I am going to change my opinion to 50% debunked because if you pick this quote apart, you actually find 2 claims.
"The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates" Debunked. It demonstrates nothing.
"the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations." unsubstantiated. No proof.
If being picky is your thing
""The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates" Debunked. It demonstrates nothing."
The bold part posted by you does not claim to demonstrate anything as you have removed the object of the statement from that statement. There are NOT 2 claims, there is ONE claim. Splitting it into 2 does not multiply the claim.
I can demonstrate the same with your claim if you like....
"Debunked. It demonstrates..." Claim one...fails because it does not demonstate anything.
".Nothing".Claim two... fails as it does not make any sense.
One must take the statement as a whole, or be forever shown as a numpty.
1)It's really not so don't be picky.Originally Posted by Danny55
There."The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates [their other claim]" Debunked. the photographs demonstrate nothing."
2) Is it the difference between debunked and unsubstantiated that you do not understand?
The thread is particulate crimes. That is what says is debunked. It is not debunked. Claims made to support it have been debunked, but there is no proof that it is not possible. Some things can be proven to be impossible, and particulate crimes have not been debunked. Simple.
It is the splitting of the statement which was made as a whole, not two different statements, which I found strange. As stated, it was as a whole that the statement was made, not two parts, so why you would state that it was two parts when in fact it was posted as one statement is difficult to comprehend, however,if you wish for other people to decide what the original posters should have meant to say, that is fine.
But, to get back to your interpretation of what the poster was trying to say
""The following photographs introduce another body of evidence that demonstrates" Debunked. It demonstrates nothing."
Just to clarify, it demonstates NOTHING because YOU have removed the SUBJECT from the sentence. No sentence or statement will have very much sense if you do not include the SUBJECT. Try it and see. eg "I read...." Not very informative because.. I have not included a SUBJECT.
The title of the thread is a statement in itself. There is no "debunked" label edited onto the sentence. The "debunked" label is on the thread title.
You are comparing apples to oranges and missing the point.
As for the sentence, I removed nothing, the subject of the first claim was the photographs. The subject of the second claim was not needed as it was implied and I did not add it for redundancy. I did add it last post in brackets, but you have conveniently stripped it off once again. You are being picky. I have explained myself. Listen to what I am saying, not what I said. There was a miscommunication. Ty.
I like to eat apples because they are juicy.
One sentence, two claims. Simple concept.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; October 3rd, 2012 at 06:48 AM.
So then, what has been "debunked" exactly? ...
Some of the content of the thread was debunked, but the subject itself is not debunked.
Bull crap. A "subject" is not something one debunks. You just don't want to understand what debunking is, SD, or else you think you can use sophistry to obfuscate the real issue. I'll take you by the hand and lead you through it since you insist on pretending to be ignorant.
here was the claim:
Operative words of the claim: tragically altered [as a result of] aerosol operations
Evidence given: a video of particles in the air.
The debunk centered on this:
1. No actual measurements were taken
2. No historical measurements were supplied
3. No causal chain of evidence was presented to establish causality with anything
4. No evidence was presented for any "aerosol operations"
There are enough "No's" above to debunk the entire thing. Period.
However, the claim primarily rests it's case on a video which is implied to be extraordinary. Mick showed that what is seen in the video could easily be duplicated by simple ordinary night-time mist. I showed how ordinary particulates are in the air, that there is nothing extraordinary about having them there. I also showed that the claimant has a decades long history of making claims and not supporting them.
The claims were debunked as far as the evidence supplied would let them be.
That is what debunking is, it is not about debunking a "subject".
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
tryblinking (October 16th, 2012)
I explained earlier:
No, sorry. but you still have not debunked what the objects are in the videos i posted. not mist/dust
But it's been shown that there are a number of things such videos could be: mist, dust, seeds, insects, spider silk, pollen, etc. Now while you can't identify exactly what each one is, there's no real reason to suspect it's not one of those, or something similar.
Quote from the OP: "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. [.....] 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."
Surely this has been debunked. There's zero evidence from those pictures of anything being "tragically altered", let alone as a result of aerosol operations.
And that was before Mick showed the same kind of thing in his videos. There's simply no evidence.
But, unregistered, here is how your claim was debunked:
"Unregistered", if you disagree with what I wrote above, explain why it is incorrect, or supply the missing evidence for 1-4 above.Bull crap. A "subject" is not something one debunks. You just don't want to understand what debunking is, SD, or else you think you can use sophistry to obfuscate the real issue. I'll take you by the hand and lead you through it since you insist on pretending to be ignorant.
here was the claim:
Operative words of the claim: tragically altered [as a result of] aerosol operations
Evidence given: a video of particles in the air.
The debunk centered on this:
1. No actual measurements were taken
2. No historical measurements were supplied
3. No causal chain of evidence was presented to establish causality with anything
4. No evidence was presented for any "aerosol operations"
There are enough "No's" above to debunk the entire thing. Period.
However, the claim primarily rests it's case on a video which is implied to be extraordinary. Mick showed that what is seen in the video could easily be duplicated by simple ordinary night-time mist. I showed how ordinary particulates are in the air, that there is nothing extraordinary about having them there. I also showed that the claimant has a decades long history of making claims and not supporting them.
The claims were debunked as far as the evidence supplied would let them be.
That is what debunking is, it is not about debunking a "subject".
If you will not or cannot, the matter has been debunked.
It is not up to us to describe what you show in your video. You can claim it is pixie dust for all that is worth, but until you show it is not ordinary dust or fog droplets, your claim is worthless.
Don't blame us for not collecting whatever you show and getting it analyzed. Carnicom made the original claim a decade ago, he "set you up" by not following through to collect actual evidence as in 1-4 above. Get after his ass and ask him why he sent you out unprepared and doomed you to fail so easily.
Again, the burden of proof rests with the claimant, the claimants are you, and Carnicom.
Bring it on and show yourself approved, otherwise your whole claim is ridiculous. This is prima facie evidence of why Clifford Carnicom will never get real scientists behind him. He doesn't do science.
Last edited by Jay Reynolds; October 10th, 2012 at 07:14 AM.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
MikeC (October 10th, 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9X3cCqmuw
Why is it that so many people are seeing these objects as orbs then? Are they all wrong?
What are "orbs"?
They see things that seem orb shaped, but the most reasonable explanation for them is that they are just ordinary objects that that found in the sky. Being unexplained does not mean it's inexplicable.
Of course it MIGHT be an alien spacecraft or an elemental spirit soul, but there's no evidence to suggest that it is.
Yeah, they're at least wrong and I'll reserve further comment in that regard due to the politeness policy. I think one of the dynamics with these "orbs" is people that never paid attention to mundane everyday things like dust in the air are suddenly made aware of them by some youtube video claiming it's something unusual. If what's being claimed fits into their belief system they suddenly start seeing orbs everywhere.Why is it that so many people are seeing these objects as orbs then? Are they all wrong?
I would add that anyone can look up and see that they're not seeing "orbs" flying around when they look at persistent contrails with the naked eye. They only see them when looking at camera footage. That's probably because they are just out-of-focus specks of various sorts, floating near the camera (which is what they look like anyway).
cf Rods - which were the hottest proof of alien life for a year or 2 recently
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
unregistered, where is your Carnicom now? He is not your friend. He has done nothing for you. Do you realize this now?
He knows me quite well, have him come over and we will have it out.
Tell him to come and discuss his claims. He won't, because he knows what he has done and he is ashamed of it.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
tryblinking (October 17th, 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVXOS-BpgaM
Yup, same type of thing - very small objects relatively close to the camera, brightly lit by the sun, mistaken for alien spacecraft.
very small objects... which you have failed to identify. alien spacecraft? where was any type of "craft" mentioned?...
"They only see them when looking at camera footage"
WRONG.
If you want to see these things for yourself, go outside when the sky is clear blue and the suns shining and block it out with something.. I can assure you.. they look just as strange
street lights work nicely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3xlF1lYSgYs
Last edited by Mick; October 13th, 2012 at 06:14 AM. Reason: merged duplicates
Plus some larger ones that are clearly birds (1:56) and insects (e.g. 1:09 for a classic "rod"). Unregistered, have you ever wondered why they only look strange through your camera, and not with the naked eye (assuming your vision is good)? Do you think it's more likely that your camera is able to see things that are invisible to you, or that it is recording things that are out-of-focus and blurred?
Unregistered (and it would work better for you if you registered), nobody is saying that are not all identified. Some of them ARE "unidentified" flying objects. But there's a large range of very reasonable things that they might be that need to be eliminated before more esoteric explanations are applied.
The problem with the "orb" or "lots of stuff in the air" folk is that they immediately skip over all the reasonable explanations and go for the least reasonable (but most interesting) explanation.
Let say I feel I have something in my pocket. It's an unidentified thing in my pocket. UFTIMP. I don't know what it is, but I theorize it some coins, or keys, or a flashlight - things that are usually in my pocket. I can't tell what it is. I can't prove it's one of those things. It might be something else. What I don't do is start theorizing about how it might be a miniature robot, or a leprechaun, or the Hope diamond.
There's many things that can reasonably found in my pocket. There are many things that can reasonably be found floating around in the sky. Just because we can't identify something does not mean it's not one of those things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
I do that all the time. I love fluid dynamics so watching stuff flying around on air currents is kind of a recurring pastime while taking a break when working outside. I enjoy cloud spotting so I'm often blocking the sun with my hand to look at clouds so I also inadvertently see stuff flying around in the air. What I see are a variety of airborne seeds, insects, dust and pollen. When they're shining in the sunlight the glare can make identifying the specific seed or insect a bit difficult but otherwise it's obvious what I'm seeing.If you want to see these things for yourself, go outside when the sky is clear blue and the suns shining and block it out with something.. I can assure you.. they look just as strange
What if the following video were entitled "Chemweb season in Erie, PA" with the videographer ranting about chemwebs and chemtrails like that James Mulholland character? Would people like unregistered be duped by it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhijhaV-tvo
Do they look like "orbs" without the camera? I think not. I see specks floating around all the time. They look like dust, bugs, pollen, seeds, etc.
Yes.. they do. go see for yourself
The argument that particulates have increased in Earth's troposphere is bound to be true. The Earth's human population is increasing, and particulates created by it (this population) will have increased commensurately.
However the Earth's method of removing these particulates (by nucleating water droplets from water vapor) is well up to the job, with 99% to spare. The world's largest explosive eruption (Tambor) put 300 million tons of nano-materials into the air in an instant, and all that resulted in were a slight drop in temperature and more frequent glorious sunsets for a year or two, because the force of the eruption threw a significant quantity into the higher stratosphere.
Pan evaporation tests over the last fifty years have shown a 15% reduction in insolation due to increased particulates in the troposphere. Considering we're burning 12Bn tons of carbon annually (increasing), that too is very little to show. More stringent controls would soon regain that lost insolation. The globe would then continue to warm at an accelerated rate. Warming will increase atmospheric water vapor.
Stratospheric saturation can only exist in perfectly clean air.
The Earth's stratosphere is 17% fully saturated (1992 research) which means at least 17% of it is absolutely pure. That fact will only change if the oceans disappear.
Last edited by Jazzy; October 22nd, 2012 at 09:23 AM.
Considering cloud condensation nuclei at Mauna Loa, you can see the increase and wash out from two eruptions, and the return to the persistent variation over the last 30 years.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
Thanks for the hard data, Jay. Splendid.
James Mulholland, one of the YouTube people claiming "chemwebs" were real, has removed his entire profile from YT. I don't know what this means; my last few contacts with him were messages claiming irrefutable proof of one thing or another. At least he was starting to debate using science. I think James is fairly intelligent, just a bit misguided. I wonder if he had some sort of epiphany?
It is a capital Mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sherlock Holmes
TCSW - that video has been discussed (with its creator, Dave Dahl, attending) here: Debunked: Artificialclouds.com claims silver iodide causes chemtrails & global warming! Dave did adjust his claims somewhat after that discussion, but still left in most of the original bunk. There is no evidence that cloud seeding with silver iodide has any effect on contrail formation, and many reasons to think that it wouldn't.
I checked, BTW - no cloud seeding activities have been permitted in Florida in recent years.
Joe (January 15th, 2013)
Hi Mike. He said he was busy working on his masterpiece video, a debunking of one of my long debunking letters as he was upset that he had made a fool of himself over his previous video attempt disputing the amount of water in engine exhaust. I think a centrepiece of his refutation was going to be the argument from Energysupply2008 that the QF64 flights must use trimethylaluminium in the fuel. He believed the reason that there are gaps before a trail starts is that the trimethylaluminium can't get access to any oxygen to combust with in the combustion chamber because the kerosene will somehow use up every last molecule of oxygen first and leave none for the TMA .
I'm sure he was busy trying to address issues you were raising with him too.
He had unblocked both of us from his page as he was so confident he was on the verge of defeating us with his arguments.
It was pointed out to him that TrimethylAluminium is Pyrophoric, meaning it spontaneously and instantly combusts when exposed to air and produces an orange fireball and white smoke even without an ignition source. Kerosene on the other hand has a high activation energy, meaning a large amount of energy must be added to it with just the right mixture ratio of oxidant , fuel droplet size, kinetic energy and ignition source before it will even begin to burn at all.
He was under the impression that in the furiously energetic , oxidising environment of a combustion chamber at 2000C, a highly reactive pyrophoric substance will not react whatsoever and a far less reactive substance will complete all reactions first before the other material even begins.
He was provided with some basic chemistry and logic to check such as:
Jet engines in airliners burn a LOT of fuel .
4litres of kerosene a second is quite typical.
Kerosene is a blend of hydrocarbons of different lengths of carbon chain but it's convenient to simplify to just decane for an instructive calculation.
A mole of decane in kerosene is 142grams, so
4litres per second means about 28 mol of decane per second reacting with 434 mol oxygen gas
A mol of decane means 6.02214179(30)×10to the power23 or 16,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of decane combusting with 260,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of oxygen ( O2 ) stripped into reactive oxygen ions in the combustion chamber at temperatures of around 2000C
All those oxygen ions in a furious combustion plasma and supposedly not a single one of them reacting to TMA....
He was also asked to explain how an airliner like a Qantas 747 that had refueled in Johanesburg & had flown for over 9 hours non-stop over the indian ocean with over 200 passengers with 23kg checked baggage each could possibly have sufficient spare carrying capacity for material OTHER than fuel in sufficient quantity to make dense trails hundreds of kms long.
He had also made the claim that The sky at altitude had almost no water in it and that the water in jet exhaust vastly outnumbered water in the sky by many orders of magnititude. I suspect he had tried to use the paper by Knollenberg to support his claims and it backfired when he actually read the paper more carefully whilst trying to quote mine it.
http://ciresweb.colorado.edu/science...enberg72.pdfHe had tried to use the Appleman chart to claim it proved that contrails could never exist in most conditions . I suspect he might have finally grasped how it should be properly read, only after he had been making embarrassing misguided comments .
He had suggested that a contrail could never form any closer than an airliners horizontal stabiliser because he Had read that a contrail usually forms within 2seconds.
He took that to mean a contrail cannot ever form UNTILL after 2 seconds when in fact it means they will generally form before two seconds. It was pointed out he was misinterpreting the word "within" and tending to latch on to expressions like "usually" or "about" and treat them as if they meant "exactly"
I think he possibly finally had an epiphany that he was believing absolute nonsense as he wrote it all down, and what he initially thought would be a coup de grace turned out to be aimed at himself.
Last edited by GregMc; January 15th, 2013 at 05:25 AM.
cloudspotter (January 15th, 2013),Jazzy (January 15th, 2013),Ross Marsden (January 15th, 2013),TWCobra (January 15th, 2013)
"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".
~ Hamlet
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
yea like we would need more rain here in Florida
That's a wonderful story.
Thanks for that Greg. It was me who pointed out to James his false assumptions regarding contrails being the result of water contained in the fuel. To his credit he admitted the error in the video.... grudgingly, but he did admit it.
He is an interesting character though. I gave him a list of reasons why pilots aren't involved in "chemtrailing", one of which was the slew of laws to which we would be personally liable if we did, to which he was totally dismissive. His last video was another "total proof" as he filmed the QF63 contrailing and compared the atmosphere soundings taken an hour and a half beforehand from Melbourne Airport to attest that it was impossible for the aircraft to be contrailing. To give him credit he had a working hypothesis but failed to take many variables into account, such as the aircraft not flying through that particular parcel of air.
he had quite a following particularly down in Melbourne. Peekay has gone semi quiet as well... he seems to be branching out into other areas. Sandy Hook was a copy of Port arthur apparently......
It is a capital Mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sherlock Holmes
Did you mention all the oxygen in the engine core that does NOT go through the combustion chamber, so cannot be "used up"??
I know - it's just adding to the heap of evidence where it is not required, but I thought it worth mentioning...
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks