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

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Aisling

The thing is, I'm in ranch land. It's nothing but cattle for as the eye can see. Funny, but for a week solid they focused RIGHT over those ranches. It makes you wonder.

Just wondering, but is there a law that says planes cannot fly over ranches in the middle of nowhere?

Interesting but I think planes are flying over you daily whether you see them or not.

Did I say it was against the law? I said it's not normal to see this in our area, and that I have not, in the 15 years I have lived here. Did you read my post? I said, I'm outside all of the time, year around. By nature, I'm a very observant person in my environment. I never participate in chem trail threads on ATS until now.... why? Because I've never seen this before.

Time to make brunch. Enjoy your day!

originally posted by: JonButtonIII

If you doubt that, just go check out the skies in a country where its government isn't deliberately attempting to slaughter/poison/experiment on its people.

I call TOTAL BS on that.

I have been to over 50 countries. I have seen persistent contrails all over the world, from Fiji to Zimbabwe.

Quite often I have contrails over my house. Today, as I posted photographic evidence in this thread, the conditions aren't right and there are none, despite the fact that at any one time I can usually see three or four planes from my house, sometimes far more.

By the way, regarding Peru, sorry but the "chemtrails" are there too. I saw it on YouTube.

originally posted by: Rob48

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.

Does it not occur to you that the way to get heard is to gather some evidence?

Science requires evidence. If you could go to the newspapers with proof that air in your town had chemicals X, Y and Z in it then you can bet your life it would be all over the media. Nothing hits the headlines like a good public health scare!

I just don't understand why you would choose to "suffer in silence" apart from the odd unsubstantiated gripe.

Do you not care about your health, and the health of your family, enough to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? I certainly would.

Are you able to read? I'm just asking because... I stated that this JUST started happening. There has not been time to collect a bunch of anything. I stated that I've BEEN to a doctor. Seriously, please, take time to read before you repeat yourself. It will help you tremendously. Read the posts thoroughly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I actually accomplished seeing an unmarked airplane with a beat up old telescope back in 2006. Amazing what determination can accomplish.

a reply to: Witness2008

There are an extremely small number of military planes (4-5) that only have a small registration number on them, on the fuselage where it's hard to see, for travelling to countries that are less than friendly. But all civilian aircraft have markings on them, and almost all military aircraft do.

a reply to: Aisling

Great. I look forward to seeing your evidence.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That one unmarked aircraft may have been just one of many unmarked that I was witnessing that day.

I do find it highly unlikely that I managed to see the one very rare military aircraft amongst the sea of polluting air craft that afternoon.

Aisling obviously lives under skies that are less traveled given what has been seen during fifteen years. Then one day the skies are filled with pollutants. I think that those of us that are concerned with heavy persistent man made clouds were inducted into this controversy in the same manner.....observations and gut instinct, that, by the way, has been substantiated with "official" documentation and inquiry.

a reply to: Witness2008

Funny. If I suddenly saw lots of new aircraft flying over my house, I would check the radar sites to see what they were.

Apparently chemtrailers aren't interested in doing that. Why not? Suspicion apparently trumps curiosity.

a reply to: Witness2008

I don't, depending on where you live. They used to come through Hawaii all the time heading to Asia. They go to Asia and the Middle East a lot. There were times when one of them was through every few weeks.

As for Aisling, skies there are THOUGHT to be less traveled. There are no real "less traveled" areas over the continental US. Counting general aviation, there are over 80,000 fights a day over the US alone. The average is 5,000 an hour at peak times. That means that you might not see them going over all the time, but they're there. And with more of them using the new engines, that leave contrails where others didn't, you're going to be seeing them more.

a reply to: JonButtonIII

The skies were never checkerboarded like they are in the US and parts of Europe, the clouds were always 100% normal, and the CONtrails always dispersed immediately.

In fact that is wrong and there is no evidence that shows otherwise, in fact they can last up to a day depending on the conditions in the atmosphere.

If conditions are right, newly formed contrails will begin feeding off surrounding water vapor. Like vaporous cancers, they start growing and spreading. In time, they can expand horizontally to such an extent that they become indistinguishable from cirrus clouds, those thin, diaphanous sheets often seen way up high. These artificial cirrus clouds can last for many hours, and the amount of sky they end up covering can be astonishing. One study showed that contrails from just six aircraft expanded to shroud some 7,700 square miles.

www.pbs.org...

If you are attentive to contrail formation and duration, you will notice that they can rapidly dissipate or spread horizontally into an extensive thin cirrus layer. How long a contrail remains intact depends on the humidity structure and winds of the upper troposphere. If the atmosphere is near saturation the contrail may exist for some time. On the other hand, if the atmosphere is dry then as the contrail mixes with the environment it dissipates. Contrails are a concern in climate studies as increased jet aircraft traffic may result in an increase in cloud cover

cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...

Maybe you can show the evidence that contrails have to disperse immediately or it is a chemtrail, because as you can see that is far from the truth.

So the checkerboard pattern is evidence chemtrails are being sprayed and not normal air traffic intersecting other plane traffic...You know when a plane flies N/S/E/W they will intersect at some point.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Of course those markings can be in the form of Black letters on a dark green paint job...or white on a shiny silver finish. It's legal! They have markings! Of course...you need to be nearly standing still on the tarmac next to them to read some...but the book apparently doesn't tag them on that little dash of creative application.

----"What astonishes me is that when ever the subject of chem/contrails comes up; you get the same debunkers insulting the members of ATS that have a different opinion. That in and of itself points to some kind of conspiracy. Are they working in concert with one another, do they have some sort of debunking network focused on chemtrails?

Why the passion and vitriol? Who really cares what people believe? I doubt if any minds will be changed by insults or arrogance."-----

It's because it's sort of like if someone were to "believe" that a crescent moon is God's thumbnail. It's not, and we know what it is, it's the moon partly shadowed by it's position relative to us, and no amount of someone "believing" something else about it will change it.
If one "knows" something to be true, (in a verifiable way), it's not a belief, it's a fact. a reply to: olaru12

I agree with your sentence stating minds won't be changed with insults and arrogance, though. That is very true. And I admit, the ones who "believe" in chemtrails are not usually the ones who engage in insults and arrogance, unless it's insults to intelligence and arrogance in their contentedness to ascribe to "govt spraying programs" what is actually a collection of unconnected phenomena, some real and some probably imagined as well.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

The only requirement for visibility is that they have to be of a color that clearly contrasts with the background color. The width has to be 2/3rds that of the height, and they have to be separated by 1/4 of the character width. There is no requirement that they be visible from six miles below the aircraft, or even that they be visible from 100 feet.

The military falls under separate rules, even though they follow ICAO/FAA rules generally.

a reply to: Aisling

I never participate in chem trail threads on ATS until now.... why? Because I've never seen this before.

And yet you jump to the conclusion that they must be chemtrails, why is that?

a reply to: Rob48

You're kinda new here, and may want to consider that some of the members here, certainly in the Geo-engineering threads are savvy enough to satisfy their own curiosity. 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.

Members that are posting their observations or concerns hardly deserve the label of "village idiot".

If you are interested in some of the proof that members have posted here concerning their observations and investigations, the ATS search option can be a splendid tool.

a reply to: Witness2008

There are a lot more aircraft showing up now, including military aircraft, as the transponder switchover is expanding. In the early days there were a lot that didn't show up, because only the newer planes had the right transponder, or there weren't many receivers.

Actually the ATS search function is a crappy tool, using site:abovetopsecret.com chemtrail proof is a better way to search. a reply to: Witness2008
Though I'm not gong to wade into that. Perhaps you could find the best couple of threads and post the links?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Indeed... The military and I'd imagine, 3 letter agencies by creative extensions, do enjoy quite a bit of latitude where that can come in.

I was just flipping through random google images and can't help but laugh a bit at just how creative that gets. Some I've seen on flat bed trucks in transit would have been interesting to make out from 25 yards, let alone in flight. Then again, I can see the reasons for it, depending on where some of those aircraft were eventually destined for.

Anyway.. I suppose when the markings are such that a reasonable person can't see there ARE markings to read from a fair distance ..it's effectively become an unmarked aircraft within the lines and rules of the book.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

How do we know they weren't? Personally, I take the member's word for direct personal observation over the opinion of folks who guess as an afterthought based on presumption.

Really?

Because knowing what those are would be based on science and the evidence that they provide are done by scientists and not just by somebody looking up and saying those are chemtrails without having evidence to back the claim.

I grew up under the runway pathway of LAX. You know, where you automatically stop talking when the plane is overhead, then automatically resume where you left off -- without even thinking about it.

I am not ignorant of contrails. But, I know what I saw. I saw 2 planes working together to make a grid. I could clearly see them both making the loop turn to come back across the grid.

Let's hear your explanation of what they were doing.

a reply to: kkrattiger

It's been a while since I used it, with all the new changes around here I will take your word for it, and try it out as I dig up the more informative threads for you.