AZ residents at chemtrail hearing: ‘We’re being sprayed like we’re bugs and it’s really not

a reply to: Rob48

Names of said labs, please. None here would do it. Apparently I didn't know what test I wanted. Saying composition of said gook on my car was not enough.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Have you called EMSL Analytical?

www.emsl.com...

They will do "unknown particle" identification, both airborne and surface, which should be ideal for testing an unknown residue found on surfaces.

I'm sure there are plenty of other firms who would do it, but that one seems to have good coverage in the US and Canada.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: kkrattiger

Here is a very informative thread www.abovetopsecret.com... also strangely lacking of the usual suspects, maybe due to the very high brow presentation and content.

I changed a setting and can now quote correctly.
I read the thread you linked and agree the links & cited information looks to be mostly credible upon a cursory glance. The reason there's none of the "usual suspects" as you call whomever, I interpret to mean "debunkers", is in my opinion because the thread isn't Chemtrail bait. It's a Geoengineering topic, & presents the various aspects of solar radiation mitigation etc. as cited/linked studies, patents, inquiries, consortiums, & academic papers.

People who think chemtrails exist, in my experience, think it's a govt conspiracy to make people sick or more docile. They don't generally have cogent points validating suspicions of a supposed vast large-scale coordinated effort of years-long duration, to spray chemicals in air so people will inhale them.
Back to this thread's topic:
The chemtrails are purported to be in airspaces which would affect every single person in the country, right?

a reply to: kkrattiger

The chemtrails are purported to be in airspaces which would affect every single person in the country, right?

If you are part of this conspiracy then the answer would be no, at least that is the thinking from most chemtrail believers.

Somehow those involved are immune to the so called chemtrail fallout.

a reply to: kkrattiger

Given that some folks have been seeing for years what is just recently being admitted to, I will certainly give a pass to, and not resort to placing them into any kind of conspiracy category. For me, they are individuals that saw something that they felt was unnatural and went about trying to solve the mystery.

The thread that I linked did a nice job of connecting the dots, and giving the chemtrail theorists some credibility.

a reply to: Witness2008
There is a big difference between isolated cloud seeding/ geoengineering experiments, which nobody denies are real, and the sort of widespread OMG THEY ARE SPRAYING TEH POISONZ stuff that this thread is about.

For one thing, the chemicals used in cloud seeding are not going to make anybody sick!

originally posted by: Aisling
Example of a clear sky, before spraying commenced.

These photos show the spraying just starting. We stood outside and watched them. This is not normal air traffic for us.

One of the planes, original view, and a zoomed in view

Another plane, original view and zoomed in view

Prior to spraying, the sky was clear, sunny, and crisp. Once the planes showed up and spraying began, it remained cloudy the rest of the day.

OK. How can picture 1 be taken before the 'spraying' started?

The EXIF data has it down as being taken at 1:46:50, Jun 29th. All the rest of the Jun 29th images were taken before the first image. Pic 6 is coming up with a day of May 26th taken by a Canon Powershot.


Pic 1

June 29, 2014 1:46:50AM (timezone not specified)
(8 hours, 45 minutes, 51 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)


regex.info...


Pic 2

Date: June 29, 2014 1:41:42AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 45 minutes, 11 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...

Pic 3

Date: June 29, 2014 1:44:40AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 43 minutes, 35 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...

Pic 4

June 29, 2014 1:45:17AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 46 minutes, 22 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...


Pic 5

June 29, 2014 1:40:55AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 52 minutes, 22 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...

Pic 6

June 29, 2014 1:40:00AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 54 minutes, 32 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...

Pic 7

Canon PowerShot A4000 IS
Lens: 5 - 40 mm
Shot at 40 mm (shot wide open)
Exposure: Auto exposure, 1/125 sec, f/5.9, ISO 400
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Focus: Single, Face Detect, with a depth of field of from 22.64 m to infinity.
AF Area Mode: Multi-point AF or AI AF
Date: May 26, 2014 8:13:16PM (timezone not specified)
(1 month, 3 days, 22 minutes, 48 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of GMT)

regex.info...

Pic 8

June 29, 2014 1:38:11AM (timezone not specified)
(12 hours, 1 minute, 38 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...


For the vast majority of the aircraft images we have a date and time. All you have to do is provide the location and with the time data we can re-create the Flight Radar 24 picture once the times are converted back to Greenwich Mean Time. Here is your opportunity to track down and identify those 'unmarked' aircraft and to prove that this is not "normal" air traffic.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: Kratos40
a reply to: olaru12


No, these planes are not 777 or 747 jet aircraft, they are smaller and have maneuverability; move at speeds of 160 MPH make 45 degree turns within a small air space. They are not fertilizing or spraying crops over the Tucson metropolitan areas to fertilize, as this city is a 'pave the earth' community. Dust could be explained, except that the dust beds around Chandler typically move toward Phoenix, not Tucson (this is a well tended area, no dust bowl here in the basin; most persons yards are planted with ground cover or 1.5 minus rock beds). These planes are not separated by 3000 feet more like 500ft, flying in tandemg at together at the same slow speeds, not ever making an approach landing or a take off at Tucson International. When they leave they head south (Ft. Huachuca).

If these aircraft are at contrail making altitude over Tucson, they aren't going to Huachuca. It's only 44nm away and a normal letdown from cruise altitude begins 100-120nm from landing. A normal descent is about 2,000 feet per minute and you're cranking along at 7 miles/minute until you get to 10,000 feet where you slow to about 4 miles/minute. Of course, if I really need to, I can get down a lot more quickly, but the noise from the screaming passengers is really disconcerting and the FAs get really bitchy about being pasted against the ceiling.

originally posted by: Annee

20 years of watching both military and commercial planes over the SW desert. NO, making this grid was not normal flight behavior. It was unusual and deliberate.

The grid is caused by aircraft crossing paths. What is so hard to understand about that? If they cross while producing persistent contrails you get a grid. Why is this concept so hard for chemtrail believers to understand? I've already demonstrated in an earlier post that "Whistleblower" Kristen Meghan can't even get her head around that concept and she was United States Air Force! It appears to be a constant theme running within the chemtrail community that aircraft and especially commercial airliners don't fly side by side, in proximity, under or over each other. Kristen calls it 'etch a sketch'. Yes airliners do just that and if they produce persistent contrails you get a grid. Again I'm struggling to understand where this belief comes from? It is as bad as the other falsehood that contrails should dissipate within a few minutes.

Airliner crossing. Why is it so difficult to understand that if the contrail persists where upper air routes or waypoints cross then you get a grid?



Now watch airliner separation in dramatic action. See from 0:30



en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: F4guy----->FAs get really bitchy about being pasted against the ceiling.

Ot of course, but do you fly 727 or Dc9?
I guess the only way to make people hit the roof in one of those new slick machines is TCAS-ra maneuver or clear air turbulence.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Rob48

I personally have used the tracking programs easily found on-line. A member "Weedwhacker" turned me onto them. In the early days I was able to see many unaccounted for aircraft.

Did you take the time out to fully understand the flight tracking programs? For example did you actually read the FAQ on Flight Radar 24. Again you see it all the time on within the chemtrail community and the chemtrail/fake aircraft community. They think just because it doesn't appear on Flight Radar 24 then it must be an 'unmarked' aircraft up to no good. The reason is because they don't actually understand why. It is the 'clutching at straws' method because they don't really understand why some aircraft don't appear. It even explains it in the description, but somehow some members of the chemtrail community can't seem to find it!

Flightradar24.com shows live airplane traffic from different parts around the world. The technique to receive flight information from aircraft is called ADS-B. That means the Flightradar24.com can only show information about aircraft equipped with ADS-B transponders. Today about 60% of the passenger aircraft and only a small amount of military and private aircraft have an ADS-B transponder. Please read more below about which airplane models are visible on Flightradar24.com.

Common aircraft models that are NOT visible on the map (no ADS-B):

ATR-42
ATR-72
Boeing 707
Boeing 717
Boeing 727
Boeing 737-200
Boeing 747-100
Boeing 747SP
All CASA models
All Bombardier Dash models
All Bombardier CRJ models
Dornier 328
All Embraer models
Jetstream 32
Fokker 50
McDonnell Douglas DC-9
McDonnell Douglas MD-8x
McDonnell Douglas MD-9x
Saab 340
Saab 2000
"Air Force One"
Most military airplanes
Of course there are exceptions.

When will all aircraft be equipped with ADS-B transponder?
Actually we don't know, this make take several years.

www.flightradar24.com...

Now you understand why you see "unaccounted for" aircraft.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

ETA: A-10 flying 160 mph? I'm not an airplane guy so I hope the following is correct

The twin-engine A-10 can fly as slowly as 300 knots (345 miles per hour) without risk of stalling, compared with 450 knots for an F-16 or F-35

www.bloomberg.com...
If it's not A-10s then no point in asking how much 'spray' they can carry.

Oh, A10s do not stall even at 160 MPH. Not sure they can even achieve 345 MPH max speed, they are a heavy aircraft (not their basis for existing look at the design, two tails, lift factor gliders actually) as are heavily armored (able to take heavy round hits) slow and go tank killers.

I guarantee I can stall an A-10 at 160 mph. And I can fly one at 60 (maybe not level) without stalling. You see, a stall depends on angle of attack and NOT simply speed. If the critical aoa is reached, you stall . That angle varies depending on a lot of things, including airfoil shape and camber, sweep, etc., but usually is at about 16 degrees. And you can reach that critical angle in any attitude including straight up and straight down and at any power setting. When I get a student who gets hung up on the stall "speed" idea, I have a 1 manuever remedy. I throw him or her in the front seat of the Sukhoi 29 and when at altitude pull to a full power vertical zero-lift line until it stops (0 airspeed) and kick full right rudder to do a hammerhead, then setting a full power vertical down line. After a few seconds on the down line apply rapid back stick and full rudder (either way) to do an inside snap roll. The airplane never stalls going up. It simply stops going up (maintaining 0 angle of attack) but does stall going stroight down at full power. A snap roll is a stalled autorotation. As an aside, I can tell you that when I went through A-10 familiarization for Republic, the clean (gear-up, 0 flaps, no external stores, straight and level 1 g stall speed was about 120 knots. VNE was 345 knots, and MMO was .75 mach.

originally posted by: Aisling
Example of a clear sky, before spraying commenced.

These photos show the spraying just starting. We stood outside and watched them. This is not normal air traffic for us.


One of the planes, original view, and a zoomed in view

Prior to spraying, the sky was clear, sunny, and crisp. Once the planes showed up and spraying began, it remained cloudy the rest of the day.

Chemtrails ?



Funny they seem like contrails zoomed in on a GOOD image!!!



Taken from my back garden/yard on a nice sunny day last year.
Also flights can appear on one flight tracker and not be on another.

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: F4guy----->FAs get really bitchy about being pasted against the ceiling.

Ot of course, but do you fly 727 or Dc9?
I guess the only way to make people hit the roof in one of those new slick machines is TCAS-ra maneuver or clear air turbulence.

Our 747 has a design load limit (flaps up) good to minus 1 g. So thrust levers to idle (and watch it snow when you lose the cabin), spoilers out, roll in at least 60 degrees bank, and shove the nose over to VNE/MMO and watch stuff float. The 727 has the same design load limits (+2.5/-1.0).

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Phage

I appreciate your opinion Phage. On this one, I'll take the deeds of a major coordinated national effort which enormous money and effort is expended on, over what you're presenting there.

No biggy... Folks disagree all the time and I don't think you're correct with this one.

You should let the folks in the Western plains of the US know about this. Those silly folks are not getting any rain, and all they need to do is call a cloud seeder. Silly people.

a reply to: tommyjo

I do understand that some aircraft do not have certain transponders. I doubt that there are really that many flying over the Midwest, and your link lists aircraft that have been discontinued, are flown in other countries and are smaller commuter planes. Am I being required to dismiss all the military flights that are not accounted for because there are still a few obsolete aircraft still in operation?

a reply to: network dude

Funny you should mention that...it's part of what I've spent months researching.

I'm not really clued up on the whole contrail vs chemtrail thing but one thing has always confused me. I know many chemtrail believers think they are spraying some sort of chemicals that have an ill effect on people's health. What I don't understand is how the people perpetrating this act are protecting themselves from whatever they are spraying? So many people would be knowledgeable about this from the scientists who make whatever it is being sprayed to the pilots and to those giving the orders. Is there some sort of vaccine for whatever it is? How would that play out with the anti vaxxers? I know that's off topic but it came to me suddenly. Anyway, due to winds and stuff whatever is in the trails would saturate the ground, water supplies, crops, farm animals etc. So it would get into the food chain right? So every higher upper would need a vaccine right? I hope I don't come across as rude or anything, I'm genuinely curious as to how this could possibly be played out?
Also the woman who's family got sick, it does kinda sound like hay fever. I know you said many other people got sick too but if something started growing that wasn't native to your parts that could explain why you all suddenly got hay fever too as its something you aren't all used to. I didn't suffer from hay fever till I went to Scotland and the heather brought it on. I know someone who only gets hay fever if they go near a particular type of bush. Maybe see if anything new has been planted around town? Just a thought so nobody bite my head off please.

Where I live (in the northeastern United States), my weather generally comes from the west (sometimes SW, sometimes NW, but from the west in general). Therefore, if the weather goes from clear to cloudy in my area , those clouds usually moved in from the west -- i.e., if clouds rolled into my area today, then it was usually cloudy west of me yesterday. My weather comes from somewhere -- it normally does not just pop up (although, granted, it can on some very rare occasions).

That's why I wonder about these people who say "it was clear yesterday, then I saw planes with trails, and now it's cloudy today". I mean, can those people show me that the clouds just grew directly over their area, or were those clouds part of a front that moved in from elsewhere?

By the way, persistent contrails are a sign that a front is moving in. The atmospheric conditions ahead of a weather front (sometimes several hundred miles ahead of it) can be conducive to contrail persistence. Therefore, if you see persistent contrails, those contrails may be there ONLY because the atmosphere is changing, and a front will be coming in the next day or so.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: kkrattiger
Given that some folks have been seeing for years what is just recently being admitted to, ....

when, where, by who??

The thread that I linked did a nice job of connecting the dots, and giving the chemtrail theorists some credibility.

no, it didn't if you actually think about it.