Quote: Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails
If you actually take a look at that report, you'll see that the barium level reported is off by 100 times! The report claims 6.8 ppm, but 68.8 micrograms / L is 68.8 micrograms / 1000 grams = 0.0688 micrograms / gram which is 0.0688 parts per million or 68.8 parts per billion. The reporter got the number wrong by 100 times. He reports that's more than 3 times the toxic level set by the EPA, but since his math is wrong, the concentration is actually 33 times LOWER than the set level.
Furthermore, the whole claim that "chemtrails" stay in the air and contrails dissipate quickly is simply FALSE.
Persistent contrails have been described as early as 1919. For example, Weickmann (1919) describes a persistent contrail over Germany prior to 1920. Persistent contrails get blown about by the wind and can form 'unusual' shapes which some take to be evidence of criss-cross patterns in order to maximize dispersion. Furthermore, you can easily find satellite photos showing contrails that are hundreds of kilometers long (often over the ocean along typical commercial flight routes). You can also find photos from World War II of persistent contrails. Research into contrails was started during WWII because persistent contrails made it difficult for bombers to find targets or could cause planes to crash into each other.
Knollenberg (1972) describes some experiments on persistent contrails.
The whole reason I don't believe the "chemtrail" conspiracy theory is because I have seen no solid evidence whatsoever that there is such a thing. I'm sure that aerosols have been sprayed, but often when it comes to "chemtrails" I can just find a Youtube video of a persistent contrail and someone insisting that it must be a "chemtrail." If the "chemtrail" conspiracy were as widespread as alleged, then why can't anyone produce solid evidence, such as a single spectrum? Knollenberg (1972) gives an example of how spectra can be used to gather data on contrails. For example, spectra could give insight into the particle size and particle size distribution of contrails, yet no such spectra showing "chemtrails" exist.
Knollenberg RG. (1972) Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 29: 1367-74.
Weickmann I. (1919) Wolkenbildung durch ein Flugzeug. Naturwissenschafen. 7: 625.
Quote: Unless you can prove Robert Carroll and Cecil Adams are paid to BS for the bankers, that's a serious libel worthy of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
I've often found that it's difficult to have rational discussions with conspiracy theorists because they suspect that anyone who disagrees with them is a "disinfo agent." This is, of course, just a logical fallacy they use in an attempt to justify dismissing any evidence you offer. Also, they will try dismissing any contradictory points of view by insisting that the sources they site are "credible" while others are simply part of the misinformation being spread. It's very, very difficult to get conspiracy theorists to actually discuss evidence logically.
One of my favourite questions for those who believe in "chemtrails" is:
Briefly, what do you think is the best evidence supporting the notion that "chemtrails" are routinely being sprayed in the atmosphere?
Usually the replies are along the lines of "take a look at all the youtube videos" or "do your research and you'll find stuff all over the web." Of course, these answers simply beg the question: okay, but what evidence is present in those videos or on those websites which is so compelling?
All of the Youtube videos or websites I've seen claiming to have established that chemtrails are routinely sprayed offer nothing in the way of solid evidence. Most of the videos are just images of contrails and someone insisting that it "must be a chemtrail." I'd like to see something solid, like a published spectrum, which really wouldn't be hard to obtain and would be good evidence, yet nobody has done so.
Furthermore, many of the "chemtrail" believers regularly make statements that contradict known science and they insist that those statements are correct even when presented with ample evidence showing otherwise. For example, the claim that "contrails don't persist" has been known to be false for 90 years (again, see Weickmann, 1919) but "chemtrail" believers simply refuse to accept the evidence contradicting their belief.
Schmauss A. (1919) Bildung einer Cirruswolke durch einen Flieger. Randbemerkungen IV. Meteorol Z. 36: 265.
Wegner A. (1920) Frostubersattigung und Cirren. Meteorol Z. 37: 8 - 12.
Weickmann I. (1919) Wolkenbildung durch ein Flugzeug. Naturwissenschafen. 7: 625.
For anyone who wants to take a look at evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals on the topic of contrails, I suggest searching:
--
You will be able to find satellite images of persistent contrails and journal articles discussing contrail science.
Again, the main reason that I can't accept the "chemtrail" conspiracy theory is because I haven't seen any solid evidence, AT ALL, that "chemtrails" are routinely sprayed. Most of the arguments that do involve evidence are PURELY circumstantial (eg. pointing to research articles showing that the idea of modifying weather by spraying substances in the sky has been tested; reminding us of the fact that planes have sprayed aerosols, etc.). Given the lack of evidence for the "chemtrail" theory and the abundant evidence supporting the alternative explanation (ie. that persistent contrails are a well known, documented phenomenon), I can only find it reasonable to favour the explanation that most alleged "chemtrails" are simply contrails.
