Author Topic: Chemtrails. The reality.  (Read 50027 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2012, 10:19:36 AM »


Inference that somehow we are intellectually incapable of grasping your point noted.

Quote
Would the military or government harm its own people, of course not. Hmmm, ...

Irrelevant. Because they have done something in the past is not evidence they are doing something in this particular case.

Again, you're trying to construct a case out of circumstantial evidence without actually checking if the basic premise has any basis in fact.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2012, 10:19:51 AM »
Airplanes are not flying above cities at 10km , they are approaching  or leaving airports , thus being much lower than 10km, which would exclude condensation trails.
You need to get outside more often.   I regularly see flights at cruising altitudes over Houston producing contrails and have seen them doing that since the 1960's.   I also regularly see flights approaching and leaving HOU and IAH.  I know what they are doing because I have been in planes that follow the same paths.  Anyone that watches planes at IAH can see jetliners flying at cruising altitudes over the airport.  In fact, my plan is to be on the top deck of the IAH terminal A parking garage this afternoon to kill an hour while waiting to meet a flight. 

Observe the sky more often, the time spent understanding what you are seeing will answer a number of your questions.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 10:22:40 AM by Echnaton »
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2012, 10:20:47 AM »


1. Statements which do not rely on supposition or assumption, unless stated.
2. Statements which do not contravene known laws of physics, chemistry, biology or subset of same.
3. Statements from peer-reviewed high-impact academic journals or texts.
4. Statements from known, respected scientists or participants in the events in question, with proof of such statements being made by these people (dates, time, context).

Quote
that would be within a grasp of forum participants?

That's a bit rude.  Many of the forum participants are scientists by profession, training or both.  I myself have BSc Physics with Astrophysics (1st Class, with Honours) and MSc Astrophysics.  There are aeronautical engineers, biochemists and others here - so I suggest your next plan of attack NOT be that we are incapable of understanding science.

May I ask your qualifications in science?
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline advancedboy

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2012, 10:47:28 AM »
Here is another video. Notice how the chemtrails have a pattern always going towards the sun, meaning the spraying is done following the wind patterns.As to my scientific qualifications, I  studied for 2 years at technical university ( RTU), but received a bachelor`s in other specialty from LU. Mostly it is my private interest and passion for science, car industry, space and economy.  And yes, having shown a precedent, is important. If historically there has been  a case of chemical spraying on their own population of questionable substances( common, guys, cadmium!!!), it shows the extent of what some parties within the government are capable of! I can`t believe that you watched the video from UK, and okeyed it, as if it was ok to do that. What about if your child had abnormalities because of such actions, would it only then matter? I can`t believe what I am reading.




  Emma, it is hard to define what is a trustworthy source in science. Would it be NIST? Scientific American? Popular Mechanics? You see, Emma, according to trustworthy sources of media in my country, all existing news channels, the best acclaimed newspapers and internet news sites Ron Paul doesn`t exist because there is no information about him. As in zilch.Yet I would give my life for such a president to run a country. Maybe CNN is trustworthy? If you judge consumer electronics field from CNN, then Apple is the only consumer elctronics company on earth. And if you judge cars from trustworthy british mags, then they are superior to germans, or on par. While german Das Bild, is in opposite opinion. The same about chemtrails, which exact subject or qualification studied at university would make you an expert in this field, more than me, a regular neanderthal with passion from kuldiga?

(P.S.- By grasp of forum participants I actually meant myself.)
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 11:10:07 AM by advancedboy »

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2012, 10:59:04 AM »
Here is another video. Notice how the chemtrails have a pattern always going towards the sun, meaning the spraying is done following the wind patterns.

So they are all going the same way? So what? Of course they will follow the wind patterns. Clouds do that all the time. Is that suspect?

And since they are following the wind, and they are lingering for a very long time, they are NOT anywhere near the ground and they are a VERY long way away from where the observer is. So exactly what is the goal of this spraying?

Quote
As to my scientific qualifications, I  studied for 2 years at technical university ( RTU), but received a bachelor`s in other specialty from LU. Mostly it is my private interest and passion for science, car industry, space and economy.

So you're not in any position to start lecturing us on our understanding of physics then. Thank you for clarifying.

Quote
And yes, having shown a precedent, is important. If historically there has been  a case of chemical spraying on their own population of questionable substances( common, guys, cadmium!!!), it shows the extent of what some parties within the government are capable of!

But it does NOT show that this is actually happening now. Provide the evidence for the NOW, not the inference from what has gone before.

Answer a simpe question: do you know what contrails are and why they form?

Quote
I can`t believe that you watched the video from UK, and okeyed it, as if it was ok to do that.

What are you talking about? Why is not 'OK' for me to watch the video and say it has nothing suspect in it?

Quote
What about if your child had abnormalities because of such actions, would it only then matter? I can`t believe what I am reading.

Drop the hyperbole. I have said before and I will say again, PROVE there is a correlation between trails in the sky and ANYTHING observed on the ground.

Quote
(P.S.- By grasp of forum participants I actually meant myself.)

Bull. If you meant yourself why did you not say yourself? English may not be your first language, but you're not so bad at it as to mix up those terms.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 11:01:00 AM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2012, 11:08:10 AM »
Here is another video.

Due you have any intention of having a conversation?  Or is this to be a series of vague monologues?
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2012, 11:11:26 AM »
I can`t believe that you watched the video from UK, and okeyed it, as if it was ok to do that.

No one OKed anything.  We disputed conclusions as being unproven.  There is a difference. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2012, 11:43:06 AM »
Emma, it is hard to define what is a trustworthy source in science. Would it be NIST? Scientific American? Popular Mechanics?

No, it would be the actual peer-reviewed journals, NOT the popular science media like those you list. You see, REAL scientists get their information from a very extensive series of journals and literature that is not actually sold on newsstands. We go to places called 'libraries' and read up on things like 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' and other such journals where actual scientific papers, not articles by journalists, are published.

Quote
The same about chemtrails, which exact subject or qualification studied at university would make you an expert in this field, more than me, a regular neanderthal with passion from kuldiga?

Any actual scientific qualification whatsoever would make anyone more of an expert than you. In which case, we've got you beat. Sorry. Such concepts as diffusion, meteorology, physics and any number of basic scientific principles are required.

I will ask again, why are they spraying from thousands of feet up if they want to cover the ground, rather than, say, spiking the water supply or using cars at ground level?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2012, 11:45:49 AM »
Emma, it is hard to define what is a trustworthy source in science. Would it be NIST? Scientific American? Popular Mechanics? You see, Emma, according to trustworthy sources of media in my country, all existing news channels, the best acclaimed newspapers and internet news sites Ron Paul doesn`t exist because there is no information about him. As in zilch.Yet I would give my life for such a president to run a country. Maybe CNN is trustworthy? If you judge consumer electronics field from CNN, then Apple is the only consumer elctronics company on earth. And if you judge cars from trustworthy british mags, then they are superior to germans, or on par. While german Das Bild, is in opposite opinion. The same about chemtrails, which exact subject or qualification studied at university would make you an expert in this field, more than me, a regular neanderthal with passion from kuldiga?



It's not hard to define at all.  I said "journals".  JOURNALS.  With a high impact factor.

Not newspapers, not magazines, not television news shows.  Peer-reviewed academic journals such as Nature, Science, Phyiscal Review Letters.  They look like this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3042.pdf


I have already told you what I studied at university.  If you can't see the difference between my studies and yours, I can't help you.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2012, 12:05:59 PM »
The same about chemtrails, which exact subject or qualification studied at university would make you an expert in this field, more than me, a regular neanderthal with passion from kuldiga?

There are of course no scientific experts on chem-trials because chem-trials have never been shown to exist.  Just as there are no scientific experts on unicorns.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2012, 01:34:22 PM »
Here is another video. Notice how the chemtrails have a pattern always going towards the sun,

They don't all point towards the Sun. Besides, if airliners all flew towards the Sun they would never arrive at their destination. What an incredibly ridiculous thing to claim.

Quote
meaning the spraying is done following the wind patterns.

Wow! It is rare to encounter someone so ignorant about the weather. Winds do not blow towards the Sun!

Quote
Emma, it is hard to define what is a trustworthy source in science. Would it be NIST? Scientific American? Popular Mechanics?

Bwahahahaha! That's the extent of your knowledge of scientific literature??? What a joke.

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2012, 01:52:10 PM »
Not sure I understand this. Alumin(i)um, chemically combined, actually is about 8% of the earth's crust, but "micrograms/L" (microgram/liter) is not a dimensionless ratio like ppm or ppb. A gram is a unit of mass while a liter is a unit of volume now equal to 0.001 m3. (It used to be defined as the volume of 1 kg of water at 4C and standard pressure, which is almost exactly but not quite the same.)

Sea level air has a density of roughly 1 g/L or 1 kg/m3 (actually 1.2) while liquid water is about 1 kg/L or 1000 kg/m3, almost 1000 times as dense. So I suppose micrograms/L is equivalent to parts per billion when talking about water,

It was referring to a news segment from KSLA. We can thank this reporter and his lack of fact-checking for the barium nonsense. KSLA added a correction with the proper concentration to their original report but the conspiracy websites never mention that. You can still find websites citing the "6.8 ppm" error.

The full story is here: http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/



Offline advancedboy

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2012, 02:00:53 PM »
`I will ask again, why are they spraying from thousands of feet up if they want to cover the ground, rather than, say, spiking the water supply or using cars at ground level?`
Jason, they are legitimately hidng under  geoengineering. Isn`t it interesting, geoengineering is real, but chemtrails aren`t? Isn`t that funny.They spray under pretense of fighting global warming and probably solar radiation, as barium absorbs radiation. But it must be a huge money laundering scheme as well.
Maybe you should check yourself more about Welsbach materials by Hughes Aircraft. Don`t be shy, check out the patent number 5003186., march 26, 1991. Appl. no. 513-145.
 Did you notice in the last video, how the so called contrails were not sprayed in a way that they would go off the sun, but almost all of them were sprayed so that they went over the sun. If that is a coincidence ,  I will post more of such coincidences. It is also funny, how eagerly you argue about chemtrails, but are afraid to talk about 9/11 by simply stating your beliefs. Is that WTC7  implosion symmetry that makes you shaky or is it Global Hawk RQ4a that hit the Pentagon that seems  an uncomfortable topic?:)
Also, when Ted Gunderson mentioned large unmarked airplanes in Nebraska, it even didn`t seem of any interest to you. I don`t know of what airplanes he talked about, but they could have been C-17, C-5, or Kc-10, . I am guessing. I don`t think he was lying. And a question still stands- what are the functions of a large airplane  without any markings on them?

Here is Leigh, Lancaster, England. Maybe we should talk to people so they could report their contrail experiences in 90ies?


Offline advancedboy

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2012, 02:09:57 PM »
Chew, your arrogance amazes me. I didn`t say the wind blows towards the sun. The viewer is from a standpoint of a town or inhabited area. The airplanes spray in a way that the shadow( fuzzy chem- mist) would cast towards that town or area. That is why they fly in  a pattern that no material goes to waste. When they spray, eventually the wind will carry it `over the sun` so that the projected shadow would cast on the town. The target of protection is the populated area, the adversary is the sun. What is so hard to understand?

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Chemtrails. The reality.
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2012, 02:34:12 PM »
Chew, your arrogance amazes me.

Not as much as your scientific ignorance amuses me.

Quote
I didn`t say the wind blows towards the sun.

Yeah, you did. Either you worded it very poorly or you realized how stupid the claim makes you look and are now trying damage control.

Quote
The viewer is from a standpoint of a town or inhabited area. The airplanes spray in a way that the shadow( fuzzy chem- mist) would cast towards that town or area.

If that were true then the airliners would be flying zigzag patterns as they try to cover the previous town and the next town. The UK is very densely populated with towns and cities all over the place. One straight path wouldn't cover them all.

Quote
That is why they fly in  a pattern that no material goes to waste. When they spray, eventually the wind will carry it `over the sun` so that the projected shadow would cast on the town.

And reduce solar insolation by 0.03%? That's what recent studies say is the effectiveness of airliner contrails on solar insolation.

Let's see your plot of air traffic patterns and wind patterns for the area for this day in question. If the pattern overlap to prove chemtrails are dispersed to drift over all towns and cities then you'll have supporting evidence. If the airliners follow wind patterns to maximize fuel efficiency then you've done nothing but demonstrated your own congruence bias.
Quote
The target of protection is the populated area, the adversary is the sun. What is so hard to understand?

Nothing would be hard to understand if you could provide anything other than your own misinterpretation of natural phenomena.

For you the difficultly appears to be understanding your own congruence bias. Have you even tried to disprove your own theory or have you only cherry-picked confirming evidence and ignored disconfirming evidence? This is a direct question, which by the rules of the forum you are required to answer: what evidence have you discovered that would disprove the chemtrail theory?