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

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I'm not talking about birds. That's another way of saying airplanes.

Right, just like "Gomer"s are Russian targets. I missed the obvious reference/nomenclature.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I am helping by shear fact I am contributing to this forum topic and you are responsive

In the context of my statement, which you are free to comprehend, you're not helping me believe your story.

And now you have finally said something truly interesting. Any good CT could see that as an admission that your role is to generate traffic/posts. Think about it.

What is a CT? and an admission to a role of generating traffic/posts? I don't understand. You are starting to vibrate 'a sinister element' with potential evil intent brouhaha. If I were writing a 'story' and published; it would be cataloged in the Library of Congress as "nonfiction'.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

What is a CT?

Over 4000 posts here and you don't know that stands for conspiracy theorist?

You are starting to sound sinister with evil intents.

In addition to baseless and absurd that is deperate.

ETA: Edit to your heart's content, it doesn't change what you said,

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: vethumanbeing

What is a CT?

Over 4000 posts here and you don't know that stands for conspiracy theorist?

You are starting to sound sinister with evil intents.

In addition to baseless and absurd that is deperate.

ETA: Edit to your heart's content, it doesn't change what you said,

Why would I change what I said; sometimes when I edit I MEAN IT (but only then). I am a 'What Me Worry?" sort of person; some call it Buddhist, some call it free in thought/thinking (I call it abstract non-linear). I never knew CT meant Conspiracy theorist, but I have been told before more than once that I am very naïve to the ways of this world. What is an ETA: question mark.

a reply to: vethumanbeing
Call it what you like. When you have some concrete linear evidence we can talk. Until then your story belongs in the Chemtale section.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Call it what you like. When you have some concrete linear evidence we can talk. Until then your story belongs in the Chemtale section.

At least I had your attention, enough for you to respond in kind; (not sure to call it a long time or a short glimpse of) altitudes/attitude. When I have 'paved the Earth in concrete' evidence I will be expecting to be invited to a garden party in your backyard and it better be paved. Linear evidence as apposed to non linear might be a stretch for me. Chemtale section of what exactly (oh no please don't suggest that be another forum). You don't seem to be having any fun here or are taking yourself too seriously (rid thee of that EGO); you should test your chops looking at the difficult forums: Religion Faith Theology, Conspiracies In Religion or Metaphysics and Philosophy, my home town favorites, most fun ever to be had (better have a thick skin, a life vest and extra oars). BTW I like anything barbequed and drinks with liquor in them.

I guess I've never heard talk like that before... but Man, that was a turn on!

a reply to: F4guy

originally posted by: DogMeat
@tsurfer2000h
I agree Sir.

I have been in aviation for 35 years now and currently with the top major carrier.
I have worked on more planes then I can remember and for 6 airlines.
I have never seen one thin thread of proof of "Chemtrails" or any such equipment installed on commercial airlines.

Do you think for one second that the pilots and or maintenance would willing do this and poison our own people?
If you do, then I suggest you seek professional help!!
Remember, the military are people just like you and me, I was one and I feel none would do it to the people of their country as well.

Nuff said....move along

I am not saying I believe in chemtrails but. If I remember correctly all across our beautiful nation many commonfolk and military in years gone by dumped toxic waste in neighborhoods, rivers, swamps etc. All under the motto of the solution to pollution is dilution. So don't ever give me the crap sandwich that they would never, because trust me they have and still do. In fact the neighborhood I live in is one of those areas.

a reply to: jaynkeel

Best ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: totallackey

Tell me something... Would suing the CIA in 1969 have exposed Majestic and the drug experimentation on innocent people? Would suing the U.S. Government have exposed the horrendous and evil experiementation on human subjects in Central America with venereal disease? A few more famous cases of toying with people to see the outcomes have been made into movies and other high profile things......were those from lawsuits in civil court? Did the victims we know now, beyond question existed, sue to successfully expose something in all that?

Are you writing about Majestic 12 or MKUltra?

The venereal disease experimentation was tracked and affected 89 people. This supposed chemtrailing, if taking place under the auspices of the US Government, would be affecting billions of people. If the US Government did something that ended up killing 89 people, why would they not then apologize for the billions of people supposedly affected by this nonsense?

Did suing the U.S. Government for Gulf War Syndrome establish the facts those suffering from it have sought to establish? How long and how many suits....to show anything at all?

None needed...the US Congress called for the studies to be conducted because of REAL symptoms...it was then labeled and the causes are still being sought out...since these two issues (the mention of chemtrailing and the Gulf War took place near the beginning of the 1990's, why call for the studies on one and not on the other?

Could it simply be that one is actually real and the other is bunch of freaking bull#?

So..should a lack of successful civil suit against a sovereign government prove a negative for the lack of existence to something people report seeing with their own eyeballs all over the world?

Yes. Because if there was anything to it, a suit would have already been brought and we would have actual evidence of it. Especially in today's litigious society. Both of these issues (the talk of chemtrails and Gulf War Syndrome) have existed for roughly the same time...one was treated seriously and is scientifically accepted fact...the other remains in the realm of tin-foil asshattery...which is the more likely scenario? 1) the government is willing to admit to one existing and not the other...or...the one is actually tin-foil asshattery for bumpkins...

Which is more likely in the world we live in today?

#1 The many may be onto something and TPTB aren't being entirely honest.....

OR...

#2 The many are being bamboozled, the few here are in possession of the vital truth to "educate" the many with, whatever that takes to accomplish, and nothing has ever ..at any time in history...existed to give any of this a reason to exist as a conspiracy theory?

Evidently, according to your post, "the many," constitute those who believe chemtrails exist, as presented here, in the form of contrails....

Just a couple of things...

If TPTB cannot keep a secret like chemtrails, then, "they," are not very powerful...I mean, they let the secret out to some Internet jockeys for christ's sake...what kinda PTB is that?

Heck.... I take the many paranoids over the small group of self declared experts demanding the many accept the fact they are ignorant and in need of correction.

And here, after long last, even through previous posts denying the taking of any sides, we have an ATS mod admitting which side of the fence he/she is on in the subject of unicorns. Denying ignorance my ass...

originally posted by: Aisling

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Aisling

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

As a very serious and sincere suggestion, since what people think of you seems to matter enough to write a specific message on here.

If you put forth to effort to talk WITH...and not AT or DOWN to people, I think you'd find your reception and the responses you got would change. In fact, they'd likely change in major ways and in less time than might be believed. It's the approach as much as the message that turns interested listeners into an actively hostile crowd, IMO.

As for my camera, that was taken with a camera phone, I was out hiking. Suck it.

Who is being hostile here, again?

A video of "six planes going back and forth" spraying contrails - now that WOULD be the kind of evidence that could change a person's mind. As far as I know no commercial flights turn around and "go back and forth" except in holding patterns around airports maybe. Why not video it? You could have had the first hard evidence ever!



But no, you don't want to provide evidence, you just want to say "trust me" even though you provide no proof.

Once again, if I thought something nefarious was going on, I would make DAMN SURE I got some proof to convince people with. Seems very weird that you don't care to do such a thing.

It's like me saying "I watched government agents killing someone... I didn't bother videoing it though, I just took a photo of a man holding a gun, but you have to believe me!"

I provided what I saw. No markings on those planes. I provided first hand experience. YOU prove to me that those are normal planes. YOU prove that my family and other people are not getting sick from what is being sprayed. YOU come up here and stay awhile in the country, observe and talk to the people that live here and you'll get an earful that this is not normal. The burden is on you. Have a nice day.

Provide me with a place to sleep and some food for a couple of days, and I will be there at an agreed time...I want to see this planes that fly back and forth and make these trails...and I will post my findings right here on ATS.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

You mentioned the lack of humidity. That's at ground level. At altitude there's plenty of humidity, or there wouldn't be persistent trails.

ram
In absolute terms that is simply not true. At sea level and 40 degrees C, the saturation point of air is 47 grams of water vapor per kg of air. At 41,000 feet and -40 C, it is 1 gram/kg. There is almost no ambient water vapor present at contrail making altitude, but it doesn't take much to hit saturation, and sublimation to ice crystals. And a passenger jet is an ice making machine. A 747 carries 400,000 pounds of jet fuel, which is C12H26, so 15% of the molecular mass, or 60,000 pounds, is hydrogen, which combines with the oxygen in the air to make 540,000 pounds of H2O. That can saturate 540 million pounds of air, which is why you can see horizon to horizon contrails.That is roughly a 600 mile long segment of sky if the aircraft is at 41,000 feet. Whatever moisture is ambient does help the persistence. People get in trouble with humidity as a concept because of the propensity of weathermen to limit their discussion of it to relative humidity. But they never discuss what 85% relative humidity means in terms of how much moisture really is in the air. Or why you get dry skin in the winter but not in the summer.

a reply to: F4guy

You raise a very good point that a lot of people don't appreciate.

At airliner altitude, you don't need much extra moisture at all in order to create condensation. The air up there simply cannot hold much moisture, so it will readily reach saturation point and condense out.

a reply to: F4guy

I'm not comparing it to ground level humidity, but if there wasn't plenty of humidity at altitude, then there wouldn't be persistent contrails, now would there?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

I'm not comparing it to ground level humidity, but if there wasn't plenty of humidity at altitude, then there wouldn't be persistent contrails, now would there?

The important point is the ratio of moisture to the capacity of the air to hold it in vapour form.

That capacity is strongly temperature dependent: www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

So you really don't need very much moisture at altitude to create condensation trails. Certainly nothing like the amount of moisture there is at ground level.

a reply to: Rob48

Of course not, but without enough, no contrails, so my point is still valid.

a reply to: totallackey

And here, after long last, even through previous posts denying the taking of any sides, we have an ATS mod admitting which side of the fence he/she is on in the subject of unicorns. Denying ignorance my ass...

Okay, something needs to be made clear and 100% here. ATS doesn't necessarily work like every other site on the internet where Staff are concerned. Where any of us post casually as participating members within a thread? We are, for all purposes, and for the rest of that thread, ONLY members. No Mod'ing where we participate and that is iron clad.

It's how we maintain the enjoyment of being participating members without the inherent conflicts that would come by mixing the two hats.

That means, you're not disagreeing with an ATS Moderator. You are disagreeing with Wrabbit the member. Nothing more, nothing less and disagree we certainly do. It's with respect on my part, but certainly agreement to disagree.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

There are no rules on ATS (for the most part) about what opinions a person can express. The rules are more about how those opinions are expressed.

Therefore, I have no problem with a Mod having an opinion. That mod can still do his job and police how people express their opinions (making sure they fall within the T&C), but the actual opinions ATS members have do not really need to be moderated, so a moderator is free to voice an opinion himself/herself.

I don't necessarily agree with Wrabbit's opinion on chemtrails, but that opinion doesn't prevent him from effectively moderating. On the other hand, my opinions of chemtrails falls more in line with another moderator -- Zaphod58.

...And Zaphod's opinion that what some people call 'chemtrails' are really just contrails also does not prevent him from being an effective moderator, either.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

And yet, I've watched birds turn at slower speeds and get into trouble just as I mentioned.

Maneuvering at slow speeds is asking for trouble.

The efficacy of that statement depends on a number of factors, the most important of which is wing loading, which is simply the apparent weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. At 60 degrees bank, the apparent weight doubles. It also depends on the Reynolds Number of the airfoil, a dimensionless number reflecting the ratio of the inertial forces of the fluid (air) to the viscous forces. For anyone interested in fluid dynamics, the formula is Re = (r * V * dV/dx) / (mu * d^2V/dx^2). Since mu depends on boundary layer characteristics, the availability of boundary layer energizing devices such as the stall fences on various Learjet models and the Boundary Layer Control system on the F-4 is a factor. All of this led to the ACM commandment for the F-4 Phantom II to never get into a closs-in turning dogfight with a Mig. Go vertical. The NACA 6716 root airfoil tapered to a NACA 6713 tip is well suited to lower speed maneuvering. The straight wing (as opposed to swept) helps, too.

a reply to: F4guy

Of course different factors will come into play, but you still don't want to play around near your stall speed cranking around in hard turns like that.