|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
|
|
Chemtrails
Readers' Comments:
Add a Comment
Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email. Unlike many other internet forums, we do not require you to register or join our club before you are allowed to comment. We realise that this restriction simply insulates forums from negative views, since many refuse to bother joining a group they disagree with just to disagree with it. |
|
Comments:
Hiya John, good to see you've included chemtrails on your list of nonsense to not worry
about.
When I saw that you'd posted this on your website, I felt inclined to have another look at Claire Swinney's website again. Lo and behold, she's making allegations that there are chemtrails in the Rugby World Cup 2011 Guide Photos. Link here. I think that it's pretty clear to anybody with a functional set of eyeballs that every single photo contains clouds. Plain, every day, regular, run-of-the mill clouds. Proof that these hardcore believers are just seeing what they want to see. Though in this case I suspect mental illness as well.
Also I must mention "Doctor Nick Begich" who seems to pop up as a common "expert" in the field of chemtrails. It's hard to find information on his credentials, and I can't find any links right now, but I have read here and there that his Ph.D came from a university of complementary medicine. Why people take this guy's word over the word over, oh, every atmospheric scientist is beyond me.
I'd like to draw your attention to the Contrail Science website. I've never seen so much information on the subject in one place that wasn't a dedicated woo-woo site.
Sadly, as with any conspiracy, the believers are always quite happy to shift the goal posts in order to keep their hobby alive.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks Nick. You're right about the Contrail Science website. It's excellent and we've included it in the links at the bottom of our article. Of course we're never going to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists, we can only influence those that are prepared to think critically.
[You ask:] 'What evidence is there for chemtrails?' and [state that] 'I've seen more contrails in one hour in the US than I've seen in my entire life in NZ.'
John, I live in NZ and see them daily, you really shouldn't mislead people with false statements, when did you actually last look up from your "Science" manuals? you really should use your own eyes and mind and not let some politician do it for you.
Regarding contrails Nik, I was simply stating a fact. When you say you 'live in NZ and see them daily', I assume you only live in one specific place and can't speak for the rest of the country. You probably don't even know where I live and whether I live under flight paths that might under the right conditions create contrails. I have spent much of the last few decades working around NZ and my experience is not of daily contrails where ever I might be. I've seen a few in Central Otago and elsewhere, but they certainly aren't blanketing the country. And this is where you confuse the issue. You start with chemtrails, then immediately switch to contrails. Contrails are real things, and can sometimes be seen where there are commercial flight paths, but chemtrails are evidently the deliberate spraying of the entire country so should be seen everywhere, even where there aren't any recognised flight paths. Why is it that chemtrails only seem to show up where we can expect commercial flight paths, and not over the entire country? And even if contrails are common where you live, what has that to do with the sinister chemtrails?
You appear to suggest that we should decide what is happening in the skies by simply looking up and applying common sense, and perhaps a pinch of paranoia. That was how they did it in the distant past, but if we reject science as you imply, society would be back in the dark ages before we knew it, believing in all manner of nonsense, such as gods in chariots, witches on broomsticks, and more recently, alien spacecraft and chemtrails. And I'm really quite surprised that you believe we have rejected chemtrails because of some politician. What credible politician or political party might this be? We've never heard a politician even mention chemtrails.
Just a quick comment about the nature of chemtrails — not all chemical trails are chemtrails. You give the example of an agricultural aircraft spraying fertiliser or weed killer as a chemtrails we would be familiar with in NZ. However that is not what the chemtrails myth says it is about, and it is a little misleading. Chemtrails are supposed to be secret for starters.
Chemtrails believers regularly try to broaden the "definition" to include any chemical trail in the sky. This seems to be a desperate attempt to get someone/anyone to admit that chemtrails do exist. Having gained such admission they will proudly declaim "See — told you" or similar. Of course they won’t then say that you admitted that agricultural spray "chemtrails" exist — they will use the "admission" to say that all chemtrails exist. They will do this with ag spray, rocket/space shuttle exhaust, fire-fighting and fuel dumps. Of course the "logic" equally applies to car exhausts, fly spray and even your own breath — even though those are mostly invisible!!
So broadening the definition of chemtrails to include known activities is not a helpful idea.
It would be instructive for you to investigate the history of the CIA, and their use of the civilian population for large-scale experimentation. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
I find your suggestion rather empty. If you have good evidence that the CIA are covering up the chemtrail conspiracy, then why don't you present it? We all know the CIA has secrets, as does every intelligence agency worldwide, but that doesn't provide any reason for us to blindly connect them to chemtrails. By your logic it could as easily be Mossad or the Freemasons or the Vatican, any organisation that secretly tries to hide things from the public.
It's as specious an argument as saying the Mafia have killed innocent people, so therefore the Mafia probably killed Mother Teresa and Princess Diana, since it's too much of a coincidence that they both died in the same week.
It's too easy to think up conspiracy theories, and say the reason the general public know nothing of them is because secret organisations like the CIA are hiding the truth. And yet strangely you can easily discover their secrets? Don't you fear for your life, or at least our wellbeing, since you've now let us in on this dangerous secret?
But seriously, since you offer no evidence for your claim, we'll assume there is none.
Chemtrails Are Not real, Or Seeing IS Not Believing
The reason Chemtrails is imaginary is quite simple.
The mass media and debunker web sites such as Silly Beliefs.com told you so. Or at least made a silly argument to convince the reader:
Conclusion: According to a one sided augment that Silly presents, there is no need to present proof with data that is available in the scientific community. To dismiss in general terms and demand proof of an opposing opinion in a one sided augment that attacks peoples character, labeling them conspiracy nuts is not only Silly but outright a set-up of propaganda to hide scientific truth and mislead the general public.
There is tremendous amounts of scientific data available for those who are interested in scientific evaluation, not one-sided debunking rhetoric which is designed to distract from fact. Geoenineering is the sciencific terminology used to gather real data in order to determine for oneself what the "Pale Blue" and "White Haze" above our heads really mean.
Last But Not Least: This comment is in no way to convince Silly beliefs.com to abandon their position or disprove their point of view. It is simply stating that the information out there is scientific and should not be misconstrued by conspiratorial websites especially Silly beliefs.com, in not giving a fair argument using the scientific terms associated with this subject. The many links related to the opposite viewpoint should be given consideration. This can be accomplished by using search terms as "Geoengeering , Weather Modification Programs , Cloud Seeding, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Solar Radiation Management (SRM), Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) and many more related terms. These websites and discussion forms are hardly what any rational person would consider "Silly" or "Conspiracies". Maybe just "Silly" If "Seeing Is Not Believing"!
We agree completely with your opening statements:
We should be wise enough these days to realise that simply seeing something should not automatically lead to believing some nonsense. The world looks flat. It's not. The sun looks like it goes around the Earth. It doesn't. People think they've seen alien spaceships. They haven't. Others think they've seen angels, gods and demons or ghosts, fairies and witches. They haven't. And so on and so on...
You claim that prominent scientists around the world are investigating and discovering that we're all being sprayed with chemical toxins. This empty claim is no different to Creationists who insist that prominent scientists around the world are finally realising that evolution and the Big Bang and much of science is wrong. But no one in the real world is convinced.
It is true conspiracy speak when you insist that your 'government has also reiterated over and over to "trust" their word without questioning'. I think you'll find it difficult to provide proof that they don't allow citizens to question their policies.
You claim that 'the planet is being manipulated by aerosol spraying world wide with dangerous consequences', and yet I've never seen these chemtrails where I live. We do often have clear blue skies. Why are these chemtrails only ever seen under commercial flight paths? Do the people that your government are trying to control or kill all conveniently live under flight paths?
We don't say that no one can show proof that geoengineering is taking place, we're saying that no one has shown proof that it is. Big difference. Likewise we never said that 'Streaks by the thousands that cover up the skies are imaginary'. Why are you making up these false claims? We said that these streaks are jet contrails not toxic chemtrails. And of course 'generations have witnessed clear blue skies without white haze... spewing out of the back of jets', since for nearly all of history there were no jets.
How can you claim: 'Never considering that our present administration as the previous one is the most secretive in the history of the USA'? Do you not know what 'secretive' means? If earlier administrations were truly secretive, then you wouldn't know what they had kept from you. Likewise, if you know what your present administration is hiding from you, then it's not a secret, and they're not very successful at being secretive.
And perhaps where you live, 'commercial passenger air traffic has dropped dramatically since september 2001', but elsewhere people are still flying.
You claim that 'There is tremendous amounts of scientific data available for those who are interested in scientific evaluation, not one-sided debunking rhetoric which is designed to distract from fact'. Again this is no different to the silly claims that religious nutters make, or those believing in alien abductions. Just because a handful of people, some even with scientific qualifications, use scientific sounding phrases to invent and support their silly beliefs is no reason to take them seriously.
But your last final paragraph is my favourite and typical of all those that insist we are wrong in our views: 'Last But Not Least: This comment is in no way to convince Silly beliefs.com to abandon their position or disprove their point of view' And it certainly doesn't! No one ever thinks it's important to provide the evidence that we are mistaken. We are merely told that it's out there somewhere and we should go looking for it. Like pots of gold at the end of rainbows.
I would be interested in seeing some of this "tremendous amounts of scientific data" that supposedly supports the existence of "chemtrails".
Because so far I have seen no such data at all. I have seen lots of tests of the makeup of dirt and sludge and the like which people say shows chemtrails exist, but which actually shows that there is aluminium and barium and yes even strontium in the Earth’s crust. I have seen claims that "geoengineering" is happening "right over our heads" — but all the actual factual information about geoengineers is about reforerstation, carbon sequestration, "cool roofs", a solitary attempt at "iron fertilisation" off the west coast of Canada, and a previous much smaller effort at something similar by a German outfit. There are numerous studies showing that solar radiation management COULD BE USED to try to cool the planet if things got bad. But such studies are also invariably accompanied by disclaimers "but it would have unknown side effects and is best avoided if we can do so" or similar.
I would think that if aircraft were being used to "spray something" then there would be materials being loaded onto aircraft, or something in the fuel that could be found by analysis, documents about weight and balance, modifications to engines to enable them to burn a different fuel additive, and a whole raft of other evidence point to it. Heck even a sample of a chemtrail itself — it is possible to hire aircraft for atmospheric sampling — $50k was spent on that mockumentary "What in the world are they spraying", and more on its even sillier followup — why didn’t they spent that money establishing irrefutable factual evidence if there is any??
But there is NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that "chemtrails" exist.
N.O.T. O.N.E.
Just a whole lot of scaremongering and ignorance.
At least not so far — perhaps hay-nonny-mouse will be the first to provide it??
I’m not holding my breath... ;)
Oh and in response to this:
Thanks for that Mike, especially that graph on flight numbers, but of course conspiracy theorists won't let the facts get in the way of a scary fantasy. Like you I wonder why these people spend a fortune on producing their silly mockumentaries and books and nary a cent on producing real evidence. Perhaps like cold fusion and Bigfoot, you can't produce evidence for things that don't exist? But surely it can't be that simple?
Just reading the chemtrails thread ....
Not a lot of people know that F1 cars are being used to spray the grubby little petrolheads who attend motor racing meetings. Here's a picture of it happening.
Hope this contributes something (even if it's only a laugh) to the discussion.
Check out weathermodification.org — it's one of the companies involved in spraying so it's real. Not a silly belief but a fact.
You confuse benign weather modification with evil conspiracies. We don't say that no company is spraying anything in the atmosphere, we say no powerful, covert forces are spraying death from above, forces intent on the likes of mind control, population control, creating devastating earthquakes or world domination.
The website you mention, belonging to the Weather Modification Association, notes that its purpose is to promote 'research, development and understanding of weather modification for beneficial uses'. It mentions that 'Planned (deliberate) weather modification is also commonly known cloud seeding, cloud modification, and atmospheric water management'. However cloud seeding has been known and used for decades, it is not what chemtrail proponents claim they are seeing. Jumping to the bogus conclusion that harmful chemtrails must exist since cloud seeding does, is like suggesting that because reindeer, toys and fat old men are real, then Santa Claus is also 'Not a silly belief but a fact'.
The ignorance — it burns!!
Weather modification is cloud seeding, and has a significant number of differences to the purported chemtrails that should be obvious even to a believer —
— it is done with small aeroplanes, not jet airliners
Sadly this is just another example of a chemtrail believer parroting what they have read or heard somewhere, and not bothering to consult even the most basic logic fairy.
Thanks for that Mike, excellent observations. The logic fairy obviously paid you a visit. Sadly this is what we see with acolytes of all silly beliefs, be it chemtrails, alien abductions, homeopathy, psychic mediums or gods, they refuse to think critically, preferring to take the lazy option and simply believe in whatever matches their fears.
Looks like Ken Ring is getting into Chemtrails now too — see his comment at:
Thanks for the link Mike. I've noticed Ken criticising chemtrail claims before. Unfortunately for Ken, he's in the tricky position of inventing conspiracy theories to explain why the majority don't believe in his weather and earthquake claims (eg scientists are silenced by Christianity and governments), but here he is falling out with fellow conspiracy theorists because their weather claims conflict with his. They insist secret powers are using technology to cause droughts, floods, snow storms and earthquakes. Of course if this were true then his astrological prophecies would be worthless, based as they are on the position of the moon and planets on the zodiac and not devious human machinations.
It's revealing that Ken can use reason and evidence to debunk chemtrails, but struggles to see any problem with using astrology to predict the weather. He's like religious believers who can clearly see why thousands of other religions and gods are false, and yet can't recognise the very same flaws in their own religion.
And just like Ring, Clare Swinney, one of the head chemtrail proponents in NZ, has contacted us and tried to intimidate us, threatening us with legal action and of going to the media with claims of libel. Both Ring and Swinney fail to understand that it's not libel if you're telling the truth. But like Ring and his threats, Swinney's were merely designed to scare us into silence and remove our criticisms of their claims. To date we haven't heard form her lawyers (or Ring's), and she failed to tell us what media was going to publish her articles. Perhaps she didn't want us to request a right of reply.
Like Ring, these believers in chemtrails aren't going to happily accept any public criticism of their silly belief. It's great to see Ring and the chemtrail crowd arguing, when no doubt many chemtrail believers are probably Ring's clients. They probably thought that as a fellow conspiracy theorist he would support them, or at least wouldn't openly criticise them. [Insert evil laugh here]
You Guy's, are a bunch of nutters that need brain adjustment.
Seriously, as a young boy growing up someplace on this planet I never saw anything remotely like the so-called chem-trails. I also noted that you, in a way, in some way, refer to (air) traffic density and the possibility that this will generate trails. So if we look at the Air traffic density in say, Burdujeni then we have to assume that you are wrong! The Air traffic density is extremely low but the chem trails are incredible. I am referring to Burdujeni-Sat. Look this up on Google Earth and you will see some serious chem trails, what are they doing there? Is there a conspiracy that tries to keep the truth from being known? I remember the good Doctor in NZ, Nick Smith?, is it? laughing away in parliament about the chem trails. This guy is going to wind up with a lot of egg on his face one day.
Whatever the sky looks like today, it is not supposed to look like this anyway!
Really Pete, you see invisible enemies in the sky intent on our destruction and yet you call us nutters? People like Nick Smith have every justification to laugh at your silly claims of impending doom.
You say that 'I also noted that you, in a way, in some way, refer to (air) traffic density and the possibility that this will generate trails'. We don't say that there is 'in some way' a vague 'possibility' that air traffic will generate trails, we say that this is a clearly observed fact.
You also seem to be a little confused as to what Google Earth does. It merely displays photographic images, it does not perform chemical analysis on what is photographed. You insisting that the observed 'trails' are chemtrails is as empty as me saying that any brown coloured houses on the ground must be made of chocolate. How do you know that the trails are not vapour trials or have some other natural, innocent explanation? You don't! You believe in chemtrails so you naively believe that anything that looks like one must be one. It's the same as people confusing sleep paralysis with alien abduction, mental illness with demonic possession and noises in the night as ghosts.
Like you I grew up without seeing 'the so-called chem-trails', and they still can't be seen where I live, so what does that mean? Am I or perhaps the local council part of the powerful group that decides who gets sprayed, and as such my locale is off-limits? So why are evil forces intent on attacking Burdujeni-Sat (and Christchurch, but not where I live)? For those that don't know (I didn't), it's in Romania. What have the folk in Burdujeni-Sat done to attract the wrath of the chemtrail planes? And if there truly are 'serious chemtrails' dripping down on the unfortunate residents of Burdujeni-Sat and wrecking havoc, then why aren't we seeing this on the nightly news? Why aren't we seeing two-headed babies or thousands dying from unexplained deaths or earthquakes or a zombie outbreak? If nothing out of the ordinary is happening in Burdujeni-Sat, then either your chemtrails are imaginary, or real but completely harmless.
You cryptically claim that 'Whatever the sky looks like today, it is not supposed to look like this anyway!' You speak as I imagine a medieval peasant would speak if he suddenly found himself in the 21st century: What are those strange, noisy things on the roads and in the skies? Horse carriages and birds are not supposed to look like that! Evil forces are at work. Flee!
I assumed you already thought there was, but you ask: 'Is there a conspiracy that tries to keep the truth from being known?' No, just simple ignorance and a refusal to face facts on the part of those creating scary chemtrail stories. As I've said, it's no different to those that believe in devious aliens, demons and ghosts, and just like those deluded folk, no one can produce evidence that your particular threat actually exists. There is no conspiracy hiding the truth, it's freely available to everyone, and here it is: there is no powerful, secret worldwide attempt to kill or enslave us all by the use of toxic chemicals sprayed from invisible aircraft.
So there you have it, you can rest easy tonight. No need to thank me.
Hi John — Pete complains that Burdujeni-Sat has a low density of flights.
Like most chemmie believers Pete has not bothered with any fact checking before he's regurgitated the sensationalist nonsense he is spouting.
Thanks for the input Mike. I'm always amazed that on the rare occasion when devout believers in nonsense attempt to shock me with some piece of 'evidence' I usually find myself responding with: That's it? That's your evidence? After all the research you've supposedly done, that's the best you can come up with? You only have time to throw one killer argument at me and that's what you're going with? Really?
Hi John — Just a quick point to Pete's view that he had never seen these miraculous trails when he was a boy. I do remember seeing them. As a wee lad some forty odd years ago watching a contrail of a jet from a school playground in Upper Hutt, even now it is a vivid memory. I guess I can understand why some people might want to believe that they represent some grand impossible government conspiracy. Of course back then as a six or seven year old my thought at the time was that this was some sort of rocket plane (it was the sixties after all and space rockets were all the rage) which lead me to the belief that passenger jets must fly at over a 1000 miles an hour. Later my Headmaster (yes back then he was a headmaster ) told me that they flew at a more realistic four or five hundred miles an hour. If you want to go further back, I seem to recall war time film of the great daytime raids by the American bombers and their multiple contrails across the sky. All of which is very spectacular, and very explainable by good old fashioned science that I remember learning at college but could not for the life of me recall now.
Hi Phill. Yes, Pete's argument that since he didn't see trails in the sky as he was growing up must therefore mean there is something devious going on now is rather illogical. No doubt there is a myriad of things he now sees around him that he didn't see decades ago, such as cell phones and veiled Muslim women. But as you say, some people, eg you, did see contrails as they were growing up. The first contrails I ever saw was in the desert states of the USA 30 years ago, and the last one was a couple of years ago in Central Otago. Apparently certain conditions must be met, such as temperature, humidity, clear skies and jets flying at specific altitudes. It's depressing that some people are far too willing to shout 'mystery' and 'conspiracy' when encountering things they don't understand.
A full range of indigenous chemtrail nuttiness is on public display again on one of NZ's major news websites:
Well there you go Mike, another nice city, like Christchurch before it, has somehow angered the reptilian aliens bent on our destruction and/or domination and have brought forward its demise, and couldn't care less if we see them doing it. Perhaps it was that nude beach and holiday park I've heard of? Or perhaps they realised that far too many in Nelson were starting to realise that chemtrails are a real threat, and they need to be silenced before they alert the rest of the country? It's a shame really, I liked Nelson. I must call my friends and tell them to flee (à la Ken Ring).
If these Chemtrails are so dangerous wouldn't the pilots also be spraying themselves?
Perhaps they are Kamikaze or Islamist pilots, willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause?
When I first read this I couldn't work out what it was about. I knew about vapour trails. Technically it is simple enough. Water vapour heats in jet engines then immediately freezes on contact with the cold air out the back. I don't see them where I am because jets don't fly in this area. Last year I was visiting my daughter in England. Planes flew backwards and forwards all day over her place with constant criss cross patterns in the sky which gradually dispersed. I wish the news media would do some preliminary investigation before rushing into print with wayout ignorant claims.
John, I am a high school Physics teacher with a strong background in environmental studies. I have had an ongoing heated debate with some folks about the existence of chemtrails. In my search to educate the uneducated I came across your web page. When I referred them to your site, I was sent a reply with several articles or web postings that discredit your site. Claims that you are sponsored by the government along with your reluctance to acknowledge some of the other side's scientific evidence are just some of the reading that was sent my way. I am asking you, is there any clear cut way to shut these people up? I know what cloud seeding is and I know all about weather modification... I think you can see where I'm coming from. I like the message that you folks put out there. Science is often disregarded for the sake of popularity or some other purpose. Give me your thoughts when you get a chance and keep up the good work.
Hi Paul, it's good to hear that you're doing your bit to discredit the nonsense that is chemtrails. You'll have no doubt discovered that this can be very frustrating, wondering if your opponents are even capable of rational thought. Personally I think debating with diehard believers (in anything, be it religion or alien abduction or whatever) is generally futile in the sense that they are highly unlikely to change their mind. It can be fun though and is necessary to discover what their arguments are. To this end we challenge fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists in letters to the editor and with our website, but friends ask why I bother if I don't expect success. I say that I only debate with diehards on the condition that the general public can also read and consider our debate. I generally refuse to debate with people in private. I know I'm not going to sway true believers, but it's the curious bystander that I want to reach, those that might be sitting on the fence and are still willing to listen to reason. Revealing, my friends say, why do you bother arguing, because as you've said, it's just nonsense because blah, blah, blah... But this shows that while I haven't turned a single true believer, my debate has influenced my friends' views, and they in turn go on to convince others. So when you debate these topics, try to ensure other interested parties are exposed to your arguments, and aim to convince them rather than the true diehard. Judge your success on whether you've given those listening food for thought rather than whether the conspiracy theorist has given ground.
I don't think there is any way to shut these people up, there will always be a core group that can't be convinced no matter what arguments and evidence is presented. Some still think the Earth is flat, and I know a woman who believes in gremlins. A religious nutter once accosted me on the street and I politely offered to show him that a claim he was making about the Bible was false, but he steadfastly refused to let me point out the relevant passage in the Bible he carried. You can't debate with people like this, it's like talking to the proverbial brick wall. All you can do is try and reach those that will listen to reason and are willing to change their views if shown a good argument. We can only hope to enlighten the majority, there will always be those mired in falsehoods. We need to put our efforts towards those willing to listen to reason. That doesn't mean we should ignore the conspiracy theorists outright, we need to let a curious public know that we view their claims as nonsense, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we will change their minds. Like those that used to believe in fairies, their beliefs will need to die with them. But until then, we need to challenge them. Far too many people, especially scientists, refuse to engage with these conspiracy theorists, thinking it a waste of time and beneath them. But their silence means that an interested public only hear the conspiracy theorist viewpoint, and since scientists aren't seen openly dismissing these views, many will falsely believe that there might be something to them.
As you say, 'Science is often disregarded... '. I'm usually astounded at how little true believers know about their pet belief and how science views it. They seem to have a psychological need to believe a certain claim, and once they believe, they embrace all manner of silly nonsense that supports their stance, and blindly reject what science and reason offer on the topic. In religion it's called blind faith, the demand that followers believe even if evidence and reason contradicts their belief. They can embrace a claim and cling to it on the flimsiest of evidence. They will be outspoken in its defence while displaying a woeful ignorance of the subject matter. I've debated with people who insist the moon landing was a hoax and yet had no idea how far away the moon even is, and those arguing for alien abductions who don't know the difference between stars and galaxies. Or those debating genetic engineering who aren't sure what DNA actually is and those supporting homeopathy who have no idea how their potions are made.
But I also think critical thinking is more important than scientific literacy in debating these topics (although having both is obviously preferable). Many flaws can be exposed in these conspiracy theories without even touching on science. For example, how can thousands of people from numerous countries be involved in these conspiracies but not one person ever sells their story to the media, and how can these plots be kept so secret from the media and you and me when the idiots in society seemingly have no problem in discovering all the hidden details? Unfortunately many people will be put off even with simple science explanations, but critical thinking alone can show how silly these conspiracy theories are.
I was intrigued by this comment of yours:
And looking out now at clear blue skies with no chemtrails to be seen, I'm glad that even if chemtrails are real, we haven't angered the group that are causing them, or at least have none of the resources that they seek.
A couple of points :-
i) You report that chemtrail proponents say that if you see a "chemtrail", you should hide in your house to avoid its effects. What if you live, as I do, in the UK with its crappy weather. On the rare fine day, you can see plenty of contrails (or are they chemtrails?), but most days they are hidden by low-flying stratus — how do you know when to run indoors and hide? Should we all move to the Atacama desert?
ii) The US military do sometimes put chemicals in the exhaust stream of certain aircraft (e.g. F117 or B2) in order to suppress the contrail and improve stealth. I believe this was first used on the SR71 spy plane. These aircraft therefore do emit a "chemtrail", but it is invisible. Why doesn't the worldwide conspiracy use this method to hide what they are doing? Are they thick or something?
In answer to your questions,
i) If you can't see the chemtrails due to crappy weather, then yes, to be safe you would need to stay indoors. But as we pointed out, contrary to what some chemtrail proponents suggest, hiding in your house wouldn't be effective since they are not sealed. If the air can get in, so too can toxic chemicals. You could move to the Atacama Desert, although having been there, it is a little too warm for my taste. Of course the chemtrail planes can still fly over and your house would be just as ineffective there as in the UK.
You could, rather than emigrating, take the advice of Kay, a believer who has had experience with chemtrails: 'For all of you under Chem trail attack, change to a lavender or lemon grass essential oil soap.'
ii) I didn't know that about those stealth aircraft additives. Of course it's not a 'real' chemtrail since its purpose is not to spray those below as part of some shadowy plot. And if we want to take the opposite tack, even contrails contain chemicals, eg water vapour. Regarding why our shadowy group don't use this stealth method to hide what they are doing, you ask: 'Are they thick or something?' If they actually existed, you'd have to answer, yes they are. Since they don't exist, then we must ask this question of those that push this chemtrail nonsense: 'Are they thick or something?' Again, yes they are.
Hi John — technology to hide contrails was trialed by the US military, but as far as I know there is no evidence it is actually used — I would be interested in learning otherwise. The USAF trialed injecting/spraying highly corrosive acid into the exhaust stream to suppress the formation of ice crystals. There is some information about it available at http://contrailscience.com/contrail-avoidance-and-mitigation-techniques/ that might be of interest to your readers. I do not know the detailed results of the trial, it seems to me a much better way to avoid contrails is simply to fly higher or lower, and perhaps the US military was bright enough to figure that out!
And to anticipate your/their next question — why don’t airlines fly higher or lower to avoid contrails — they don’t care. Contrails are not a safety or economic or (yet) an environmental issue, so they are of no concern to flight planners. Commercial airliners will generally fly as high as permitted by ATC — this actually saves fuel — jet aircraft burn considerably more fuel at low altitudes than at high.
Return to Article
|
|
|
|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
www.sillybeliefs.com
Last Updated May 2013 |
