Brief Debate with a Chemtrail Skeptic

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/chemtrailskepticben01jul12.shtml
July 1, 2012

Brief Debate with a Chemtrail Skeptic (July 2, 2012)

Subject: Re: Chemtrails
From: Ben F.
Date: Sun, June 24, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

Hello Mr. Adachi.

I have been recently introduced to the chemtrail theories, and am now sort of in the research phase of the issue. The idea that normal contrails could expand and turn into clouds certainly seems a bit odd, but I do have some questions.

The most common objection seems to be that chemtrails are, in fact, persistent contrails. It does seem strange, but on the other hand, given the right conditions, could condensed ice crystals not remain in the sky as a cloud of sorts? After all, clouds do not evaporate - perhaps under certain conditions, a contrail would not evaporate either.

My own observations lend some support to this - namely, "chemtrails" which are broken up - they seem to fade out slowly, then fade back in, as if the plane transitioned into a patch of air where persistent contrails do not form, then back into air where they do.

I have been told these trails were not seen before about 1999, so I asked my mother and grandmother if they had seen such things back before the 90s, and they both feel they have. I must point out that, as jet traffic increases, surely, seeing persistent contrails (assuming they are *not* chemtrails) will, logically, also increase.

Many people talk about grid, x, or other patterns the trails form. However, this could be explained by planes following routes from east to west and north to south as they enter and exit airports.

I am, again, not sure at this time, but I feel like I haven't seen enough evidence to say chemtrails are a definite fact. It's certainly within the NWO's power at this time, but I feel like most of the claims have possible alternative explanations that have not been adequately addressed.

I hope this e-mail was precise enough. I would have certainly been able to do better, but I am writing using a temporary, huge CRT monitor that is quite displaced and annoying.

Thank you for your time,
-Ben F.

***

Hi Ben,

This argument has been explained thousands of times. I've written about the contrail thing more than I can remember. There are 14 years of articles on my web site about chemtrails. Read the articles on my web site if you must cling to the contrails idiocy.

Look up how contrails are formed and why. The spraying started in the winter of 1997-98. Look back through newspaper or magazine article prior to 1997 and see if you see anyone complaining about excessive "contrails" filling the skies of North America or Europe.

Do a google search of "Chemtrails" and you will come up with million of hits. Do you think that the whole world is having a mass hysteria delusion about "contrails"?

Please.

You live in Russia. How is it your English is perfect?

Regards, Ken

***

Subject: Re[2]: Chemtrails
From: Ben F.
Date: Sun, June 24, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

Could you provide me with a link to the specific article that discusses this issue? I'm sure you can understand how I can't read through "14 years of articles" for an answer to this one most basic question. I do know how contrails are formed, basically. Ice crystals form around small particulates from the engine's exhaust. Many chemtrail theorists say that contrails vanish immediately or very quickly, while chemtrails linger - but high up in the atmosphere, the temperature can be very cold and the air very dry. Why couldn't ice stick around up there for a good while? On the very hot days we just experienced here in the northeast, I didn't see any "chemtrails" - which would be right in line with the idea that persistent contrails wouldn't form in high heat.

Maybe people weren't complaining prior to those years because no one had yet come up with this idea that there were chemtrails being sprayed and put it into people's heads. Maybe the discovery of that document at the Air Force academy sparked fears. And finally, the further back in time you go, the less the jet traffic is, so the further forward you go, the more jet traffic, and the more contrails. The more contrails, the more likely it is that someone will suspect foul play. oogle search results are not worthwhile arguing points. I can find all kinds of ridiculous things on Google, but it doesn't mean they're all true. Also, the "whole world" doesn't believe in chemtrails. If you ask most random people on the street if they believe these contrails are chemtrails, I'd be willing to bet they'd say no, and if you expounded the chemtrails theory to them, they probably would laugh at it, so it's not like 90% of the world believe in this phenomenon. I think asking questions is a very good thing. It's what keeps bad things from being able to occur. However, from my research so far, I just don't think the evidence is there to say that these contrails are chemical trails. After watching "What in the World are they Spraying," I am convinced there is something going on, something being sprayed, but I haven't seen the evidence that these white trails are it.

Sincerely,
-Ben

***

Hi Ben,

I can see that you enjoy your skepticism and take pride in it and that's OK with me. I'm not going to invest the time to try to convince you of anything. Just keep telling yourself that it's only contrails.

Yes, many people are unaware of chemtrail spraying, but a very large number of people (many millions I'm sure) know perfectly well what chemtrails are and realize the effects which chemtrail poisoning is having upon their health. There is also another percentage of people around the world who have some inkling about chemtrails, but haven't looked into it carefully and are not
sure what to believe. And then there are doubters and skeptics, such as yourself, who prefer the comfort and false security of denial.

A few short observations on your lack of logic:

1. You don't understand how contrails form: On rare occasions, usually in the dead of winter, a high moisture air mass will get trapped into the higher elevations and the moisture will form into tiny ice crystals which cannot be observed from the ground. Sometimes this is called Super Cooling. When a jet engine flies through that air mass, it will temporarily heat the ice crystals and vaporize them which you can observe as a genuine "condensation trail" (from where we get the contraction, 'contrail') for a SHORT distance behind the plane and then it disappears because the moisture has now sufficiently cooled to once again form into a tiny ice crystal. This can only happen at the higher elevations of 35-40,000 or so. It doesn't happen at lower elevations of 15, 20 or 25,000 feet elevations where chemtrails are often sprayed (although chemtrails are ALSO sprayed at the higher elevations).

2. Modern jet engines burn their fuel completely and cleanly. In earlier decades, the jets produced slightly more of an exhaust, but today they are very clean burning as you can see from the air traffic at any airport.

3. There is LESS air traffic today in America than there was 25 or 30 years ago. Many, many airlines have gone out of business in this country and those in business have cut down the frequency of flights. It was cheaper to fly in earlier decades and people had more money to spend on air trips. Beyond the cost, a lot of people don't fly today because of the incredible hassle they get at the airport with the TSA security nonsense.

4. You don't get thousands of web sites and millions of people all commenting on chemtrails spraying because we suddenly all suffered a mass hypnosis and delusion starting in the winter of 1997. The physical EVIDENCE of chemtrail SPRAYING is voluminous and ubiquitous--for those with eyes to see. Beyond the visual appearance of chemtrails and chemtrail overcast in the sky (by the way,you can't POSSIBLY EVER GET AN "OVERCAST" OF CONTRAILS my friend), the collected residue from chemtrail spraying have been analyzed by many private individuals beginning with William Thomas back in 1998. Cliff Carnicom has published many of his chemtrail fallout analysis on his web site, carnicom.com. Those fallout residues came from the substances being sprayed by chemtrail planes.

Ben, you're not interested in discovering the reality about chemtrails because you would have made the effort to read the articles on my Chemtrail page without asking me to do the work for you. You enjoy playing skeptic and being in denial. Go ahead, knock yourself out. I have more important things to do with my time than go around in circles with you.

Your Russian email address makes me think you're using a proxy address as your English ability is that of a native American. If so, why would you do that?

Sayonara, Ken

***

Subject: Re[4]: Chemtrails
From: Ben F.
Date: Sun, June 24, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

I am an American, I just happen to use a Russian e-mail service. I do thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I feel you misunderstand me. Several of my trusted colleagues and friends do believe in chemtrails, and I am simply doing the research for myself. My e-mail to you was more of a "presentation" of the common arguments against chemtrails I have seen. I did look at your website, but did not notice any obvious articles addressing these concerns (again, a table of contents would be helpful). A short search on Wikipedia of "contrails" offers an explanation of the various ways in which contrails may form. Again, as I said, I find these "super-persistent contrails" very odd, but I am not an atmospheric scientist. All I can say is these trails have been around since the beginning of aviation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Condensation_Trails_contrails_fr om_Aircraft_Engine_Exhaust.png

http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/departing-bomber-contrails.jpg (seen right)

The second picture, particularly, shows the "expanding" contrails from the 1940s -long before the supposed "chemtrails" ever existed. You say you can't possibly get an overcast of contrails. Assuming for a minute these "persistent trails" are in fact contrails, why not? If the ice crystal trails could spread out in that manner, and many planes flew through an area, why couldn't they expand, merge, and give an "overcast" effect? I do not understand your harshness in response to my simple questions. If chemtrails are such a certainty, this should be a simple matter to deal with for you. If I wrote a physicist and asked why physicists believed x quantum theory and aired some of my issues with it, he'd either simply explain it, or link me to an article on the topic.

I understand that you have many articles on your website, but they are not in any way organized - they are in list form only, and it is nigh-impossible to go through and find the article on the issue one is researching on your site. No one would expect someone to read 14 years of articles to get an answer to one question or one topic. Once again, I suggest you create a table of contents.

Thank you,
-Ben

***

Hi Ben,

OK, I'll elaborate.

I upload articles and commentary as it comes in, which is why I date every article when it's posted. I don't have the time to spend on organizing the site in the way you suggest. It's a nice idea, but it takes more time than I have available for it. I have many pages beyond chemtrails. Reread my explanation of genuine contrail formation. A water molecule (in a super cooled air mass--a very rare phenomenon) is temporarily heated to a vapor state and then quickly re-crystallizes into a small crystal, that cannot not be seen from the ground. Before they started spraying chemtrails in 1997, you never saw visible contrails exist for more then 10 or 15 seconds. They have never been seen or photographed persisting and then forming a haze or overcast. We've had jet plane travel in this country since late 50s/early 60s. We would have seen and photographed the phenomenon for 40 years if it actually occurred as you suggest.

The photo you include is an example of the government's attempt to create web sites to convince the easily dupable that Chemtrails and contrails are the same thing. In some cases, genuine, untouched photos from the World War II era were used, but in other cases the photos were doctored (I'm more than slightly suspicious that this photo was enhanced and retouched The straight line "contrails" seen in the background make no sense at all during that period). I wrote one or two articles about this somewhere around 2000 when they first began to use these disinformation ploys. It was easy to spot the doctored photos because I was able to separate the added layers when I imported them into Photoshop. The visible tip off was that the "contrail" they attempted to paint into the photo was far TOO opaque and white to resemble a real plane engine exhaust smoke trail or a contrail.

If the photo you linked to of the Washington DC "bomber contrail" is genuine and untouched, then you are looking at a SMOKE trail from the exhaust port of PISTON plane engines that are burning both fuel (gasoline probably) and oil. These smoke trails pictured are certainly not contrails in any event, as contrails usually come from jet engines flying at much higher altitudes than the piston engines of World War II were capable of flying at. Typically, planes of World War II flew at 10 or maybe 15,000 feet tops; not at 35 or 40,000 feet where contrails can form. Those guys were not in pressurized cabins and they only wore leather jackets against the cold. Do you have any idea how cold it is at 15,000 feet? Those planes were too heavy with low power piston engines to fly at any higher altitude. They needed thicker air in order to fly at all. Wikipedia has its uses, but it's awfully easy for government disinfo agents to install "explanations" that fit the cover-up agenda. I haven't read the Wikipedia page on contrail formation yet, but I have a hunch I'm going to find some BS there that will match the government's cover story (since it seems to have worked on you).

You come across more as a skeptic than someone who is merely trying to learn more. Your comments already make it plain that you don't accept the premise of chemtrials, while your friends do, so you want me to spend a ton of time as an unpaid tutor to try to convince you otherwise. That is why I said you weren't willing to invest your own time in going through the articles on my site. And you're perplexed why I don't take the time to do that for you. I'm not evangelizing. If you don't want to believe what I or others have written about chemtrails, no problem. Whatever you believe is OK with me.

Take care, Ken

***

Subject: Re[6]: Chemtrails
From: Ben F.
Date: Sun, June 24, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

Hmm, interesting information. Yes, I know I'm coming across like a skeptic -that was my intent, to present the skeptical arguments in the way they do. I apologize for not making what I was intending clearer in my original e-mail. also apologize for asking you to give me this information about the trails. I'm sure it is all available on your site, but as I've said, it is hard to search it without a table of contents. Thank you for your time. should also note that I saw some apparent chemtrails yesterday, and noted what may have been the sylph phenomenon you mentioned. It seemed a pretty fantastic notion to me, but, there it was - dragon-shaped "clouds" stemming from the horizon that appeared to be reaching for the trails and breaking them up. I couldn't observe long enough to get any definite information/ideas, but it was certainly enough to peak my interest to make a longer observation should I ever see a similar occurrence again.

-Ben

***

Subject: Clouds vs. trails
From: Ben F.
Date: July 1, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

Hello Ken,

Ben here again. I wanted to ask you for your take on something that just came to mind. ssume for the sake of argument for a moment that the persistent trails were, in fact, just contrails (again, I know, because of "What in the world are they spraying?" that something is being sprayed, I'm just trying to determine if the white streaks are it) - what would make them so different from clouds? That is to say, a cloud is nothing but condensed water vapor, but no one thinks it's odd that clouds stay in the sky for hours and don't dissipate. So, if we're talking about condensed water vapor coming off a plane, why couldn't it also stay in the sky for hours without dissipating if the altitude, temp and humidity were right?

-Ben

***

Hi Ben,

Glad to see that you're beginning to awaken to the existence of Sylphs, at least. Apparently, there's still hope for you. Yes, it is difficult to accept in the beginning, but the evidence is right over your head--just like chemtrails.

You can read about cloud formation in any high school science text book. It's more than just water vapor in the air, though. Certain conditions are necessary to get that water vapor to coalesce into a cloud formation. It's the same with genuine contrails: Certain conditions need to be in place before the phenomenon takes place (which I've already explained to you in earlier replies).

Typically, conventional science will talk about a rising warm air mass against the side of a mountain, will cause the water vapor to cool and form into clouds, for example. But conventional science text books won't tell you about the role that orgone energy plays in cloud formation. The reason the sky looks blue, for instance, is due to the presence of atmospheric orgone energy, and not because certain dust particles are reflecting a blue color, as we were all taught in school.

Chemtrails look much, much different than real clouds, but I think because you are a younger person, you've only been looking at chemtrail laden skies for most of your life, so you're having a hard time telling the difference between real clouds and chemtrail "smear."

Look at movies made with color film in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s where you see the sky and clouds and you will NEVER see chemtrail spray lines or chemtrail overcasts, or multiple chemtrails lines that fan out into wide, hazy looking swaths that eventaully form into a chemtrail 'whiteout.'

The sky will look deep blue and the clouds will look puffy and have a white, clean appearance to them. Storm clouds and overcast skies may look ominous, but it won't have the sickening, hazy, smog-like appearance of chemtrail overcasts.

Before "What in the world are they spraying" came out, Cliff Carnicom made a DVD about chemtrail spraying called "Aerosol Crimes" that is also on the internet. You should take a look at that. Don Croft also put out a video around 2004 that talks about chemtrails and the chembuster called "Clouds of Death." You can find that with a Google search. There are many videos posted to Youtube of chemtrails (and Sylphs) with very good explanations. Why don't you spend some time watching them and stop wasting so much time doubting what's plainly visible and obvious?

Regards, Ken

Addendum:

I spent some time looking at the web site which Ben used for the photo posted above. It's called "contrailscience.com" . The owner wants you to know that his site is all about contrail "science." (I guess somebody will have to notify the encyclopedia and school text printers that there's now a new division of science to add to physics, biology, etc.). I now see why Ben said what he said.

He's being indoctrinated by a propaganda web site and he doesn't have enough background in science to see through the BS and specious claims posted there. The web site is exclusively devoted to debunking chemtails and presenting the notion that chemtrails are really just "persistent contrails," and anyone who says otherwise are "conspiracy" nuts who are promoting a "hoax." The person who runs the web site calls himself "Mick West" (undoubtedly, a close relative of Mick Mouse). There are 6 or 7 supportive "readers" who agree with every ridiculous, half-baked comment that Mick writes, but thankfully, I noticed there was at least one brave soul named "imakeOPSname2" who wasn't going to sit still for Mick's BS and went toe to toe with him in a series of exchanges posted with this misleading article from "Mick" explaining how planes make "vapor trails"::

http://contrailscience.com/why-planes-make-vapor-trails/

Here's how Mick West describes himself and his web site:

http://contrailscience.com/about/

ContrailScience on CNN, Nov 11 2010

ContrailScience.com is just a place where I write about both contrails and science – which also includes some looking at the “chemtrail” theory, and the pseudoscience associated with it. My name is Mick West, I have private pilot training up to long distance solo certification, and have flown a 150 mile solo flight. I’ve been training out of Santa Monica airport, so I know the airspace around here. I like writing, and figuring things out. I’ve been writing about contrails and the “chemtrail” theory since 2007.

I’m not a scientist, or a meteorologist, but I try to ensure that what I post is comprised of independently verifiable facts. You can check these facts yourself. If you find ANY error on this site, then let me know and I will issue a correction immediately. I’m not paid for this. I do not work for anyone in conjunction with this site.I’m just some guy.

Email me at:

uncinus@gmail.com

***

Yeah, he's just "some guy."

I noticed that "imakeOPSname2" gets really annoyed and frustrated with the phony front of "science" and "facts" that Mick and his troll-like pals attempt to shove down his throat, but he still holds his own, despite his lack of polished grammar. I really give this man credit for not rolling over and acquiescing to the coercion and intimidation of the majority on that blog who were attempting to dismiss his very legitimate and accurate statements. The public needs to recognize that web sites like this are TRYING to mislead and misdirect the uninformed, unschooled, and gullible reader into accepting FALSE and specious "science" explanations in order to serve the government's counter intelligence propaganda goals. .

Ken Adachi

---

Comments

Subject: chemtrails
From: Brian
Date: Tue, July 3, 2012 5:06 am
To: Ken Adachi

: Hi Ken,

I just read your back and forth with Ben F. on chemtrails. Your ways of taking people to task cracks me up. I've noticed that you do it in your writing and Don Nicoloff's humor comes across through his speaking, and not so much what he says as how, in his delivery. When you read these presentations from duped people or outright psy-ops and note the lack of humor, it's child's play in recognizing them as such.

"Mick Mouse" indeed. LOL

Brian

---

© Copyright 2012 Educate-Yourself.org  All Rights Reserved.