Chemtrails V.S. Contrails

originally posted by: luxordelphi
Actually, the OP video shows (2) two chemtrails. Contrails are all chemtrails. Chemtrailing with water vapor and carbon dioxide is very bad for the atmosphere and makes a major contribution to global warming. It doesn't really matter if the chemtrail persists or not as far as ill effects go.

Ah - the old desperate attempt to widen the definition of chemtrails to include stuff that does actually exist.

Whatever happened to the good old days when chemtrails were an illicit and secret programme to kill us, control the weather, hide nibiru, or whatever, and not just normal engine exhaust?

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker

originally posted by: ZeroReady
It's more likely that an altitude difference of 100s or possibly 1,000s of feet produced different contrails between the two planes. Weather varies a great deal at higher altitudes. Temperature, humidity, and wind speed can shift a great deal at different altitudes.

Well I can't say for certain what height they were at, but I've seen them spraying before and they appear to be no higher/lower than a regular commercial airliner.

That statement is pretty meaningless as "regular commercial airliners" don't all fly at the same height. They can be separated vertically by thousands of feet.

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Gh0stwalker
If they are real, they they are the single most hidden secret, yet most openly displayed conspiracy in the history of Earth.

Warmer, Sparky! Yer' gettin' warmer!

I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting this... It's not a secret. The Obama administration openly admits to it under the guise of "Geoengineering". As if dumping aluminum, barium, etc. will counteract "global warming"... Give me a break.

So.......I am guessing you may have been mistaken here? It's OK. Lots of folks get misled by the chemtrail crowd. If you are told some fantastic story, it's usually best to verify if that "fantastic story" may be a bit too fantastic.

I find it quite ironic how so many skeptics and debunkers inhabit the top conspiracy discussion website...

It's clear you're all firm in your beliefs, and I won't try and convince you otherwise. After all, my only intention was to inform and spread awareness. Though according to you my observations have no basis in fact.

Then tell me, is this guy pulling his information out of a hat?:

A Review of the "Case Orange" Report

a reply to: Gh0stwalker
Why the backpedaling? I thought Obama made it common knowledge? Just show us that link and you will be a hero. Or.....you could admit you don't have a link and perhaps you were fooled.

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
I find it quite ironic how so many skeptics and debunkers inhabit the top conspiracy discussion website...

Well, one of this website's mission statements is to "Deny Ignorance", and skepticism is required to deny ignorance.

Skepticism simply means "Not blindly believing in something just because someone else believes in it (or says they believe it)"

Or it means "Not blindly believing in something without first attempting to confirm it through knowledge, understanding, logic, and critical thinking."

An idea that is thrown out there that cannot be confirmed through knowledge and critical thinking is simply speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation, but there are too many people who confuse speculative ideas with "The Truth". Granted, speculation could someday lead to learning truths; some of our creates advancements in understanding the natural world first came about due to speculation.

However, denying ignorance means being skeptical enough to know that speculation is not necessarily The Truth.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I wonder, how would all these folks who are against debunkers deal with a pie tin suspended by fishing line? Call it the best proof of UFO's ever? Or use that head for more than a great place to hold your hat?

originally posted by: network dude
Why the backpedaling? I thought Obama made it common knowledge? Just show us that link and you will be a hero. Or.....you could admit you don't have a link and perhaps you were fooled.

I see you've disregarded the link I've posted above to nitpick a technicality. Good form.

Unfortunately the only acknowledgment on Obama's part that I can find in regards to geoengineering are his speeches addressing global warming. It appears I was mistaken.

You may proceed in stroking your ego.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Well, one of this website's mission statements is to "Deny Ignorance", and skepticism is required to deny ignorance.

Skepticism simply means "Not blindly believing in something just because someone else believes in it (or says they believe it)"

Or it means "Not blindly believing in something without first attempting to confirm it through knowledge, understanding, logic, and critical thinking."

An idea that is thrown out there that cannot be confirmed through knowledge and critical thinking is simply speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation, but there are too many people who confuse speculative ideas with "The Truth". Granted, speculation could someday lead to learning truths; some of our creates advancements in understanding the natural world first came about due to speculation.

However, denying ignorance means being skeptical enough to know that speculation is not necessarily The Truth.

And I have no issue with skepticism. I exercise it regularly.

However, healthy skepticism would be a more logical approach. Simply denying something because a few respected members of the scientific community say you should, isn't skepticism. It's ignorance. There was a time when the scientific community shunned anyone who claimed the earth wasn't flat...

I don't think anyone can deny the fact that the U.S. government has manipulated/exploited the population numerous times in the past, and still do to this day. Programs like MK-Ultra and the NSA's collection of personal data. Would it not be safe to assume they pursue such endeavours by more nefarious methods?

The controversy with chemtrails is that there is no official data to prove their existence. If you were a governing elite who was systematically spraying their citizens with toxic chemicals, would you not focus the majority of your efforts on keeping it a secret? Rather than outright denying accusations, a more effective method would be to seed various media outlets with disinformation, so that any accuracy that is revealed would be lost in the chaos. As a result, anyone who questions the official narrative could easily be painted into a corner as a "conspiracy nut" by the masses. Thus, discouraging others from entertaining such thoughts.

As far as I can tell, as with most things of this nature, a skeptics only real argument against chemtrails is that there is no evidence to support them. The only surefire way to prove their existence would be to investigate the aircrafts and contrails in question. A daunting task no scientist of influence would likely endure. Not to mention the fact that any aircraft that had the capability of producing chemtrails would most certainly be of military design, which would make an outsider investigation nearly impossible.

So it appears to me that the chemtrail conspiracy is an univestagateable phenomenon. To which the only convenient response is to ignore/deny. Which is precisely why I will not.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

The only surefire way to prove their existence would be to investigate the aircrafts and contrails in question. A daunting task no scientist of influence would likely endure. Not to mention the fact that any aircraft that had the capability of producing chemtrails would most certainly be of military design, which would make an outsider investigation nearly impossible.

Well then you may want to look at this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wait..then why is it commercial aircraft that people see and say are spraying chemtrails?

So now for it to be military planes spraying chemtrails then where are all the planes coming from, and where are they getting this chemtrail cocktail from?

So it appears to me that the chemtrail conspiracy is an univestagateable phenomenon. To which the only convenient response is to ignore/deny. Which is precisely why I will not.

And it has been investigated how do you think we know they aren't real?

You see if any chemtrail pusher out there ever did real research into chemtrails they would be sorely dissappointed in what they find, which is precisely why they haven't done it.

I will leave you with a couple of videos that are from two of the big chemtrail pushers out there...Rosalind Peterson, and Michael Murphy.

First ROsalind...she has finally understood that chemtrails do not exist after 10 years of research...btw she was one of the biggest pushers of chemtrails at one time.



Now Michael Murphy...Btw he made the videos What in the world are they spraying.



Persistent contrails are what you and others like to call chemtrails...well Michael Murphy did to at one time.

And I have to ask why hasn't any chemtrail pusher has never been able to scientifically verify that chemtrails exist after close to twenty years of this so called conspiracy?

Because there are ways to do it.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

This'll be fun.


First of all, providing a link to a company that manufactures airplanes that can take air samples is of no use to anyone on this forum. It's like providing a link to NASA and saying "here, now all you have to do is figure out how to get to the moon". No middle class netsurfer has the time or money to achieve either of these within any reasonable time frame.

Second, I did not say they would be military aircraft. I said they would be of military design. People are, like you said, seeing commercial aircraft spraying chemtrails. Whether they're commercial aircraft retrofitted for chemical dispersal, or they're military craft redeco'd to appear as a commercial airliner, they're still of military design. As to where they get their planes and chemicals... Use your imagination.

I have no idea how you think they're not real. Please tell me the results of the samples taken from the chemtrails. Please provide the evidence obtained by investigations of the aircraft's (interior examinations, exterior examinations, pilot interviews, etc...). I'll be eagerly waiting.


I'm a little confused here... Are you sure you're talking about the same videos?

Rosalind does not contradict her beliefs regarding chemtrails. She does however, (like I've already established...) admit that she has no physical proof. She is still firm in her beliefs that they do exist. Much like how many people were firm in their beliefs that there's water on Mars. Hey what do ya' know! We found water on mars! (albeit, frozen...)

I'm not sure what your point is with the Michael Murphy video either... Yes, he does confirm that persistent contrails do exist, and I don't think anyone would debate that. Though that still does not detract from the fact that chemtrails, like persistent contrails, do exist.

And I have to ask why hasn't any chemtrail pusher has never been able to scientifically verify that chemtrails exist after close to twenty years of this so called conspiracy?

Because there are ways to do it.

I will attempt an intelligent response to this query despite the obvious grammatical error and pseudo-contradictory answer to your own question...

I'm not pushing anything. I made this thread to present my observations to the ATS community. Clearly you and many others observe it differently, and that's okay. I don't care what you believe, I just want you to know what I believe.

It's been well established the difficulty in obtaining scientific evidence of chemtrails beyond the scope of observation, though I'm well aware there are "ways to do it". You give me a plane with the proper tools for collecting samples, lessons on how to pilot the thing and I'll be the first one to volunteer. If upon examination of multiple samples, it is discovered that they really are just trails of condensation, I will also be the first to admit I was wrong. I'd like to be wrong...

But...

If it's discovered that they are in fact trails of chemicals/toxic substances, what then? Who would we confront? The government? Unless you can walk into the cabin of the planes and verify the pilots identities , they would simply invoke plausible deniability.

"We have no idea who's spraying the stuff! Though we will look into it"

Or the classic:

"Oops, we didn't even know... Sorry about that."


Or would the next step be to fly as close as you can to the Chemspewers as possible and take a peek in the window?


We'll never know until someone goes up there and checks. It will probably have to be a well respected scientist. Anyone else would have no credibility... Hell, send Neil deGrasse Tyson up there. I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it!


...and a fat paycheck for the impending television show...



On a final note, I'd like to point out the curious fact that upon searching google images for both contrails and chemtrails, they produce nearly identical results. None of which appear to be the same as the trail in my video, or many others like it. I should have taken a video of it 2-3 hours later. It was still there blanketing the sky...

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker

originally posted by: network dude
Why the backpedaling? I thought Obama made it common knowledge? Just show us that link and you will be a hero. Or.....you could admit you don't have a link and perhaps you were fooled.

I see you've disregarded the link I've posted above to nitpick a technicality. Good form.

Unfortunately the only acknowledgment on Obama's part that I can find in regards to geoengineering are his speeches addressing global warming. It appears I was mistaken.

You may proceed in stroking your ego.

You posted a link about case orange cloud seeding. I want to see where Obama gave the green light to geo-engineering. You did say that. So prove it. And you may want to read your link so you can better understand what it says. This is about facts, not egos. If you have facts that say we are actively geo-engineering, everyone needs to know and somebody had better be screaming pretty friggin loud.

And please figure out the difference between cloud seeding and chemtrails and geo-engineering. Cloud seeding isn't secret and has been going on locally for 80 years or more. Chemtrail are misidentified contrails, and geo-engineering is supposed to be in the planning stages and NOT actively going on.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

People are, like you said, seeing commercial aircraft spraying chemtrails.

And yet nobody has ever shown proof of this happening.

Now after seeing this...

I don't care what you believe, I just want you to know what I believe.

I guess there really isn't any reason to continue this discussion, as it doesn't matter because you don't want to hear anything from anyone else because you just want to push what you believe.

Well enjoy being scared of the clouds...and try Denying Ignorance sometime.

I'd have better luck breaking a down a brick wall with my head than reasoning with any of you.

You're right, there's no point continuing a one sided disscussion. You're all so disillusioned that you can't see the plot unfolding before your eyes. Clearly nothing will convince you short of those responsible coming out and admitting to it. It truly is the perfect deception. They don't even have to worry about covering their ass when they have people like you to inadvertently do it for them.

Yesterday, about two hours before sunset (which appears to be their regular sweep schedule, coincidentally the most difficult time to observe the sky with the naked eye.) I witnessed the most obvious and aggressive spraying to date. Multiple aircraft, flying much lower than passenger airliners flying back and forth systematically dumping their soup into the atmosphere, masked by contrails (you can make out two distinct sets of lines trailing behind. One of which dissipates quickly, the other spreads out and blankets the sky). They do this for about two hours then aren't seen again until the next spray schedule. I have video and photographic evidence, but clearly you're only going to see condensation trails.

There is nothing to debate in my mind. The lines have been drawn. Either you believe there is a global plot to suppress, subjugate and cull humanity or you don't. Both sides claim there is ample evidence proving their point. It's like everything else. Politics, science, religion, borders, language barriers, cultural differences, he said she said, I'm right, you're wrong. Everyone is so caught up in the scramble for their own justification, they can't see the true deception is to keep us all divided and at each others throats. I won't be a part of it.

You win. I lose. I'm wrong. You're right. Case closed.

This is the true nature of democracy. Press gang the opposition into silence. I see a bright future ahead...


Consider this my final post in this thread. You however, may continue to bash your head against the brick wall.


P.S., In response to network dude's Cloud Seeding comment, I live on the coast of eastern Canada. One of the highest areas of precipitation in the country. So it's safe to rule that out as a cause. As for the geoengineering comment by the Obama administration, all I can provide is the executive order which will no doubt be used as justification for the cause:

Executive Order 13514

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
I'd have better luck breaking a down a brick wall with my head than reasoning with any of you.

since here is no actual verifiable evidence you are willing to provide I have to say that your previous claim of "having no problem with skepticism" is a load of bollocks.

Reasoning requires reason - not assertion - it requires evidence, not belief.

Come back when you are capable of reasoning.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

Please tell me the results of the samples taken from the chemtrails. Please provide the evidence obtained by investigations of the aircraft's (interior examinations, exterior examinations, pilot interviews, etc...). I'll be eagerly waiting.

Well, exactly how does one get samples from something that doesn't exist?

And as for the rest of your post...what exactly are you talking about?

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
I'd have better luck breaking a down a brick wall with my head than reasoning with any of you.

Reasoning : the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

That's not what you did. You started a thread about con vs chemtrails and ending your OP with :

The evidence is irrefutable. If you still believe there is no difference after watching this, just go back to burying your head in the sand

Yet you provided no evidence of actual chemtrails - only videos of which NO ONE can see any chemicals being released by planes (by that I am referring to the context of this topic - geo-engineering, not the by product of using jet fuel).

Again, these threads where someone shows a video with no scientific, empirical data behind and then states, "Well, if you don't believe it then you're wrong".

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

Though that still does not detract from the fact that chemtrails, like persistent contrails, do exist.

Since you are claiming as "fact" that both persistent contrails and chemtrails exist........would you care to explain how you can tell the difference?

I've seen far too many of these threads and the dead horse has been beaten to a pulp by now but my thoughts are this..


1. I live near a major AFB and not far from a commercial airport, so I see both types of contrails regularly.
2. Chemicals would be more dense than water vapor and would very likely not even be ABLE to persist that long... think about chemical weights... you'd likely see a chemtrail disperse rather fast as the chemicals began to fall
3. I have never heard of credible evidence of chemicals in the atmosphere ( or ground ) in these phenomena
4. I have never heard of credible motivation for it... those behind the "spraying" breathe the same air, so do their friends and family... so it makes NO sense.
5. Contrails are an extremely well known phenomena and so far no proof at all in support of chemtrails aside from odd formed contrails.. which varies depending on atmospheric pressure, moisture content in the air, atmospheric temperature, wind speed at a given altitude and many other variables.. also largely depends on the craft that created them.

All of it is understood... this video isn't evidence of chemtrails..

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
[As far as I can tell, as with most things of this nature, a skeptics only real argument against chemtrails is that there is no evidence to support them. The only surefire way to prove their existence would be to investigate the aircrafts and contrails in question. A daunting task no scientist of influence would likely endure. Not to mention the fact that any aircraft that had the capability of producing chemtrails would most certainly be of military design, which would make an outsider investigation nearly impossible.

Some folk tested the contrail producing ability of a Boeing 707 and an A340 - neither of which were military designs AFAIK -



This study used contrails generated by a Sabreliner - which was a civilian aircraft that was also used by the military.

This study examined DC-8 and other commercial aircraft contrails I 1998.

I think this is just another example of you making stuff up.