and stuck and unstuck.

AC 8107, "anecdotal evidence" is short for "fantasies".

Sorry monty, that long post was mine. I guess I timed out when I was typing my response.

My bad!!

8107...I have been following this for years, but not building up a library of evidence as the only person I have been looking for is MYSELF. So I have not been keeping links or anything else. I do know from my memory that a town in Ontario hired researchers to go up after the chemtrails were laid and that they took samples which were then analysed and sent to the Canadian government. I know that the Canadian government was under enough pressure that the Defense Minister, a few years ago...I'm thinking at least 3 years here, acknowledged chemtrails in Canadian skies but said that 'It isn't us.' and refused to comment further. I know that Air Traffic Controllers in Victoria on Vancouver Island made a formal complaint about the trails causing fogging on their radar screens and that they subsequently joined a meeting in San Diego held by the Aitr Traffic Controllers in north America to discuss the problems with the rerouting of aircraft to allow for spraying and the spraying causing severe fogging effects of the radars. I know this was covered quite well in the Canadian media because I followed it, yet about a year later the Air Traffic Controllers were denying such a thing. I can only say what I watched unfolding. I know that the Australian government banned the use of the word 'chemtrail' or discussion of the subject on electronic media ni Australia...and you just have to wonder why they did that. I know what I have witnessed time and time again in shkies that never ever showed contrails in the past. I know that the city of Edmonton in Canada found many of it's trees were dying in the parks and soil samples showed bizarre increases in barium which were subsequently linked in the University of Alberta to the spraying of chemtrails. I remember listening to UofA plasma technologists being interviewed on the radio about it. So I know lots of stuff that I have personally witnessed but which have no connections I have made on this thing called the 'internet' because they are 'real world' events...and as such, you won't get a link from me. Likewise, I don't care what you believe because your learning path is yours and mine is mine. I just know what I have watched and seen and nothing you say can 'delete' it from my memory.

Like all psychotics, Monty knows lots of things that sane people don't know. Still, I'm glad I'm sane.

Monty, I'm sorry you don't have any evidence for me, but I understand if you haven't retained any information on studies.

You're right, my learning path is mine, and I really would like to know if there are any studies that lead to a better understanding of chemtrails. Hopefully, I will be able to find a PRO-chemtrail person who will be able to come up with some evidence.

Best wishes,

UNO WHO.

The 24/1/06 was a very busy day over europe.
[link to rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov]

You up there with the "PISS-POT" on your head, go back to sleep, everything is just fine.

lighten up, she is correct,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, all kinds of people are getting sick

UNO WHO,

What is your explanation of the image
in the link that Gorgeous George just posted ?

...

Well, I'm not UNO WHO, who strikes me as being just a bit too nicey-nice with the "chem-trail" people...

... but it appears to me that it's lots of flights over the English Channel (one of the busiest flight areas in the world) with aircraft flying to and from New York, Washington, and Boston to and from Heathrow, Orly, Charles de Gaulle, Stuttgart, etc. and they're leaving a lot of contrails.

And inasmuch as you can already see a sheet of cirrus clouds above Cornwall and Kent, it's pretty obvious that the temperatures's below -40 and supersaturated at that altitude, so the contrails are going to stick around.

What's YOUR explanation, Celador?

monty sez:

" know that the Australian government banned the use of the word 'chemtrail' or discussion of the subject on electronic media ni Australia..."

MONTY, ARE YOU PATHOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE OF TELLING THE TRUTH??

Do a google search using the arguments "australia" and" chemtrail" and see how many sites in Australia you get!

[link to www.world-action.co.uk] Entitled
From the Echo, published in Mullumbimby.

vadar@nobbys.net.au entitled: Latest Chemtrail Photos From Australia

and if you go here to [link to www.mysteriousnewzealanfuck_tardes] you will see all these websites with their links.

Byron Bay Chemtrails -- Australians are doing something about it!
[Click here]

Chemtrails in the Skies over Canberra
[Click here]

Chemtrail Photos from Australia
[Click here]

dminoz (Blogger) Location: Victoria, Australia
[Click here]

Gaiaguys - Dyson Devine and Vivienne Legg
[Click here]

Mass UFO Spectacle' near Quirindi, NSW
[Click here]

Poison Planes - Peter Melov
[Click here]

Jesus, monty, you are SO transparent. Do you think that your posts carry so much weight that a sane person can't choose to prove you a liar (and a clumsy one at that) with a few mouse-clicks?

GIMME A BREAK!! YOU'RE BUSTED -- AGAIN!!

No wonder you have no credibility!!

I wish people would do more research and provide references other than carnicom

Check this link:
[link to urbanlegends.about.com]

And it's references

References:

1. Online Guide to Meteorology, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
at the University of Illinois UrbanaChampaign, Cloud Catalog, at:
[link to covis1.atmos.uiuc.edu]
contrail.html

2. Personal communication with David Starr, Mission Scientist,
SUCCESS, NASA, GSFC, 1997

3. NASA Langley Cloud and Radiation Research
at: [link to www-pm.larc.nasa.gov]
Atmospheric Sciences Division NASA Langley Research Center
at: [link to asd-www.larc.nasa.gov]

4. Personal communication with Patrick Minnis, Senior Research
Scientist, Radiation Sciences Branch, Atmospheric Sciences
Division, NASA Langley Research Center, 1/8/99

5. National Public Radio, Morning Edition, Aviation Threat to the
Environment, June 10, 1998, Patrick Minnis in interview
< [link to www-pm.larc.nasa.gov]

6. Minnis, P.;Young, D.F.; Nguyen, L.;Garber, D.P.; Smith, W.L.,Jr.;
and Palikonda, R.: Transformation of Contrails Into Cirrus During
SUCCESS, Geophysical Research Letters.,25, April 15, 1998,
pp. 1157-1160 [link to www-pm.larc.nasa.gov]

7. Personal communication with Steve Zabarnick, Ph.D., Research
Chemist, Aerospace Mechanics Division, University of Dayton
Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio, 1/13/99

8. EXTOXNET Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information
Profiles, Oregon State University, Ethylene dibromide(EDB),
dibromomethane, rev. 1996, [link to ace.orst.edu:80]
pips/edb.htm

9. Suter, R.B. (1991). Ballooning in spiders: results of wind
tunnel experiments. Ethology, Ecology, and Evolution 3: 13-25
[link to vassun.vassar.edu]

10. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM) Directorate for
Technical Mission, Test Technology Symposium '97, March 1820,
1997, Weather Modification, Dr. Arnold Barnes, Phillips
Lab/GPO

here...

maybe this will help the chemtrailers get a clue???

[link to cimss.ssec.wisc.edu]

also... ever notice why you see so called chemtrails before a front comes through... humid air

after the front passes through no trails... why? no humid air

can you honestly say you have seen these so called chemtrails after a front has come through?

"Jenn++ is right, there is no such thing as Chemtrails, the proper name is Atmospheric Aerosols."


Tomayto.... Tomotto...

Is aerosol not a composition of chemicals? Are the lines in the sky not trails?

But now that I think about it, Atmospheric Aerosols does sound better.


"I was skeptical. we started using a telescopic lense and are discovering some interesting things. We are going to begin video taping them and will try to upload them.
I want to know why many of these planes
are unmarked.
We need more people with telesopic lenses to take pictures and/or video of the planes."

Great idea. Can't wait to see the videos.