Chemtrails?

[Scaff]

Looking at the evidence is different to not looking at the evidence. Choosing to not look at the evidence because you don't trust the messenger is idiocy.

I've done both and quite clearly the lack of qualification of the messenger is borne out by the fact that this is not evidence, its conjecture and opinion dressed up as fact.

But then again I've already pointed that out and you've already ignored it once.

You quote the factual claim that you want me to either back-up or retract then I will do just that.

For the third time:

I'm not saying that they are using this technology to do it. Only that it would be entirely possible.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Pretty sure you can control how lean the engines run in most aircraft, but I suspect @Keef can clarify.

No, no you can't none of the ones I've seen or have had to privilege to work around did.

 

[Enemem]

Enemem said
Looking at the evidence is different to not looking at the evidence. Choosing to not look at the evidence because you don't trust the messenger is idiocy.

I've done both and quite clearly the lack of qualification of the messenger is borne out by the fact that this is not evidence, its conjecture and opinion dressed up as fact.

But then again I've already pointed that out and you've already ignored it once.

That's your opinion. Evidence comes in many forms, some more solid than others. Not everything that is true can be proved

Myths about Science
After listening to a debate on the topic of "Theism vs. Atheism" recently, I was struck by some of the questions and assertions from members of the audience. Several of them were along the lines of "I can't believe in God because of Science." What struck me was that often it wasn't science that was getting in the way, but rather certain misconceptions about science that have become widely believed by nonscientists and have been stated by some scientists.

These myths about science are often brought up as arguments against a belief in God, and they form an artificial barrier to belief in God. I say that they are artificial because many scientists are in fact Theists and have found that science offers no true barriers to such belief. I have found this to be true in my work.

The two myths I want to deal with here are really the same idea in greater and lesser forms: (1) Science has explained everything, and (2) Science can explain everything. The second actually depends on a third sub-myth (3) Everything that is true can be proven.

Which is consistent with everything I've been saying, but seems that I need back-up.

Enemem said
You quote the factual claim that you want me to either back-up or retract then I will do just that.
Click to expand...
For the third time:

Enemem said
I'm not saying that they are using this technology to do it. Only that it would be entirely possible.​

So the factual claim that you want me to back up is that it would be entirely possible to chemtrail people ? How could you think any different. It quite simply must be possible.

That's not a factual claim. How can the possibility be that it could be done, be a fact? Unless you want me to prove that planes are chem-trailing. And it would appear that there is no proof that would satisfy you? Pictures, patents, evidence from non-Scaff authorised proponents. An air force technician who admits to fitting chem-trail apparatus wouldn't be good enough for you.

The only proof that is irrefutable is chemical analysis of the chem-tral/contrail to prove it contains something other than fuel. How am I supposed to get that. a website - which one? A government favoured web-site - which would never be likely to show evidence or a governement-opposed site who you wouldn't believe because they've said things that were untrue in the past. So presumably you don't read newspapers, listen to politicians, watch the news or read the internet.

 

[Akira AC]

 

[Scaff]

That's your opinion. Evidence comes in many forms, some more solid than others. Not everything that is true can be proved

No its not my opinion at all, nothing in the 'evidence' you have supplied meets a scientific standard or has been peer reviewed at all. That is not opinion its a factual statement. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh and please supply an example of something that is true but can't be proven.

So the factual claim that you want me to back up is that it would be entirely possible to chemtrail people ? How could you think any different. It quite simply must be possible.

If it must be possible then you will be able to provide evidence to a scientific standard to show how.

However the actual claim you made was that the patent could be used to deliver chemtrails, you made that factual claim, so now please back it up.

That's not a factual claim. How can the possibility be that it could be done, be a fact? Unless you want me to prove that planes are chem-trailing. And it would appear that there is no proof that would satisfy you? Pictures, patents, evidence from non-Scaff authorised proponents. An air force technician who admits to fitting chem-trail apparatus wouldn't be good enough for you.

Well yes that would be the point, provide proof or its just conjecture.

Oh and plenty of proof would be more than acceptable, anything to a scientific standard would be good, peer reviewed documentation would be good, so far you've managed neither.

Let me show you what I mean and how easy it is:

Here is a fact sheet about contrails (from the EPA, NASA, NOAA and the FAA):
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf

Here is just one of the peer reviewed sources used to support it:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s007040050058

And here are the 41 documented citations that back up that single document:
http://citations.springer.com/item?doi=10.1007/s007040050058

That is peer reviewed evidence to a scientific standard. I await the same for Chemtrails.

 

[Imari]

Evidence comes in many forms, some more solid than others.

Except that an opinion is never evidence of anything except that someone holds that opinion.

This is where the reputation of the source comes in. If the guy in the video was feeding us raw data and allowing us to come to our own conclusions, he could be a lunatic in a tin foil hat for all the difference it would make.

But if he's offering opinions, the question should be asked whether this is a person whose opinion is likely to be based on solid logical principles, or is he a lying whackjob.

Edit: Tree'd by Scaff.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's your opinion. Evidence comes in many forms, some more solid than others. Not everything that is true can be proved

Then how is it true? I mean really are you going to continue with these ideas that are negatives of each other, give me one truth that is unproven? Do you not see how that contradicts the idea of a truth?

Which is consistent with everything I've been saying, but seems that I need back-up.

The only back up you need is the one backwards out the hole you're in that you've put yourself in with this thread

So the factual claim that you want me to back up is that it would be entirely possible to chemtrail people ? How could you think any different. It quite simply must be possible.

If it must be possible then you should have no trouble proving it, see there is a fine line between an assumption and an absolute. You might want to differentiate since you've been warned several times already, and I'd predict soon to be again.

That's not a factual claim. How can the possibility be that it could be done, be a fact? Unless you want me to prove that planes are chem-trailing. And it would appear that there is no proof that would satisfy you? Pictures, patents, evidence from non-Scaff authorised proponents. An air force technician who admits to fitting chem-trail apparatus wouldn't be good enough for you.

All that info has been debunked though and yet you still want to act as if it hasn't. OR better yet we're all picking on you because we found sources (rather Scaff) that say otherwise. "You can't keep going along saying well I've given proof though later verified as misleading, I still claim it proof"

The only proof that is irrefutable is chemical analysis of the chem-tral/contrail to prove it contains something other than fuel. How am I supposed to get that. a website - which one? A government favoured web-site - which would never be likely to show evidence or a governement-opposed site who you wouldn't believe because they've said things that were untrue in the past. So presumably you don't read newspapers, listen to politicians, watch the news or read the internet.

Well wait a minute, just a moment ago you said it's quite possible this is a secret that the likes of the gov't doesn't know about. Now you're saying they'd be the ones to house it? I could grab a shovel and help escalate that hole for you...

Also if it is provable there are tons of places to go and find technical peer review or scientific journal papers (usually .edu in format) that should have one or two paper topics on this subject.

EDIT:
Looks like I was also slightly tree'd

 

[Enemem]

Also if it is provable there are tons of places to go and find technical peer review or scientific journal papers (usually .edu in format) that should have one or two paper topics on this subject.

Right, I'll show you the difficulty of what you're asking me to do. Your logic is all wrong BTW.But anyway.

Theory - The contrails produced by planes that linger in the air are not chemtrails, but created by the heat from an engine which then turns the water into ice thus producing a trail. If the trail isn't there, then it's because of atmospheric conditions caused by differnces in temperature, pressure and humidity.

Fair summation?

So it should be easy to prove that is the case by showing rocket launches with contrails that disappear and reappear as you go further into the air. Should be loads of evidence. So go on find some. Show me how easy it us.

 

[Liquid]

We still want something which is true but cannot be proven. Give us another, non-chemtrail example.

 

[Exorcet]

So it should be easy to prove that is the case by showing rocket launches with contrails that disappear and reappear as you go further into the air. Should be loads of evidence. So go on find some. Show me how easy it us.

Rockets produce smoke which would mask the contrails.

There are smokeless/low smoke rockets, and they can leave contrails:



AIM-120 no contrails at 26 seconds

AIM-120 with contrails at 1:20

 

[TenEightyOne]

Theory - The contrails produced by planes that linger in the air are not chemtrails, but created by the heat from an engine which then turns the water into ice thus producing a trail. If the trail isn't there, then it's because of atmospheric conditions caused by differnces in temperature, pressure and humidity.

Fair summation?

No.

The weight of the aircraft combined with its cross-sectional resistance will determine the power output of the engines, at differing N2 ratings the propensity for exhaust condensation alters meaning that aircraft of a similar specification may have different contrail characteristics. This is exacerbated by differing engine types and the condition of each engine itself.

 

[Scaff]

Right, I'll show you the difficulty of what you're asking me to do. Your logic is all wrong BTW.But anyway.

Theory - The contrails produced by planes that linger in the air are not chemtrails, but created by the heat from an engine which then turns the water into ice thus producing a trail. If the trail isn't there, then it's because of atmospheric conditions caused by differnces in temperature, pressure and humidity.

Fair summation?

So it should be easy to prove that is the case by showing rocket launches with contrails that disappear and reappear as you go further into the air. Should be loads of evidence. So go on find some. Show me how easy it us.

I've already linked you to forty three (43) sources that are peer reviewed and to a scientific standard that detail exactly how contrails form across a wide range of circumstances.

Forty Three!!!

It was easy, its already been done, you were quoted in it so would have got an alert about it, so how exactly did you miss it? How exactly did you then go on to ignore them and then demonstrate a staggering level of ignorance by asking for exactly what you have already been given?

Oh and I'm still waiting on that proof.

 

[Enemem]

Rockets produce smoke which would mask the contrails.

There are smokeless/low smoke rockets, and they can leave contrails:



AIM-120 no contrails at 26 seconds

AIM-120 with contrails at 1:20

Can't watch this video. No youtube at work. But are you showing me a rocket with a contrail that then seems to turn the trail on and off due to external consideration (temperature/pressure/humidity)?


Because if it doesn't then you haven't proved anything.

 

[Scaff]

Because if it doesn't then you haven't proved anything.

Why are you ignoring the evidence that has been posted and deliberately miss-interpreting quite clear explanations as to why your 'version' of why contrails form is wrong?

Why are you not answering quite clear questions that ave been asked of you and then simply posting up more nonsense?

Why are you refusing to do what you demand of others (and they have done)?

Continue to ask in this manner and you will simply be treated as if you are trolling (which is currently what it looks like).

 

[Enemem]

@Scaff. Because i've been misquoted (without being QUOTE="Enemem"). And the logic flaw in all your arguments seem to be the same, and I repeat

Because we know why contrails form, because it's proven, then anything that looks like a contrail, is a contrail and cannot be disputed.
That logic is shocking.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff. Because i've been misquoted (without being QUOTE="Enemem").

I don't believe I have done that at all, so why have you failed to answer a number of the questions I have asked and why have you still not provided evidence to back up your factual claim or retracted it?

The AUP...

• You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

...ensure you carry out one of these two actions in your next post, I've had enough of asking politely. FAil to do so and it will be taken that you are willingly breaking the AUP.

And the logic flaw in all your arguments seem to be the same, and I repeat

No it doesn't. I also find it utterly absurd that you are attempting to lecture on logic, given that you fail to use it on a daily basis.

Because we know why contrails form, because it's proven, then anything that looks like a contrail, is a contrail and cannot be disputed.
That logic is shocking.

You clearly didn't bother to read any of the linked material I see.

If you have evidence (to the same standard as has been provided) of something that looks like a contrail but has been formed in a different way then please provide it, that's exactly what has been asked of you for days and you have singularly failed to do.

 

[Keef]

Pretty sure you can control how lean the engines run in most aircraft, but I suspect @Keef can clarify.

Nope, jet engines lack mixture controls. Fuel control is automatic, either via mechanical or electronic means. Piston engines generally do have mixture controls, at least older carburated ones.

Like @Venom800tt said, jet engine "throttles" control only the fuel flow. They're called thrust levers as the engines have no throttle and fuel flow is proportional to thrust. Modern ones have computers that meter fuel based on various factors.

I don't know of any certified piston engines that don't have manual mixture controls, carbureted or fuel injected. Corvette/GM LSx swaps are becoming a thing (of course) and they use the car's computer or a standalone to run the engine just like a car.

 

[squadops]

There is a big difference between hollow speeches based on untrained observation and actual research. If I was so concerned or even mildly interested in chemtrail possibility I would start broad and slowly narrow down whatever credible information I could find. Here is a decent starting point, and then this to follow up.

Then I would find similar information for things such as rain quality, ground water quality, soil quality, health of wildlife(both plant and animal). I'm sure it's all out there to see, anything from university studies to private and government agency observations, etc.

Looking at specific rules and regulations for the aero industry is probably a good idea, I'd look for any and all reports of anything self monitored by commercial aircraft companies regarding fuel/exhaust etc. I'm sure they keep all sorts of records, I'd not be surprised if government agencies don't spot check against the findings as well as independent company checks. Perhaps some of these chemtrail sightings are nothing more than toilet dumps

Anyone who is sold on chemtrails or simply wants to find out what's in our skies can easily do this. Oh, and NASA always a good idea to see what they have to say.

Also weather trends, look at those over long periods of time, before airliners even.

I gave a starting point, maybe I'll poke a little deeper if I have time and am bored.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Right, I'll show you the difficulty of what you're asking me to do. Your logic is all wrong BTW.But anyway.

Saying "lalalalalala well your logic is wrong (though we've proven you wrong the entire time) and mine is still right because my bias says so..." Doesn't make you right at all, nor does it explain how mine or anyone else logic that you claim wrong, is actually wrong. It's your opinion now because you can't argue your point.

Theory - The contrails produced by planes that linger in the air are not chemtrails, but created by the heat from an engine which then turns the water into ice thus producing a trail. If the trail isn't there, then it's because of atmospheric conditions caused by differnces in temperature, pressure and humidity.

Fair summation?

So it should be easy to prove that is the case by showing rocket launches with contrails that disappear and reappear as you go further into the air. Should be loads of evidence. So go on find some. Show me how easy it us.

Let's get this straight, you don't get to flip the script and tell us to prove something when it's you that has been the one not able to prove your argument. Instead it's been disproved along the way by us hence why you are continually asked for new "evidence"

 

[Imari]

Because we know why contrails form, because it's proven, then anything that looks like a contrail, is a contrail and cannot be disputed.

No, nobody has said that.

But you're suggesting that your chemtrail theory supplants established contrail theory, with no particular reason why contrail theory should need to be replaced.

If you can show deficiencies in contrail theory, as in things that it cannot adequately explain, then there's an opening for a more robust theory that *can* explain those things. Otherwise you're just postulating alternative explanations for things that we're already pretty sure we understand.

Sure, Santa *could* be real, but until you find a hole in the "parents put the presents there at night" theory I doubt anyone is going to take you very seriously.

 

[Zenith]

If the clouds forming behind airplanes were anything but contrails, wouldn't aeronautical engineers such as the ones who designed the bloody plane know something was amiss?

You know what? I don't even care. We can only spoon feed the willfully unintelligent so much. This theory has holes big enough to fly chem spewing planes through. What a joke.

 

[Azuremen]

You know what? I don't even care. We can only spoon feed the willfully unintelligent. This theory has holes big enough to fly chem spewing planes through. What a joke.

Don't forget his defense is basically the same theists use to defend God, but at least they have non-falsablity built into their idea and a few thousand years of history to play with.

This has 2 decades and requires a lot of science and silence. The mind boggles.

 

[Imari]

Some people think that science is just coming up with cool ideas on how stuff might work. That's not science, that's the easy part. Any random Joe can come up with a dozen hypotheses before breakfast to explain any phenomenon you like.

The hard part is doing your best to rip your own ideas to pieces. Most people find it extremely difficult to put serious effort into falsifying their own ideas.

Don't forget his defense is basically the same theists use to defend God, but at least they have non-falsablity built into their idea and a few thousand years of history to play with.

I did think that his last few posts would have been right at home in the God thread.

 

[Azuremen]

I did think that his last few posts would have been right at home in the God thread.

Thus why I asked him about his view on God earlier in the thread.

Science is often misunderstood as either making a hypothesis, as you stated, or people thinking it is just buying into the current system. Anti-intellectuals view it as some club of secret handshakes and ambitions for monetary and political gain, and it gives those types an easy out when approached with evidence held to a scientific standard.

 

[Scaff]

Apparently my logic is so bad it needed reporting!

 

[orimarc]

Wait, what? Did someone really report your post and say "you logic is WRONG!!!" as the reason for the report?

 

[Imari]

It doesn't seem terribly logical to report a post for having bad logic. Is this one of them there situations where the pot calls the kettle African American or some such?

 

[Scaff]

Well that and I bully people by asking them to follow the AUP.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

accidental double post on edit transit sorry.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Last thing he needs to do is report correct stuff to other mods, and get people like Famine and such in here...

Well that and I bully people by asking them to follow the AUP.

Called that not too long ago, as well as the fact that you debunked his "proof". I think I'm going to move on because this guy obviously wants to his pseudo-science cake as well as getting to eat it too.