Debunked: Particulate crimes: Chemtrails

[Unregistered]

The thread title says it all

http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/part3.htm

Content from external source:

The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates that the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations. It is the duty of each citizen of this nation and of the globe to seek an immediate accountability for the damage that has been done. These photographs extend the earlier body of evidence presented on this site that demonstrates the saturation levels of particulate matter that are now in our atmosphere.Each citizen is urged to recognize the events which are herein recorded as being a crime against humanity. Each citizen is urged to demand the immediate cessation of the aerosol operations under progress. Each citizen is urged to seek an immediate disclosure of the parties responsible for the damage to the atmosphere, health and the environment. Each citizen is urged to seek immediate accountability for those events which we as a people have become subject to. Life and health, as it has been known, will not continue unaffected under the present circumstances.
The level of particulate matter visible under these controlled lighting conditions is by any measure astounding. The direct involvement of the citizenry at large is required to bring an end to the aerosol operations that have been conducted without informed consent.



These photographs are stills taken from a video taken on the night of Jul 05 2001 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The methods used to acquire these photographs are the result of original research by an individual on the message board attached to www.carnicom.com, whom is registered as 'loookinup'. The method employs a 1,000,000 candlepower flashlight (Q-Beam) in combination with a video camera. The particulate matter shown is approximately 6-12 inches from the lens of the video camera. Light of this intensity is required to make the particulate matter visible at the level recorded within these images. These methods are a counterpart to those earlier described involving observation of the sun's corona under specific lighting conditions. The methods shown have the advantage of being able to be produced at will under conditions of darkness, and they provide for controlled visibility of the abundant particulate matter now in our atmosphere.
Clifford E Carnicom
Jul 06 2001

http://www.youtube.com/v/kmHeVGUUvbM
http://www.youtube.com/v/2_IybSoN9Sc
http://www.youtube.com/v/IAsv2fdLAXI
http://www.youtube.com/v/SR85jZAB0BM
http://www.youtube.com/v/2OzUXst72-I
http://www.youtube.com/v/DNbBNWz1uMA
http://www.youtube.com/v/nllOShVgIAQ
http://www.youtube.com/v/lKOjJjqdlNs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPuDwYTlfNY
http://www.youtube.com/v/-y_FM1G26O8
http://www.youtube.com/v/8OqZOA0QPEY
http://www.youtube.com/v/AnJCvxMBrcA
http://www.youtube.com/v/qkWG-0pHWh0

[Mick]

This looks exactly like light fog to me.

It's not uncommon for a light mist to form at night as temperatures drop. This won't even necessarily feel wet, or even condense on things. It depends on the humidity

It's fairly foggy right now here in Venice, so I took the following photos. The flashlight is a Fenix PD20, 200 Lumens. The Q-Beam used in Carnicom's stills is 500 lumens, so quite comparable given this is a narrower beam.




[img]http://contrailscience.com/skitch/IMG_5909.JPG-20121001-072548.jpg[img]

[Jay Reynolds]

Need I say more?

[Mick]

I've re-titled the thread with "debunked", as I think the above two posts pretty much cover it. Along with the chem-webs post:

http://metabunk.org/threads/287-Debu...ooning-spiders

Any objections?

[Unregistered]

mist? ..rofl Yup.. confirmed paid shill. what a joke

[Mick]

mist? ..rofl Yup.. confirmed paid shill. what a joke

Are you saying my photos don't show mist? Or that Carnicom's are showing something different to what I'm showing? Because they look pretty much the same to me.

Can you be a little more specific in your criticism?

[Unregistered]

Videos please..

[Unregistered]

Are you saying my photos don't show mist? Or that Carnicom's are showing something different to what I'm showing? Because they look pretty much the same to me.

Can you be a little more specific in your criticism?

"Pretty much the same" LOL.. show me a video of "mist" moving as the ones in the videos i uploaded. until you do.. you are full of shit

[Jay Reynolds]

The OP's video dates from 2001.
Carnicom has had 11 years to show more information.
In 2005, he claimed he had done a lab test, but he has never shown it.

So, we've been waiting 11 years for Mr. Carnicom, and all he sent was this silly video??????

[Unregistered]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbuOO0LRDAM

from 0:00 to 0:07

any thoughts?

[Unregistered]

The OP's video dates from 2001.
Carnicom has had 11 years to show more information.
In 2005, he claimed he had done a lab test, but he has never shown it.

So, we've been waiting 11 years for Mr. Carnicom, and all he sent was this silly video??????

What are on about? he didn't send me anything..

[Mick]

The sun is up, sorry, best I could do.

[Trigger Hippie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpPN6WEJcJA

At 0:04 seconds... chemwebs!

[Unregistered]

The sun is up, sorry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpPN6WEJcJA

Now compare... looks nothing like the videos i posted. you can barely even make it out... every single video shows these objects as extremely bright white... sorry, not mist

[scombrid]

The OP's video dates from 2001.
Carnicom has had 11 years to show more information.
In 2005, he claimed he had done a lab test, but he has never shown it.

So, we've been waiting 11 years for Mr. Carnicom, and all he sent was this silly video??????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob6ykJgJxGE&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXCfVHzv2vM&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQg2WD4IFs


These people claim to have had filaments tested.
Is Carnicom taking samples for a fee and then returning bogus results to string them along?
Are they sending them somewhere else.
Are they lying about having had the filaments tested.

Or are these youtubers lying when they state that they have fibers, webs, etc... tested?

[Belfrey]

A common refrain from the Carnicom believers is that tests on the fibers say they are "unidentifiable, artificial plant life". Such a bizarre claim on several levels. If they were able to say that it's artificial plant life, isn't that an identification? How would one distinguish between artificial plant life and natural plant life? Why isn't the lab publishing about the first ever find of an artificial life form?

[Mick]

Now compare... looks nothing like the videos i posted. you can barely even make it out... every single video shows these objects as extremely bright white... sorry, not mist

When I talk about mist, I'm referring to the Carnicom post.

The Youtube videos (and I've not looked at all of them) seem to just show normal particulates like dust or pollen. Maybe you could pick one in particular that you think is most inexplicable?

Here's a good example of pollen in sunlight:
http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip...-sunlight.html

Pollen can be pretty extreme in some parts of the country:



It builds up in the trees during calm weather, then when a bit of wind picks up you get lots of it.


This does not happen round here.

[Mick]

Here's another couple of videos I made of aerosols lit by the sun, just for visual reference. These are "extremely bright white"





It's all about the lighting. Unfortunately I have nothing producing pollen, so can't really replicate the other videos. The air is very clean here.

I used small apature setting on the second one, so the particles appear very small as they are in focus. Best viewed full screen.

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I've re-titled the thread with "debunked", as I think the above two posts pretty much cover it. Along with the chem-webs post:

http://metabunk.org/threads/287-Debu...ooning-spiders

Any objections?

It would be nice to ask people before doing something if they object, instead of asking after you have done it. What is the point of asking anyway? I have objected to you renaming my threads, and objected to you moving them. Is it just me that you do not wish to consult with? Do others opinions matter? Does anyone's opinion matter here besides your own when it comes to how your private website is run? I am curious why you asked for any objections here. It seems obvious that the thread starter objects to your other opinions, so most likely objects to your opinion that his thread is debunked. Are you asking your fellow debunker's to confirm and justify your opinion? I saw no specific objections from either side, and i clearly saw no support from the thread starter.

I just had to comment because you have done this to me a few times now Mick, and on a side note I noticed a thread was closed in the off topic and rambles section HAHA that's funny. I guess off topic and rambling can get your thread closed even in that section. You can do what you want here Mick but if you want to give the impression of a fair unbiased platform then you need to be less controlling in my opinion. Just my opinion here. Take it or leave it.

EDIT: oh, by the way I forgot to mention, that I OBJECT. (for the record if it was not apparent or clearly stated already)

[Jay Reynolds]

It would be nice to ask people before doing something if they object, instead of asking after you have done it.

If Mick turned and ran every time some bunk-promoter "objected", when he presents no further evidence, mick would certainly have his hands tied.

When the weight of evidence presented in the Carnicom debunking exceeded the evidence of the claim being debunked, the debunk was successful.
Neither you nor the OP had any evidence to the contrary. You have nothing supporting your claim, except you "object", which is not evidence.
If you have some facts supporting the Carnicom claim, present it.
Are you a semi-professional victim or something?

[Mick]

EDIT: oh, by the way I forgot to mention, that I OBJECT. (for the record if it was not apparent or clearly stated already)

On what basis? Do you think those videos show something unusual looking? Or something ordinary looking that might be something unusual disguised as something ordinary?

[Unregistered]

Here's another couple of videos I made of aerosols lit by the sun, just for visual reference. These are "extremely bright white"





It's all about the lighting. Unfortunately I have nothing producing pollen, so can't really replicate the other videos. The air is very clean here.

I used small apature setting on the second one, so the particles appear very small as they are in focus. Best viewed full screen.

Looks nothing like the videos i posted... sorry, you FAIL

[Unregistered]

When I talk about mist, I'm referring to the Carnicom post.

The Youtube videos (and I've not looked at all of them) seem to just show normal particulates like dust or pollen. Maybe you could pick one in particular that you think is most inexplicable?

In case you missed it i will post again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbuOO0LRDAM

from 0:00 to 0:07

any thoughts?

[Mick]

In case you missed it i will post again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbuOO0LRDAM

from 0:00 to 0:07

any thoughts?

It looks like he's mistaking windblown seeds and suchlike that are very close to the camera for "super fast orbs" coming out of a contrail with is miles away. It's a problem with perspective. The white specks he sees are just a few feet away.

[Unregistered]

It looks like he's mistaking windblown seeds and suchlike that are very close to the camera for "super fast orbs" coming out of a contrail with is miles away. It's a problem with perspective. The white specks he sees are just a few feet away.

"Windblown seeds" seriously? .. look at the SHAPE.. the shape of the object is what i was getting at

[Unregistered]

It looks like he's mistaking windblown seeds and suchlike that are very close to the camera for "super fast orbs" coming out of a contrail with is miles away. It's a problem with perspective. The white specks he sees are just a few feet away.

So.. first you tell me it's mist.. then dust/pollen, then windblown seeds... sheesh dude make your mind up

[Belfrey]

"Windblown seeds" seriously? .. look at the SHAPE.. the shape of the object is what i was getting at

What, the "orbs"? That's what little specks look like when they're out of focus.

[Mick]

"Windblown seeds" seriously? .. look at the SHAPE.. the shape of the object is what i was getting at

You mean like this?



it's out of focus and very brightly lit from behind, so what you are seeing is an artifact of the camera, bokeh. Notice how many of the dust specks look like quite large orbs in my videos. Same kind of thing.

[Unregistered]

You mean like this?



it's out of focus and very brightly lit from behind, so what you are seeing is an artifact of the camera, bokeh. Notice how many of the dust specks look like quite large orbs in my videos. Same kind of thing.

First you tell me "windblown seeds" ... now it's BOKEH.. LOL...

[solrey]

In case you missed it i will post again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbuOO0LRDAM

from 0:00 to 0:07

any thoughts?

I was just out on the back porch with the sun blocked by the porch roof as I was looking out at the garden and saw the same thing that I've seen practically every evening this summer, and countless other times in various settings and conditions throughout my life... a plethora of bugs, dust and tiny seeds backlit by the sun and flittering about. It boggles the mind to know people truly believe they're seeing orbs instead of bugs, dust and seeds.

[Mick]

First you tell me "windblown seeds" ... now it's BOKEH.. LOL...

In this case I suspect it's both.

But why does there just have to be one explanation for everything? Sometimes people film mist, sometimes pollen, sometimes seeds, sometimes bugs, sometime birds, sometimes balloons. There's all kinds of things floating about in the sky that look odd when out of focus and when the distance is misjudged.

[Mick]

I was just out on the back porch with the sun blocked by the porch roof as I was looking out at the garden and saw the same thing that I've seen practically every evening this summer, and countless other times in various settings and conditions throughout my life... a plethora of bugs, dust and tiny seeds backlit by the sun and flittering about. It boggles the mind to know people truly believe they're seeing orbs instead of bugs, dust and seeds.

You should make a video. The air is too clean here, in the city by the ocean.

[Unregistered]

I was just out on the back porch with the sun blocked by the porch roof as I was looking out at the garden and saw the same thing that I've seen practically every evening this summer, and countless other times in various settings and conditions throughout my life... a plethora of bugs, dust and tiny seeds backlit by the sun and flittering about. It boggles the mind to know people truly believe they're seeing orbs instead of bugs, dust and seeds.

Show me a video of bugs/ dust and seeds behaving as the ones i have posted... Until then, you are ALL FULL OF HOT AIR!

[Mick]

Show me a video of bugs/ dust and seeds behaving as the ones i have posted... Until then, you are ALL FULL OF HOT AIR!

You should go make some videos yourself. Investigate.

[SeriouslyDebatable]

The aerosol "specs" are unidentified. Everyone is speculating on what they "might" be. I don't object to your comparative speculations, I object that something that is unidentified is actually "debunked".

[MikeC]

What is unidentified? Long whiet trails that look like contrails, are generated in the same manner as contrails, and behave like contrails are identified as contrails. Taht identification might be incorrect, but thsoe trails are not "unidentified".

What is debunked is specific "evidence" that these trails are something other than contrails - eg they cannot be contails because contrails only last a short period of time - anythwere from "a few seconds" to an hour or so depending upon who is making the claim. that can be debunked because there is no evidene supporting it, and there is plenty of real verifiable evidence saying it is nonsense.

So if that is the only reason you think these linesaer not contrails then you no longer have any reason to think so at all.

What else can be debunked?
- that aluminium/barium/something else levels in water/rain/snow/blood are high? Yes that can can be debunked by showing that they are within normal limits.

- that aluminium/barium, etc in soil can only have come from aircraft spraying?? Debunked by showing that aluminium is part of the makeup of most soils, that barium can and does blow in the wind especially in some areas with known surface deposits, and also by showing that barium is used in the make up of brake shoes, drilling mud and in diesel as an additive.

none of thse "debunks" say that a white trail in the airbehind an aircraft is not a chemtrail - but they show that those particular reasons for believing that chemtrails exist do not actually do anything of the sort.

Even if every single chemtrails argument is debunked, the possibility that some white lines in the air are notcontrails exists - but it seems unlikely to the point of dismissal due to the total lack of evidence, the toal lack of systems required to "spray" anything.

finally - it would only take 1 sample of a "contrail" that shows that it is actually something else to "prove" that chemtrails exist - how come chemtrail believers aer not getting money together to make that effort? IIRC some guy was trying to do so with balloons, but donations were pitiful - where is the commitment to something that would provide the proof y'all keep saying you have but which mysteriously evaporates under any kind of serious scrutiny??

[SeriouslyDebatable]

What is unidentified?

The evidence presented is not verifiable because we do not have a way to repeat the exact location, time, and other factors of this atmosphere experiment. It could be just normal dust blowing in the desert wind. The author is unknown. No videos or pictures from either side has shown aerosol levels at high altitudes in the atmosphere.

"These photographs extend the earlier body of evidence presented on this site that demonstrates the saturation levels of particulate matter that are now in our atmosphere"

This has not been debunked. It is not substantiated either. More research is needed. I take no side on this specific issue, and neither should you.

[Mick]

But my argument, and the gist of my evidence, is that it LOOKS LIKE regular dust/mist/pollen/seeds

Sure it might be something else, but since it LOOKS LIKE something perfectly ordinary, then the original suggestion that it's not has been debunked.

Carnicom's suggestion has been debunked, because it has been shown that the videos he reference look just like mist.

OF COURSE it could be nanobeings disguised as mist, but then we get into robot cat territory. It's always possible that there's something odd disguised as something ordinary. But that's not what is being debunked. What is being debunked is the assertion that this does not look like something normal. You said yourself that "It could be just normal dust blowing in the desert wind", and that's all that's needed to debunk it.

[SeriouslyDebatable]

But my argument, and the gist of my evidence, is that it LOOKS LIKE regular dust/mist/pollen/seeds

I don't think that was the authors argument though. He argued that the atmosphere has increased in particulate. So you debunked that it does not look unique, and you showed video of particulate from unnatural sources such as tissue which look similar to it. You debunked your own argument, not his.

[Mick]

I don't think that was the authors argument though. He argued that the atmosphere has increased in particulate. So you debunked that it does not look unique, and you showed video of particulate from unnatural sources such as tissue which look similar to it. You debunked your own argument, not his.

I'm debunking his evidence. The stills from the video. Very specifically I'm debunking the claim that "The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates that the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations."

Since they look like normal stuff, then this claim is debunked.