Chemtrails- What are they?

a reply to: Grimpachi

OMG PROOF!

I like this one myself...

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.

And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...

Something written about a possibility...which no one here denies...certainly the topic has been written about...

vs.

The very determined bloviating about how the subject of a proposal would actually APPEAR to the earth-bound eyeballer...

wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?

Statement by chemtrailer: "There is a trail coming from behind that plane...some climate panel wrote about this being a possible solution to climate change...therefore, that must be a chemtrail."

Questions: "Why would the action of a aerosol dispersant (i.e., chemtrail) look EXACTLY like a contrail? Why would any dispersed chemical from a jet look EXACTLY like a contrail? How can you tell the chemical makeup of the trail from 7 miles away?"

Answer from chemtrailer: "Because I can."

Forgive me if I label this type of reasoning as the pure, unadulterated, bull# that it is...and please do not, for one second, mistake it as a, "determined pushback," against anything but ignorance and sheer stupidity...which, as far as the topic of chemtrails is concerned, exceeds all bounds...

ETA: By the way, answering those three questions in a clear, concise manner would be a great start to a conversation...

a reply to: Thisbseth

but since there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that supports any believers claims, then we are automatically shot down with the whole "contrails" rambling.

Now does that not tell you something when this hoax started in the mid 90's that in all this time there has been as you say...

"Absolutely no conclusive evidence that supports any believers claims".

So what evidence is there that makes you think they exist?

And what ramblings about contrails would that be, because they absolutely have conclusive evidence for why they form, why they persist, and even what it takes to make all the above what you see in the sky.

a reply to: totallackey

ETA: By the way, answering those three questions in a clear, concise manner would be a great start to a conversation...

I wouldn't hold my breath for that, but I could be wrong.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Chemtrails- What are they?

Well that's a pretty easy question to answer because it only takes one word...

Hoax...

See that was Easy.

Now I can show you what they aren't...











Although most have been identified as chemtrails when they aren't.

originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.

And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...

Something written about a possibility...which no one here denies...certainly the topic has been written about...

vs.

The very determined bloviating about how the subject of a proposal would actually APPEAR to the earth-bound eyeballer...

wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?



Answer from chemtrailer: "Because I can."

Wrabbit knows as well as the rest of us, that looking at a jet's plume proves nothing, he's said so in the past. Your idea of a chemtrailer's response is pretty much out of time for most people.

This is the problem, anybody who is suspicious of a covert programme of aerial spraying, has a lot of digging to do, but for those who say, "this is stupid, there is no such thing" are in the same ballpark as those that look at the sky and say "that's a chemtrail"

a reply to: smurfy

This is the problem, anybody who is suspicious of a covert programme of aerial spraying, has a lot of digging to do

They surely do.

but for those who say, "this is stupid, there is no such thing" are in the same ballpark as those that look at the sky and say "that's a chemtrail"

At the moment there is no evidence of such a thing. You are one of the few who does not insist that contrails are evidence of spraying. The overwhelming majority of contrail deniers in this forum do claim them to be.

From my perspective that is what this so-called push back is about. The incessant claims that persistent trails of undefined duration prove "chemtrails". Well that and the carousel of nonsense, lies and hoaxes trotted out in support of the 'theory'.

"I dont know, therefore 'chemtrails' " doesn't work.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

In the ATS exclusive clip, Jesse is asking the ATS audience for thoughts and information about Chemtrails. Are they harmful? Is there a cover-up?

This is another vote for the question in the thread title "Chemtrails- What are they?" to be answered before any others. It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion on an undefined and most likely from the utter lack of evidence, nonexistent activity.

a reply to: smurfy

And somehow you and the bunny are on the defensive about this. That, I doubt I'll ever get.

We all don't like pollution. We all think that spraying of anything has potential to be bad. We all think that vigilance is needed.

What would be nice it some help in educating those that just don't get it. If we could all be on the same page, it sure would make things easier. But when the guy comes in and points to a picture of a contrail and drools while yelling "chemtrail" as loud as he can, ya'll seem eerily quiet. Almost as if there is some inside conspiracy against the debunkers.

But I guess we need to sell adds and the term deny ignorance doesn't apply to the old chemtrail forum. Go figure.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

What people call chemtrails are normal contrails. Though many gullible people have been taken in on the hoax and there are questions as to whether that was the point all along. A social experiment to see how quickly a ridiculous and readily disproven "conspiracy" could be spread amongst the masses?

This does not mean that spraying does not or could not happen - but there is no evidence at all that any spraying (other than at low level - ie crop spraying) would be visible from the ground. The only reason we see contrails is because they form crystals of deadly dihydrogen monoxide in the upper troposphere which reflect sunlight.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

ooo thats nasty stuff, get enought in yer lungs and your a gonna , good with lemons in it though

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.

And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...

Something written about a possibility...which no one here denies...certainly the topic has been written about...

vs.

The very determined bloviating about how the subject of a proposal would actually APPEAR to the earth-bound eyeballer...

wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?



Answer from chemtrailer: "Because I can."

Wrabbit knows as well as the rest of us, that looking at a jet's plume proves nothing, he's said so in the past. Your idea of a chemtrailer's response is pretty much out of time for most people.[/quote]

No...absolutely not...

If Wrabbit knew better, then he would not have said this:

It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model)

Do you see that? Read it very carefully.

This is the problem, anybody who is suspicious of a covert programme of aerial spraying, has a lot of digging to do, but for those who say, "this is stupid, there is no such thing" are in the same ballpark as those that look at the sky and say "that's a chemtrail"

It is not a problem. You want to be suspicious? Fine, go ahead.

But do not for one second think a person who knows what contrails look like is anywhere near the same area code, let alone the same ballpark as a suspicious person who thinks chemtrails are real. Speculation, tin-foil hattery, and outright lying, are not the same as scientific proof.

edit on 18-6-2014 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.

And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...

Something written about a possibility...which no one here denies...certainly the topic has been written about...

vs.

The very determined bloviating about how the subject of a proposal would actually APPEAR to the earth-bound eyeballer...

wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?



Answer from chemtrailer: "Because I can."

Wrabbit knows as well as the rest of us, that looking at a jet's plume proves nothing, he's said so in the past. Your idea of a chemtrailer's response is pretty much out of time for most people.

No, he does not know better. In his own post, he claims there are people who can tell what a chemtrail would look like from the ground...you better read the post again.

This is the problem, anybody who is suspicious of a covert programme of aerial spraying, has a lot of digging to do, but for those who say, "this is stupid, there is no such thing" are in the same ballpark as those that look at the sky and say "that's a chemtrail"

We are not even in the same area code, let alone the same ball park...be suspicious all you want, but scientific analysis does not compare to tin-foil hattery and suspicion.

To supplement the question of "What are they?"

We should, or Jesse should, ask the question "Why didn't those who had the means to prove what chemtrails are, do so?"

Several tens of thousands of dollars have been spent making "documentaries" about chemtrails, completely avoiding the one way to prove them once and for all.

Hire a plane that's equipped with the appropriate testing equipment, they exist too, those nasty, horrible debunker types were the ones to find that out btw, not the truthers...

I digress

Take said plane up into a chemtrail and go crazy.

Post results.

Validate your theory or debunk the theory.

And THATS why no one has done the above

Why would someone making money out of chemtrails, want to stop their cash flow?

I guess the $$$ overrides the truth and safety of our fellow man.

a reply to: totallackey

And here is a fine sample of mis-characterization...come on wrabbit...

One person's "mischaracterization" is another persons sincerely held opinion of a matter. I fully understand my opinion on this topic is a subject of great ridicule and derision among some that make a focus of that for the overall subject. I generally ignore the those arguments anymore, as they are really nothing more than pure argument. Its rarely debate looking for honest give and take to a discussion. However, lets see what I can do on answering those, to the best of my personal interpretation.

wrabbit, how do you freaking know what the ideas postulated about in a proposal would look like in the sky?

The strong and hard edge to your questions are entirely unnecessary, by the way. However, I'll be the first to say I have absolutely no clue what something like this might look like. I know I *HAVE* seen military and civilian aircraft dump fuel in-flight. So I do have a some idea of what dispersion of material behind an aircraft looks like. What would Sulphur or Carbon particulate that has been discussed in public reports look like? Dunno.... I give my best guess. It's a discussion forum for things like that.

Statement by chemtrailer: "There is a trail coming from behind that plane...some climate panel wrote about this being a possible solution to climate change...therefore, that must be a chemtrail."

Which "chemtrailer" made the statement you quote there? Out of context and without reference to what aircraft or incident it might refer to, it has no meaning? I'd say it sounds like an assumption which I personally attempt to avoid, but I can't even say that much without a source for those quoted words.

Why would the action of a aerosol dispersant (i.e., chemtrail) look EXACTLY like a contrail?

Would they look "exactly" like a contrail? That's news...but I'd love to hear where you'd get that impression? I'd think any substance flowing from the rear of an aircraft....be it exhaust, fuel, or a massive blue ice dump by pure accident? It'd all look somewhat similar. Exact appearance? No clue... Those aren't words I've ever used. I never will, either.

It wouldn't fit in a highly speculative topic.

Why would any dispersed chemical from a jet look EXACTLY like a contrail?

See above to avoid redundancy

How can you tell the chemical makeup of the trail from 7 miles away?"

I can't tell anything for certain, and I've never once made any claim that I could. I speculate, and I make guesses and I throw out ideas to discuss. Again, we do these things on a discussion forum, and especially one dedicated to fringe topics or subjects expected to be hidden, unclear or obscured within....conspiracy.

Forgive me if I label this type of reasoning as the pure, unadulterated, bull# that it is...

Absolutely no apology necessary. I'm accustomed to people taking personal opinion as absolute factual position and I've learned to look past that. It would be impossible to respect everyone's own opinions, as I do, if I couldn't see past that flaw..as I'd term it. In a speculative topic I know nothing more certain than anyone else. However, I do speculate and I'll continue to, as the topic and specific areas strike my fancy.

I appreciate your interesting perspective though!

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

What would Sulphur or Carbon particulate that has been discussed in public reports look like? Dunno.... I give my best guess. It's a discussion forum for things like that.

Have you ever noticed planes flying at apparent cruise altitude leaving no trail at all? It would look like that. Sulfur and carbon are in all jet exhaust.

Would they look "exactly" like a contrail? That's news...but I'd love to hear where you'd get that impression?

Maybe here?

It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model)

www.abovetopsecret.com...
If not could you clarify what you meant?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Sulfur and carbon are in all jet exhaust.

Jet fuel (JP) and diesel are both kerosene. You can run JP in a diesel truck with no problems at all. As a matter of fact, all the diesel ground equipment is ground served (fueled) from the same pits, with the same gas, that goes in the aircraft. They have certain fuel trucks that are specifically designed for “ground service” with a normal gas station style pump handle specifically for fueling ground vehicles from the aircraft pits.

Anyway, The amount of sulfur in the fuel determines it “grade”. The ones with the highest sulfur content are died pink, and sold tax free as “agriculture” fuel for use in industries such as forestry and farming.

a reply to: smurfy

Wrabbit knows as well as the rest of us, that looking at a jet's plume proves nothing, he's said so in the past. Your idea of a chemtrailer's response is pretty much out of time for most people.

So then how does one know chemtrails are real since you can't tell by looking at a jet's plume, because nobody who pushes this hoax has ever been up there to test for chemtrails, so how does that work?

a reply to: defcon5
But how does this relate to what I said about sulfur and carbon being in all jet exhaust?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Have you ever noticed planes flying at apparent cruise altitude leaving no trail at all? It would look like that. Sulfur and carbon are in all jet exhaust.

Is that a factual statement based on direct or recorded personal observation of those materials being dispersed or is that an opinion based on what we know of other materials and suspected behavior at altitude and within a slipstream? I'd be interested in factual and sourced observation. We've gone back and forth with personal opinions many a thread, many a time for what that adds.

For instance, would the material be dropped pure and by itself, or would it be within a solution to aid in the purposes it would be done for? I'm not sure myself, and it's one of the many variables we can't know without more direct knowledge for or against than we possess at this point in time.

Maybe here?

Why thank you.

It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.

(emphasis on what the paragraph was written to note)

You'll notice there was context you...accidentally forgot to include...which denotes that as a paragraph said in compare/contrast style. As always though, and as we've sparred on many threads, I'm always interested to see what you have to say to folks who disagree. I tend to be flowery in my wording sometimes. I could probably write a whole speech just to say 'No', if I wanted to. it's a personality flaw at times. Forgive me.

I'll be far more precise and exacting with my wording though, as misunderstanding context seems a common phenomenon where chemtrails come up.