Chemtrail pushers/believers: you should be ashamed of yourselves

I know i'm new and all, but to deny the fact that weather manipulation isn't a reality is just plain ole silly. There's lots of proof out there. And you know, proof works both ways; and can be argued from both sides of the fence. Just keep in mind, after all is said and done, it's the haves vs. the have nots. If you're not in the haves posse, then you're in the have not crew. If you're in the have not crew and are protecting the agenda, then, shame on you!

a reply to: McChillin

There's lots of proof out there.

Care to share some of this proof you say is out there, because it has yet to be shown.

If you're in the have not crew and are protecting the agenda, then, shame on you!

And exactly what agenda would that be?

originally posted by: McChillin
I know i'm new and all, but to deny the fact that weather manipulation isn't a reality is just plain ole silly.

Indeed - aFAIK no-one actually says that at all, so I guess yo and I are on hte same page on that.

There's lots of proof out there.

I think the word "evidence" is better than "proof" because.....

And you know, proof works both ways; and can be argued from both sides of the fence.

...that's a completely meaningless statement.

Proof does not work both ways - it only works one way - to "prove" whatever is being proved.

Just keep in mind, after all is said and done, it's the haves vs. the have nots. If you're not in the haves posse, then you're in the have not crew. If you're in the have not crew and are protecting the agenda, then, shame on you!

Well there's certainly "have verifiable evidence's" and "have no verifiable evidence's" - and for sure the "have no verifiable evidence's" are protecting the agenda of he scaremongering chetrail myth pushers - which I guess makes you a debunker.

But really it's just easier to point out that there's not one skerrick of credible evidence rather than resorting to somewhat vague allusions to make that point.

originally posted by: McChillin
I know i'm new and all, but to deny the fact that weather manipulation isn't a reality is just plain ole silly.

Welcome, and you're right, it would be silly. That's why you don't see anyone doing that. Cloud seeding is well documented and quite open, but unfortunately much misunderstood on these boards.

There's lots of proof out there. And you know, proof works both ways; and can be argued from both sides of the fence.

You can only prove one side of an argument is correct, that's why it's called proof. Well, in terms of weather modification, nobody is denying it at all. As for contrails being chemtrails (the actual argument), then no evidence has been presented at all in favour of this argument. Just a lot of blowhards saying "these are chemtrails!" With nothing to back it up. Like cloud seeding, contrails are well documented but evidently also much misunderstood. There is, however, lots of proof available that contrails have been studied, researched and understood for decades. If only the chemtrail believers would read and understand it.

Just keep in mind, after all is said and done, it's the haves vs. the have nots. If you're not in the haves posse, then you're in the have not crew. If you're in the have not crew and are protecting the agenda, then, shame on you!

So, rather than discussion, are you going for the shill card straightaway? Oh dear.

I understand i'm new here, but i'm not new to the topic. And, truth be told, i really don't feel like giving you the facts, proof, evidence or debating chemtrails because you aren't seeking truth. It's apparent. I'd rather believe in something THEY say doesn't exist, as compared to not believing in something that does exist.

Let me add this: we still can't even get on the same page regarding 9-11. What makes you think we're gonna agree on chemtrails? You probably still believe the government's "official version", even when a 3rd building magically disappeared.

a reply to: McChillin

I understand i'm new here, but i'm not new to the topic. And, truth be told, i really don't feel like giving you the facts, proof, evidence or debating chemtrails because you aren't seeking truth.

Buh bye then.

You aren't capable of spittin' proof.

a reply to: McChillin

Oh right,you just want to say chemtrails are real and for everyone to just accept it. Awkward questions are a bitch, aren't they?

originally posted by: McChillin
Let me add this: we still can't even get on the same page regarding 9-11. What makes you think we're gonna agree on chemtrails? You probably still believe the government's "official version", even when a 3rd building magically disappeared.

Are all conspiracies the same? If you prove 1 wrong, then they are all garbage?

Welcome to ATS. I am sure you will enjoy yourself here.

Chemtrails are misidentified contrails. Contrails are man made clouds that come from airplanes.

Geo-engineering is a real topic, but so far, has not been proven to be actively going on.

Cloud seeding is localized weather modification. It's not secret.

Now, knowing all that is the position of some folks here, where do you fall with all that?

originally posted by: McChillin
I understand i'm new here, but i'm not new to the topic. And, truth be told, i really don't feel like giving you the facts, proof, evidence or debating chemtrails because you aren't seeking truth. It's apparent. I'd rather believe in something THEY say doesn't exist, as compared to not believing in something that does exist.

If you had PROOF then there would not b a debate at all.

But you do not - what you have is EVIDENCE....and IMO the real reason you don't want to provide your evidence is that you know it is rubbish.

There has not been a single piece of evidence for chemtrails, ever, that has been able to withstand anything more than cursory examination - despite protestations to the contrary.

The whole myth is built on, at best, misunderstanding, But more and more clearly it is obvious that a lot is self delusion and willful ignorance, as well as outright lies.

I noticed i got a bit insulted reading the OP. Then i lolled.

But the truth is, there are surely lots of people doing just that, their own badly centralized investigation.

I like to watch nature; originally learned from chemtrails after noticing trails here locally in 2008-2009 in numbers.

For one, i took some 16 gb of photos in range of couple years locally, got some awesome photos too, in general. The cost of this photo-op was somewhere in 4000 € with good tele-lens, accessories and camera (6 years ago). I enjoyed my time.

Also, I made plans, and got some of the gear, for taking my own samples from air and "trails" with R/C plane. 3 years ago i got the plane(s), first i learned to fly them, broke 3 but now i'm OK pilot, then learned some electronic basics, arduinos, autopiloting-stuff, embedded HWs, it all went multiple directions as you can assume. I even got DIY-radiation-meter-kit for installing it onboard to my remote controlled, autopiloted internet-enabled solar-powered pesky chemtrail catchin' UAV.. Just for kicks. LOL

So its safe to say i've tried to have my mind made up regarding chemtrails and had fun doing it.

Prototyping costs time, energy and money. I cut my funding, because i have no interest using my time pursuing the answer anymore. I won't say that it's all made up, all BS. Whole idea "chemtrails" is multifaceted. I wonder why that is.. In reality, i think the answer is more simple.

Also i would note that the phenomenon called chemtrails, would not NEED to be massive operation. And it can be anything.

Theres also problems in own investigations. For example, i would violate multiple laws if i would try to take those samples with that plane, so that's a no-no.

Can't say i'm a believer, nor denier. Answer will come, that i'm sure of.

EDIT: should've add this earlier: it's apparent word chemtrail means different things to participants in discussion of topic. Every time, every where. Can't deny.

a reply to: menneni

you have an RC plane that flies at 20,000 feet? That is pretty sweet. I'd like to know the specs on that.

a reply to: network dude

Dude, chill. No reason to be so serious.

Whole post was meant to be funny. Failed on that.

I tried funnily to answer the OP, about the whiny "why don't you do something", just that there are people doing "something" when they are motivated, and tried to describe my something funnily.

And well my plans (last plans) for flying in 20,000 feet was sort of hybrid with airplane/weather balloon. Sort of controllable, gliding-weather balloon with controllable valve/total release for landing process. I thought of inflatable wings and hull too, with helium or other light gas.

I would gladly share everything, i mean EVERYTHING with you that i discovered for myself, and show off with all my prototypes like hulls, wings, camera hw, some softwares, failed electronic boards, etc. Theres a ton of it. I'm not lying when i'm saying all that jazz with "R/C plane idea" cost me easily 3000-4000 euros, thats like $5k. The tools i got during, more $$$. And sometimes i think i'm poor, now looking back i'm thinking that i'm crazy, hehe

But the truth is, Network Dude, while i like you and your posts in general, i have a strong feeling you're not really interested, and somewhat you must be thinking how i'm the looney-tunes guy.

While i think i'm just learning, and i'll say it again, i had fun doing it. And now when the adventure is over, i have gained skills and become familiar with things before unfamiliar. Lots of new areas of interest to venture to. You cant say thats bad, or stupid, can you?

And no, i don't think i tried to invent anything. Just used the information freely available in www. And just for the sake of it, remember people, prototyping costs money. time. energy.

a reply to: menneni

Well, I actually am very interested. Having an interest in this subject and hearing someone make a claim they can get a mid air sample sounds amazing. That is the one thing I could believe in as far as proof. But I have never heard of a radio controlled plane (other than a military drone) that could go that high.

a reply to: menneni

I wouldn't bother with inflatable wings or fuselages. Anything that is lighter than air will behave no differently to what a ballon (or airship if powered) would do anyway so you'd be unnecessarily adding complexity, weight and cost for no gain. To get high you'll just need a light, rigid structure with high aspect ratio to get the most efficient L/D ratio possible. As for power and controllability, I'm stumped at that height, though I would speculate you may want to consider comparing up to four small, lightweight electric motors with broad bladed props for efficiency at height versus a single, larger more powerful motor to see which would give you the most thrust in the rarefied air at altitude versus weight penalty and complexity.

Anyway, fascinating to speculate. Good luck, I hope this works out.

a reply to: network dude

Ok, nice to hear you are not just sarcastic, thats hard to differ sometimes. My bad.

When i first got into this, i was inspired by YT-videos of R/C planes flying high altitudes. Check those out and you'll understand instantly my aspirations.

And to be specific, i don't claim i can get mid air samples. I just have had few ideas to get them, actually thats the first thing popped my head many years ago, and the urge hasn't gone away.

I believe i can get those samples.

And i would be ready to bet for my success, as i cannot simulate in my mind why i could not get my gear to fly controlled, in < 30000 feet, through contrails. Main problems i have today is mainly legal ones, and secondary i'm short of money and time. On top of what i have, i'd need some 1000 € or more to get more stuff.

Legal ones include: Its illegal. Workaround would be to include the type of transponder to UAV that commercial planes have. Then i would need a HAM licence + power gear to ease the burden on transmit power for radio-control (backup control). You cant just do it in legal frames.

How long the electronics (motor, boards) will work under those conditions at 20000+ feet, i'm not certain yet, tests needed. To overcome thin air which translates to temperature problems, just suitable motor would be selected with care, i think.

What is possible, and doable in diy-style is:

internet-enabled control with low-res video feed. Should work in 5-6 km altitude. I have this part working sweet, though max altitude is not tested.
solar-powered with battery backup, small or big, depends. I need this, not required tho.
More lift with lighter gases and/or shaped "airballoons", tested some, controlling seemed hard. Ultimately best and cheapest way to get some altitude. Gas (helium or hydrogen) control with release valve, or eject+glide as a flightmode after takeoff.

There are lots of options getting samples from air by yourself, how i see it, it just needs the will to make it. Sounds stupid but.. Really doable. Like hillbilly-doable, because i think i'm one, lol. Downside is, you need to break the law.

What amazes me, is how come folks are not centralized enough to do things like this in groups? I'd love to share this type of things with likeminded people, outside this computer screen. There just isn't anyone around here. Thank god for interwebs.

Sorry for jumpy and minimal post, challenging to write english with my limited vocabulary while being excited.

a reply to: waynos

Good tips, thanks. I was thinking likewise at one time. The reason i went to think about the lighter-than-air gasses, because weight is so, so critical in small aircrafts. And i figured that manufacturing a big hull from carbon and ultrathin cover inflated with hydrogen or helium wouldn't be too hard. But.. i guess you'll right. It's hard to make the big sheeted frame ridig enough to hold gas. So easy to fail, and it costs dearly every time.

So maybe a motorglider with 4-5 meters wingspan, thin solar panels sheets embedded-in-frame with 2 motors with extremely low RPM/V and 4-bladed biggest possible props with low curve would be best choice to get some air.

Fascinating to speculate indeed!

a reply to: McChillin

. And, truth be told, i really don't feel like giving you the facts, proof, evidence or debating chemtrails because you aren't seeking truth.

And that would be why we are asking to see your proof, but since you don't want to provide that then you aren't really wanting to back your truth claims are you?

THEY say doesn't exist, as compared to not believing in something that does exist.

Well until someone can provide the proof they do exist...they don't?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: menneni

Well, I actually am very interested. Having an interest in this subject and hearing someone make a claim they can get a mid air sample sounds amazing. That is the one thing I could believe in as far as proof. But I have never heard of a radio controlled plane (other than a military drone) that could go that high.

So, you're telling us, you can't believe the other side of the scientific community, that has done extensive research and has plenty of data to back up their findings? So basically, when you seek truth, you only seek for a one-sided coin??? Unless, of course, you tell me that qualified scientists, who agree with the chemtrail community aren't relevant to this discussion.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: McChillin

. And, truth be told, i really don't feel like giving you the facts, proof, evidence or debating chemtrails because you aren't seeking truth.

And that would be why we are asking to see your proof, but since you don't want to provide that then you aren't really wanting to back your truth claims are you?

THEY say doesn't exist, as compared to not believing in something that does exist.

Well until someone can provide the proof they do exist...they don't?

I think, perhaps, you also should look at the other side of the coin. Who needs proof, when it's all in your face??? You can't be that far in denial, to deny the obvious, unless, you're literally blind.