Gentlemen,
I would like to direct your attention to an article that I found in an online magazine. The link is:
http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/issue64/nasa64.html
Let me know what you think.

As someone here said before, Babble is a good name for their magazine; they misspelled it though.

This has already been discussed. There is no such thing as a "chemtrail". There is only the condensation at high altitude of the water vapor which is the expected by-product of the combustion kerosene or similar fuel.

And of course jet exhaust is pollution. In addition to water vapor it also contains carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. And the deposit of significant amounts of water vapor where it naturally wouldn't have formed will indeed have a meteorological effect.

All I see in your article is the clumsy attempt of someone to tack a very strained and predispositional interpretation onto a set of statements which has nothing whatsoever to do with spraying mind-control chemicals from the stratosphere.

Can we lay this to rest, please?

How many times does this have to be deleted?

Notice how every time it's posted, it's posted by someone who just joined the forum here. They must really be desperate for readers over there.

Are we really sure that it's a "they"?

Reply (all R- or X-rated stuff deleted as this forum may be read by non-adults):





Now you know.

Harald

How could ANYBODY read that NASA report on post 9/11 grounded air traffic, and think it has anything to do with 'chemtrails' at all???

Like STS60 said in another thread... maybe getting smacked by an asteriod would be a good thing...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

Since Bable didn't post a link to the original article/study by NASA, I did a little digging.

Here's the press release taking about the study:
http://www.larc.nasa.gov/news_and_ev...02/02-035.html
Doesn't say chemtrails at all. And it's all about water vapor changing weather.

Here's a press release about chemtrails:
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/usatoday_7mar01.html

Looks like a popular-news writer in over their head when the terms sound similar but the science is way different.

Conspiracy theorists tend to see only two arguments: their own, and the straw man they've constructed to represent your counterargument. Heaven forbid you should actually muddy the waters with your own version of your argument.

Ms. Guliani seems elated that NASA has "confirmed" the existence of chemtrails. Apparently when we say, "There's no such thing as chemtrails," she thinks we mean that no white coulds come out of the backs of airplanes. Well, we can see them too, but we don't agree with her explanation of what causes them.

Abstractly, the conspiracist says,

"I observe X and I theorize it's caused by A."

We respond,

"No, X is caused by B, and here's the proof."

Because both X and A are described by the word "chemtrail" and both X and B are described by "contrail", we have to be specific which aspect of the word we're disputing. Her next statement seems to be,

"Aha! You admit the existence of X!"

This is how the moon hoax argument over radiation goes. It's very similar to the chemtrail argument. In the typical hoax believer's mind there are only two possibilities: the cislunar radiation environment is deadly hazardous, as they claim; and that cislunar radiation is "perfectly harmless", as we claim -- or so they think we claim.

And so when they find some news article or scientific paper that says, "There is hazardous radiation in space," they hop around with glee and say, "See, we told you so! How can you maintain it was totally harmless?" Or, like Cosmic Dave, they'll find some irrelevant scientific study and won't understand the issue sufficiently to know whether it's relevant.

Of course we don't maintain that the Van Allen belts or any other part of the cislunar environment is "totally harmless." There is a big difference between saying the danger doesn't exist, and saying the danger was adequately prepared for.

The hoax believers cannot differentiate an observation from their interpretation of the observation. And so they take a confirmation of the observation as a confirmation of their interpretation. This inability to distinguish fact from hypothesis is quite a serious cognitive impediment.

This inability to distinguish fact from hypothesis is quite a serious cognitive impediment.
For my money, so is the inability to accept correction. (Symptoms include denial and hostility.)

Of course, many people have this problem, not just HBs. But HBs exhibit the additional symptoms of accusations of conspiracy-membership and responses which are quite orthogonal to the original topic.

Two good quotes from the press release:

Typical CB thinking – “Either you’re with us or against us” - Patrick Minnis puts it better:

Applies in spades to the Apollo HB community!!!

Is this chemtrail nonsense just a US thing or is it world wide? I can see CD buying into this.

http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html

Looks like some in Australia as well as Canada, and even one from Croatia! Looks like the horrible killers from the US government really get around huh?

Amazing - If I say anything else TBA will ban me [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Wow.

I have seen some vitriolic garbage in my time but this one is just... Words that are allowed on this forum fail me. If this is what passes for intelligent reporting on the subject no wonder they get nowhere. Bad logic, unfounded accusations, handwaving, and a conspicuous lack of quoting anything from NASA that might falsify their position. As stated before, so much like the HB crowd.
I have an idea, lets tell the HB's that the CB's (Chemtrail Believers) think we are spraying the moon for nefarious purposes with surplus Apollo equipment and sit back and watch the fireworks. I'll bring the marshmallows.

Not too many years back, when I was a kid (OK - it was a lot of years back) the government used to operate special facilities for people like this. I think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was a pretty good documentary on incarcerated CB's. Oh - it wasn't a documentary? Never mind. Must be the darn chemtrails confusing me.

Chemtrail nonsense, in my opinion, is far more stupid then the moon hoax nonsense...

I, too, can't say anything on this board about chemtrails without being banned [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Bad physics, bad chemisty, bad meteorology, moronic reasoning...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

Good lord... we have people like this in charge of 'nuclear quality'... how do stupid people end up in positions like this?

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

Well, since water is a chemical, I guess contrails really are, technically, chemtrails. Especially when you throw in the various trace combustion products.

But why are the CB's not out to ban running car engines on cold mornings? Same kind of "chemtrails"...

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

It's worth noting that Cosmic Dave has something on his site about chemtrails. According to that site there's a difference between chemtrails and contrails.

Incidentally, there's not much interest in chemtrails in Australia. The reason is simple. Australia has about the same land area as the 48 states of the USA, but a population of only 19 million. As there are only a few major cities in Australia, few air routes pass over other cities. So few people get to see contrails in the first place. One exception is Canberra, where I live. It sits under the route between Sydney and Melbourne.

What I found so funny about this whole thing is that I've seen contrails for over 30 years and NASA has released Barium into the atmosphere for over 35 years.

For more information on these experiments check out NASA SP-264, titled, Barium Releases at Altitude Between 200 and 1000 Kilometers: A Joint MPI-NASA Experiment.

You should be able to find it at most university libraries.

"But why are the CB's not out to ban running car engines on cold mornings? Same kind of "chemtrails"..."

What about people exhaling on cold mornings?
When you breath out there's carbon dioxide and water vapour. Same chemtrails.