They're making us more dumb and infertile as we prepare for the imminent invasion of our alien overlords or the devil is set to rise from hell and unleash his 1,000 years of terror. Or Theresa May.
What in the world are they spraying? (Spoiler: Nothing)
- Thread starter Ecstasio
- Start date
And Donald Trump from Uranus
It starts out ok if a bit Captain Obvious my stating that contrails aren't just water vapour but the particles the vapour condenses around as well (ideally read with a dramatic dum dum dum sound effect), then uses small scale localised temperature effects as proof that leads them to the conclusion that the US armed forces are using a weather manipulation system to do ????????????? evil? Non sequitur doesn't quite do this mental gymnastics justice.
They then lurch into outright evidence free batshit crazyness with this summation which I shall let stand on it's own
"Finally the investigation group, which wants to remain anonymous until further notice, comes to the final conclusion that atmospheric seeding for the sake of military interests
and a global business model has a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general. This practice is therefore considered as unacceptable."
Starting with a Winston Churchill quote about perverted science from his "we will fight them on the beaches" speech should have been a give away that rationality was already fleeing for the door.
It seems likely that it was, at least in part, written by Coen Vermeeren who is a UFO "enthusisast". You will also find that the body of the paper is full of lunacy. The bit where they say "Artificial Cirrus clouds should be classified as a separate cloud genus by the WMO" is my favorite.
Looks like he was a run of the mill academic aereospace engineer until 2008 when he stopped publishing in decent academic literature about the structural integrity of planes and now publishes a blog about aliens and 9/11 conspiracies and the like. He seems to have gone the full David Icke.
http://coenvermeeren.nl/
But he said it was not wacky.
Also the Belfort Group is just a name chosen by that Coen guy for his "organization" to spread the chemtrail conspiracy theory took about two minutes on Google to figure that out.
Last edited:
If only I'd known before I'd read it, and by read it I mean read the summary, which to be far was more than enough to know that it was conspiracy theory bollocks. I suspect more madness is contained within.
@Wibble @JustAFan
I see you are more than willing to dissect information on your level but ignore the bulk of the info I have provided here presumably because it is too difficult to challenge.
What is the point in dwelling on that single paper from Balfort? Did I not admit that it could well be rubbish? Did I not admit that the source could be dubious? It was an argument put forward in a concise manner. Yes some of it read like it came from David Icke, but I think it was JustAFan who asked for something resembling empirical data, I obliged. I'll keep looking too. In the mean time you can both go back and scrutinise the rest of the information you conveniently ignored.
The discussion is over then is it. Categorically there is absolutely nothing in contrails to be of any concern to anybody. Military, government technology has nothing to do with releasing substances into the atmosphere. And none of these things have ever happened, its purely a futuristic projection. Oh and we can admit that it's possible but on local scale not on a global scale as though that invalidates the theory altogether.
We could make those conclusions if we were to ignore a big heavy chunk of truth.
Again, you've established Balfort is unreliable. Please read the rest of the information, particularly the USAF paper, and figure out a way to chastise that too.
I see you are more than willing to dissect information on your level but ignore the bulk of the info I have provided here presumably because it is too difficult to challenge.
What is the point in dwelling on that single paper from Balfort? Did I not admit that it could well be rubbish? Did I not admit that the source could be dubious? It was an argument put forward in a concise manner. Yes some of it read like it came from David Icke, but I think it was JustAFan who asked for something resembling empirical data, I obliged. I'll keep looking too. In the mean time you can both go back and scrutinise the rest of the information you conveniently ignored.
The discussion is over then is it. Categorically there is absolutely nothing in contrails to be of any concern to anybody. Military, government technology has nothing to do with releasing substances into the atmosphere. And none of these things have ever happened, its purely a futuristic projection. Oh and we can admit that it's possible but on local scale not on a global scale as though that invalidates the theory altogether.
We could make those conclusions if we were to ignore a big heavy chunk of truth.
Again, you've established Balfort is unreliable. Please read the rest of the information, particularly the USAF paper, and figure out a way to chastise that too.
I didn't read the article and it may well read as far fetched. But there is no contradiction considering cloud seeding can be used for both inducing rain or drought. That is quite clear even from weather modification corporations.
If there was any truth in this story then it would be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This document appears, although nicely formatted, to have been written by some private group who I'm guessing believe the story. It's not a credible source in any way and not worth reading.
Thank you. This is approaching the level of reasonable discussion. I know you can do better too if you leave out the silly self portraits of you in a tin skull cap.
Had no knowledge of this Coen fellow, this is why I shared the paper. This is how we discuss. But I do want you to explain or back up why you think that the summation on its own is laughable. Is it not true that pollutants in the atmosphere have a detrimental effect on life when levels go beyond what is safe? Or is that another fallacy? Are contrails mostly water vapour, something @Wibble loves to imply, or do they contain concoctions of substances that linger in the atmosphere? Concoctions that are either intentionally dispersed for military or scientific research or simply the leftovers of jet fuel. Either way you will have a hard time convincing sound minds that there is zero risk to public health.
We've established that the Belfort paper is not amounting to much. Why dwell on it and not the other information I provided that so far has been left totally unchallenged. I can see a pattern developing here.
The pattern you are referring to is quite rational; in the complete absence of any credible evidence supporting the conspiracy theory, it is treated with disdain.
If you want to adopt the devil's advocate position here, you really are going to need to provide credible evidence in favour of the theory (I say 'theory', but actually there are multiple theories here, so you are going to need to pick one), not simply point out that people are not taking the theory seriously - in the absence of any credible evidence in favour of it, why would they...
There isn't zero risk to public health from jet fumes/exhaust gases any more than there is a zero risk to public health from car exhausts. Vapor trails are caused by water vapor condensing around a particle, when conditions are suitable, and those particles are often/usually exhaust gases and the like. This is known and understood. This is exactly what contrails are. They aren't however military weather control mechanisms or any other sinister thing. The article you posted was not about the health risks of jet emissions, it was military industrial complex conspiracy hocum. You don't need super secret committees publishing exposes because the public are being fooled because WE KNOW. Everybody knows, it isn't a mystery or a secret or anything else surreptitious.
Increased contrails due to more flights could also have a slight cooling effect on the climate but that is such a minuscule factor compared to the stuff we are doing (and again know about) that is causing rapid warming that it is irrelevant. The whole tone of that paper is ludicrous. If only people put so much effort into doing something useful and productive the world would be a much better place.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
To debunk another piece of 'evidence' ....
This report is discussing (theoretical) measures for geo-engineering, and suggests that additional research is necessary to asses the viability of these measures - i.e. it concludes that the discussed technologies are immature and ineffective today.
It makes no mention of contrails whatsoever.
It takes an extraordinary leap of imagination to link the findings of a report about theoretical measures to reduce climate change with contrail conspiracy theories, and most certainly does not "provide some weight to the conspiracy that Chemtrails are related to some sort of planetary mission to avoid the cataclysm of climate change."
Here's a peer reviewed journal article to back that up. It concludes any impact of contrails on ground temperature is so low as to be unmeasurable and statistically insignificant (basically, they have no effect): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1029/2008GL036108/abstract
Yes. This thread is NOT about whether pollution from jet exhaust is harmful. A thread about t pollution would be pretty dull since we all know pollution is bad. But as you say a world of difference between the conspiracy claims and pollution.
Last edited:
To debunk another piece of 'evidence' ....
This report is discussing (theoretical) measures for geo-engineering, and suggests that additional research is necessary to asses the viability of these measures - i.e. it concludes that the discussed technologies are immature and ineffective today.
It makes no mention of contrails whatsoever.
It takes an extraordinary leap of imagination to link the findings of a report about theoretical measures to reduce climate change with contrail conspiracy theories, and most certainly does not "provide some weight to the conspiracy that Chemtrails are related to some sort of planetary mission to avoid the cataclysm of climate change."
See and this is the problem as always happens in these discussion, the evidence we keep being asked to debate is never actually evidence of what the conspiracy theory claims
It's all part of the deflection as they try desperately to get you to agree to anything so they can say, "aha if you agree to that then you MUST agree with the rest of it."
Only thing missing now is the mention of another true conspiracy (ie the Watergate cover up) to try to say well that happened so why couldn't this?
Last edited:
Perhaps you could state exactly what you think is credible evidence. Would I be correct in thinking that you put little stock in published literature and consider credible evidence to be nothing else but peer-reviewed empirical data? Military publications detailing defence programs involving weather modification is not credible enough? You need to read something that has been 'peer reviewed'? The great abundance of work from plenty of scholarly think-tanks mean absolutely nothing if it hasn't been peer-reviewed?
Inevitably a discussion around contrails and their relation to weather modification will include a broader range of thought. I am trying to maintain a single course here though, focusing on the potential that contrails can be, are still, or at some point were part of a program that was aimed at either controlling weather for humanity's sake (i.e global warming / climate change), for economic advantage & sabotage, or for military advantage & sabotage. For the record I am leaning towards "Are still." Largely due to the US military admission that weather modification is an ongoing topic of research and development, and in fact, the admission from Department of Defence, albeit in a more subtle manner.
It cannot be confirmed that contrails have absolutely nothing to do with military weather control. It can be confirmed that the military engage in weather modification programs; it can be confirmed that releasing substances into the atmosphere by way of an aircraft is a technique used to modify and or control the weather. Sinister is subjective, as such it cannot be proven. But the existence of weather modification technology can be and has been proven. It is not simply a conspiracy hokum.
Here in a very simple way; a contrail is what is left behind when an airplane flies through the sky. You are making it seem like a contrail can never be anything more than water vapour and exhaust particles.
Last edited:
Isn't part of the claim that the military conduct weather modification programs? Did I not provide military papers discussing the existence of such programs? Is illogical to then determine that such programs are currently in operation?
You are clearly just a WUM, so I'll leave you to it
As Wibble said early, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. He's basically taking the A exists, B exists so therefore the Chemtrail conspiracy is true, ignoring that the existence of A and B in no way shape or form proves the existence of a global conspiracy.
It's along the same lines as those Ancient Alien shows. They show you some ancient artifact or site, then tell you that it can't be explained (even though it usually can) and that therefore maybe "Aliens!" without any sort of actual proof that aliens had anything to do with it.
And we wonder how things like Brexit and Trump happen.
I'm not even sure what he's arguing, just that it'll change every few posts as his previous post gets debunked, and will consistently be the opposite of whatever anyone else says; all wrapped up in a heap of verbiage and a load of questions and comments aimed at deflecting attention away from the b.s. Basically a wum. Or an idiot. Or both.
Yup
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-Please if you must quote a man who believes in technologically advanced ET's, quote him correctly.
This is nothing like the ancient alien television show. It really is bizarre that you would make that connection. This is hardly an extraordinary claim considering the information available to us. So it hardly needs extraordinary evidence. That aside, open admissions from the military should be enough evidence for any reasonable person to determine that there is a strong possibility that there is some substance to the theory. Add to that open admissions from climate scientists concerning global-scale uncontrolled experiments, I feel it is quite reasonable to suggest that some contrails may be part of these experiments.
My posts have been consistent. Nothing has changed from the start. I maintain that it is a strong possibility that there are large-scale experiments or established programs that involve releasing substances into the atmosphere. I provided evidence in the way of military and government papers discussing these programs and technologies. And at this moment in time my stance has not changed.
skidmark, of course my posts are consistently opposite to your arguments. That is for one simple fact: our arguments oppose each others.
I think the manner in which justafan and yourself negate the discussion is a good indication that it is in fact you who are attempting to deflect attention away from conflicting information. And I take offence to being called an idiot. At least have the courage to address it to me instead of trying to obfuscate that fact that you are being abusive.
And lastly, what is it with you guys and "wum," "wummer," and "wumming?"
Professor Tim Lenton, Chair in Climate Change/Earth Systems Science at the University of Exeter, during an international scientific conference in Paris last July (2015) admitted to the existence of global experiments to deliberately manipulate the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change. The conference had been organised by the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).
I have a link for the almost 2 hour video but not certain I can include it here?
So here is a transcript:
Dr Colin Pritchard, University of Edinburgh: "My question is again for Tim. Colin Pritchard, Edinburgh University. Hi, Tim. Thank you very much for your very cogent explanation. I would basically agree with you on geoengineering – except, may I infer that you prefer an enormous global-scale uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering as opposed to a small-scale uncontrolled one. At the moment we are in the former. And it seems to be a little bizarre to prefer the former to the latter."
Prof. Tim Lenton, University of Exeter: "I’m certainly not preferring carrying on with our current uncontrolled experiment. And I’m not – what’s the right word – I’m not monolithically set against things that are being discussed under the banner of geoengineering...But I think we can perhaps all agree that certainly none of us want to continue the current uncontrolled experiment. I guess, knowing the numbers, we realise that we would like the strongest mitigation efforts possible but we now know that additional things including carbon removal from the atmosphere may… we may want to develop that capability because we may need it as part of the risk management portfolio."
I have a link for the almost 2 hour video but not certain I can include it here?
So here is a transcript:
Dr Colin Pritchard, University of Edinburgh: "My question is again for Tim. Colin Pritchard, Edinburgh University. Hi, Tim. Thank you very much for your very cogent explanation. I would basically agree with you on geoengineering – except, may I infer that you prefer an enormous global-scale uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering as opposed to a small-scale uncontrolled one. At the moment we are in the former. And it seems to be a little bizarre to prefer the former to the latter."
Prof. Tim Lenton, University of Exeter: "I’m certainly not preferring carrying on with our current uncontrolled experiment. And I’m not – what’s the right word – I’m not monolithically set against things that are being discussed under the banner of geoengineering...But I think we can perhaps all agree that certainly none of us want to continue the current uncontrolled experiment. I guess, knowing the numbers, we realise that we would like the strongest mitigation efforts possible but we now know that additional things including carbon removal from the atmosphere may… we may want to develop that capability because we may need it as part of the risk management portfolio."
We don't have any real context for that one. But a control in science means having separate experiments with different variables (one of which is the control variables) so you can get better data. It doesn't not mean uncontrolled in the "we have no control over" sense.
Also, bolding words at random is fun.
Also, bolding words at random is fun.
Context is important. Plus if it took them 2 hours to say those two little bits, well they are probably not very bright.
"Uncontrolled experiment" is a popular phrase that is being used a lot when talking about climate change and our use of fossil fuels, the massive amount of polluting we are doing.
Of course it must also be pointed out, that no where does he say that it is via CHEMTRAILS that there experiments are being carried out. Certainly, something so obvious should not have to be pointed out, but let me do it anyways.
Put another way: Scientist makes no mention of chemtrails. Chemtrail enthusiasts point to his comments as proof of their theory!
It also sort of throws the whole secret conspiracy part of the chemtrail conspiracy theory right out the door. Plus as we all know experiments are not the same thing as what the chemtrail conspiracy theory is all about.
Last edited:
That's right. These experiments are usually of public record, by being published in scientific journals and they aren't always that successful, with the technology needing a lot of advancement.Context is important. Plus if it took them 2 hours to say those two little bits, well they are probably not very bright.
It also sort of throws the whole secret conspiracy part of the chemtrail conspiracy theory right out the door. Plus as we all know experiments are not the same thing as what the chemtrail conspiracy theory is all about.
He was referring to the burning of fossil fuels as an enormous global-scale experiment that he would like to see stopped. The discussion on crazy contrail claptrap was raised elsewhere in the proceedings but why would a website dedicated to conspiracy theories care about a little remixing of the transcript if it gave them their smoking gun?
Both Tim Lenton and Colin Pritchard explain what they were actually talking about here:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-t...enton-admits-to-ongoing-geoengineering.t6949/
A 5 second google led me to find that someone had emailed the professor who said it, who promptly debunked - https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-t...enton-admits-to-ongoing-geoengineering.t6949/
A 5 second google led me to find that someone had emailed the professor who said it, who promptly debunked - https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-t...enton-admits-to-ongoing-geoengineering.t6949/
. This is so freaking great. Turns out I was 100% in my response to his quotes.It's always the same.
Oh look at what this scientist said!
Oh look he actually did not say what the conspiracy theorists claim he said.
Pitchfork's been skewered.
*hits nail on head*
A 5 second google led me to find that someone had emailed the professor who said it, who promptly debunked - https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-t...enton-admits-to-ongoing-geoengineering.t6949/
Thanks for sharing that. But he answered a question specific to geoengineering, which burning fossil fuels isn't. So either he didn't hear or understand the question or he is backtracking. No?
Enjoy it.
It's always the same.
Oh look at what this scientist said!
Oh look he actually did not say what the conspiracy theorists claim he said.
Actually, yes he did say exactly that. You can watch the video to verify if you wish. What he said in an email in hindsight is another matter.