posted 01-17-2004 11:26 AM            

I thought I might start a new thread regarding the "mystery" of chemtrails in this forum so as anyone could post, with the hope that maybe it will achieve enough of a "scientific " basis to eventually be moved to either the science forum or the chemtrail forum. My intent here is to see if by using the "scientific method" we cannot all enhance our understanding of "chemtrails". I'll try to keep it short.

Some words borrowed from a college science student handbook set the stage nicely:

"A scientific experiment is not performed in a vacuum, however. First the scientist must learn enough about a subject to identify a problem and find out what others have done to solve the problem".

This is what I was saying, lexta, in regards to not "working backwards". One must not skip steps one and two in the method, if they wish to use "logic" as their main source of "knowing".

So to brush up on our memory of the scientifc method let's again review from the student handbook: (and I will atempt to plug in a set of variables, feel free to add or rationally modify)

Step 1-Identify or state the problem:
A-Loss of sunlight

Step 2-Analyze the problem (some of this intertwines with step 5) gather information, find out what is known about the problem:
A-Personal observations indicate exhaust from planes create haze blocking sun, while at the same time,

B-Personal observations indicate erratic abnormal flight patterns during times planes create haze blocking sun, while at the same time,

C-Personal observations indicate planes leaving quickly disapating trails occuring in all different quadrants of the sky, while other planes leave billowing smokey brilliant white trails while at the same time,

D-Colored sundogs and partial rainbows appear in the sky and rings appear around the sun, while at the same time..

E- A "solvent" or "burnt fuel" smell appears in the air, while at the same time...

F- Many companies are offering weather modification that involves dispersion of chemicals into the sky, while at the same time...

G- Military is attempting to "Own the weather by 2025",while at the same time...

H-Corporate backed scientists are advocating geoengineering schemes such as adding reflective metals to the atmosphere, while at the same time...etc....etc....etc...

Step 3- Form a hypothesis:make an "educated guess" as to what the answer may be. This can be based on a hunch or past experience:
A- Planes spraying chemicals according to geoengineering protocols are releasing aerosols into the atmosphere causing a reduction in sunlight reaching earth.
--------------------------------------------
These are the first three steps of the scientifc method and a very rough application of their principles as concerns chemtrails. The last three from the handbook are:
Step 4-Test the hypothesis.
Step 5 Record observations and measurements, interpret them and form conclusions.
Step 6-Revise the hypothesis based on data.

I do not think, as I mentioned before, until the first parts of the method are defined, it is of much use to try and get to the last 3.

posted 01-17-2004 10:54 PM            

It looks like interesting data. It may take awhile to fully absorb.

posted 01-18-2004 12:44 PM            

and try and put our chemtrail/contrail observations in perspective for a moment and ask a couple of pertinent scientific questions. My thanks to lexta2000 for the idea, hopefully now that this post has been moved he can still interact and reply, if not here, maybe in the other forum.

Though lexta2000 "refused" to even look up at the sky and use observation as a learning tool, he did raise a good question how might one differintiate chemtrails from contrails. Since 'observation' of the phenomenon in question is IMO an absolutely critical step to understanding them let's sort out some things gleaned from personal observation (mine). I'll take a simple observation point that I made this morning Sunday, Jan 18, 2004.

From around 8:00 A.M. till about 11:00 A.M. this morning I witnessed the activity of approx. 2 doz. plus planes, *sightings* every one of which appeared in my southern view, at what appeared to be maybe 3 to 5 miles out in that direction. (I use the word *sightings* becuase I have often seen planes loop back and therefore some of the planes may have been the same.) What caught my eye was that though the sky was blue all the way around with the exception of a few scattered hazy looking small "clouds", in the south, planes were leaving long billowing, white trails, and flying in patterns connecting and building on these small clouds. They appeared visually to be lower than "normal" traffic that I have witnessed here over the years. But interspersed occasionally between and what appeared to be through the "lingering" trails were planes leaving trails that looked "normal" that quickly within seconds disapated behind those planes. (In fact the "lingering" trails are still visable even after having drifted further to the south hours later)

So this brings us to the immediate question. How exactly can we explain the difference? Two possibilities come readily to mind:

A-The type of trail being left by the planes was of a different physical makeup regarding the "3 second trail" vs the "3 hour trail" or...

B- The portion of the sky (in the exact same general southern area for ALL planes)altitude, sky conditions, etc. etc. was somehow different between the planes leaving a "3 second trail" vs a "3 hour trail". (actually these 3 hour trails may linger permanentally, or until they drift off in the distance out of sight)

A third possibility of course exists which is some combination of the two, but for now can we take the above assumption as basically correct before we proceed further? Anyone care to help on this exercise? (all help appreciated)

SmT

posted 01-18-2004 02:21 PM            

I read through and had to ask... what about the webs... are you observing any web/fibril materials in the air or on the ground while also observing the trails in the sky?

posted 01-18-2004 07:15 PM            

Though I have seen "webs" floating here on many occasions I have not made a study into them. As this is Missouri it is not uncommon to see lots of spider webs and things from trees floating, though at some point maybe I'll look further.

But for now though,I would like to just stay focused on this idea I was talking about, that of trying to more differentiate whether the "3 second trails" which were made at the exact same time as the "3 hour trails I witnessed today, were different because of -physical makeup- or because of -atmospheric conditions. This is the question isn't it? This is the claim made by the debunkers isn't it? Let's further disect this.

As I understand it most 'debunkers' claim there are no such things as chemtrails ( which can be easily proven false with well documented evidence -see my related post on open air testing) or if we are to give them the benefit of the doubt let's say they believe that there are not many chemtrails being applied 'regularly' to the environment.

Ok, to take this further, lets say by extrapolation then they would also argue that the "3 second trails" and the "3 hour(plus) trails" are nothing more than ALL contrails, nothing more perhaps than frozen water vapor. I have heard this arguement several times.

So this appears to leave us with the reasoning as stated by some "debunkers" that is it altitude and therefore perhaps temperature related conditons that make the dozens of planes I witnessed this morning leave "billowing white spreading trails ' (the 3 hour-plus- trails) instead of the "3-second trails"left by approx. 6 other planes in the same southern part of the sky, between about 8 A.M. amd 11 A.M. this morning.

Have I got this approx. right? Is this the debunkers theory that attempts to explain how all the trails are only contrails?
Can any skeptics/debunkers correct me if I am misunderstanding what I'll call for identification purposes the "contrail only" theory. Can anyone help clarify this point. (please mainly stay on topic if you would). I'd like to get this firmly understood before moving on.

Thanks,
SmT