2 very simple question for chemtrail believers...

originally posted by: payt69

So do you believe that the white lines generally referred to as contrails are anything other than that?

See, that's what the whole chemtrail thing used to be about: those scary white lines that they think didn't exist before the latter half of the 90s. But apparently goalposts have been shifting quite a bit, since even some chemmies (Not all of them yet) have come to realize that their former notions have become untenable. So now they're grasping at straws and try to redefine known phnomenae such as jet emissions and weather modification as 'chemtrails'.







Everything you have posted has already been addressed in my earlier posts. I'm sure someone will come along and pat you on the back with a star anyways.

And, Zaphod: The Op did in fact say that to have a large scale weather modification program in place would be logistically impossible. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what people think is being sprayed and how they go about it. (with the one plane covering the whole sky horizon to horizon and whatnot). That old adage about those who assume has never been more true.

originally posted by: Mumbotron
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Contrails are from normal plane traffic. Cloud seeding can be achieved through spraying silver iodide. There are private companies that are currently involved in this sort of stuff. Take a look at the link I gave a few posts back... you can do your own research on the various studies and projects that one company has been doing for the last 60 years. Given the fact that altering weather systems can have various geopolitical consequences, this tech has not been fully disclosed. I am saying silver iodide has been used to alter weather and seed clouds. I can't (nor can anybody) say what is in every one of those cloud seeding planes.

Absolutely none of which has anything to do with the argument that all those photos of contrails and all those claims of "look up" are pure delusion. Cloud seeding, or weather modification, IS well established and well known, even though even practitioners cannot say with 100% certainty that it works. It is slso not visible from the ground and doesn't leave long white trails in the sky, so introducing it as an element of this discussion is a complete red herring.

This is the delusion;

This not cloud seeding. This is air traffic on a humid day. The caption has nothing to support it other than the delusion of the person who made it.

The pattern was thus;

1-contrails can only persist for up to a minute, so trails that last longer or spread are chemtrails. The government is spraying you with chemtrails illegally right over your head!!!

2 - (tons of links and evidence that proves. That 1 is hokum) so why should we believe in chemtrails now?
3 - they are poisoning you, look at these photos of chem planes and their interiors, what more proof do you need?
4 - original sources revealed of those images and what they really are

5 - ok, then it's geoengineering, look at these scientists theorising about geoengineering and look at cloud seeding, that's real!

6 - yes it is. But chemtrails, as defined in point 1 and attempted to be justified with lies in point 3 are still bogus. There is no evidence that geoengineering is happening on the scale that chemtrail theory would require, if at all. Cloud seeding is known and understood and not at all a smoking gun for chemtrails.

7 - well, everything a plane leaves is a chemtrail because it contains chemicals!

8- and so is everything else on the planet so now you've made the word mean nothing at all.

Do you see the logical fallacy? This is basically where we're at and chemtrails are STILL bull#, just like they always were.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Operation Dew took place from 1951-1952 off the southeast coast of the United States, including near Georgia, and North and South Carolina.[1][2] Operation Dew consisted of two sets of trials, Dew I and Dew II.[2] The tests involved the release of 250 pounds (110 kg) of fluorescent particles from a minesweeper off the coast.[1] Operation Dew I was described in a U.S. Army report known as "Dugway Special Report 162", dated August 1, 1952.[2] The purpose of Operation Dew was to study the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents

.

link

Operation Dew was described in a U.S. Army report known as "Dugway Special Report 162", dated August 1, 1952

originally posted by: RobinB022
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Operation Dew took place from 1951-1952 off the southeast coast of the United States, including near Georgia, and North and South Carolina.[1][2] Operation Dew consisted of two sets of trials, Dew I and Dew II.[2] The tests involved the release of 250 pounds (110 kg) of fluorescent particles from a minesweeper off the coast.[1] Operation Dew I was described in a U.S. Army report known as "Dugway Special Report 162", dated August 1, 1952.[2] The purpose of Operation Dew was to study the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents

.

link

Operation Dew was described in a U.S. Army report known as "Dugway Special Report 162", dated August 1, 1952

Serious question. What's your point?

originally posted by: Mumbotron

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Does his paper also explain how literally hundreds of thousands of people have managed to keep it a secret? If not millions of people? Across the globe? In hundreds of cities and dozens of countries?

You can go ahead and ask yourself the same question about the Manhattan project and how tens of thousands if not in the hundred thousand range of people kept that secret... in the middle of New York no less!! It is possible.

edit..hint: it is compartmentalization

Pro-tip: the Manhattan project lasted FOUR YEARS. Not decades. You're right about compartmentalization playing a role: the entire project was scattered across the entire continent, and not located entirely within New York. The project also had a massive counter-intelligence operation going on and guess what? It was STILL penetrated on multiple occasions, by multiple people.

So what else ya got?

a reply to: waynos

Absolutely. And to prove one of your points, look at the front page, someone has said "i only need my eyes as evidence" and has been showered with stars.

its absolutely insane. And ridiculously pigheaded

originally posted by: Mumbotron

originally posted by: payt69

So do you believe that the white lines generally referred to as contrails are anything other than that?

See, that's what the whole chemtrail thing used to be about: those scary white lines that they think didn't exist before the latter half of the 90s. But apparently goalposts have been shifting quite a bit, since even some chemmies (Not all of them yet) have come to realize that their former notions have become untenable. So now they're grasping at straws and try to redefine known phnomenae such as jet emissions and weather modification as 'chemtrails'.

Everything you have posted has already been addressed in my earlier posts. I'm sure someone will come along and pat you on the back with a star anyways.

And, Zaphod: The Op did in fact say that to have a large scale weather modification program in place would be logistically impossible. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what people think is being sprayed and how they go about it. (with the one plane covering the whole sky horizon to horizon and whatnot). That old adage about those who assume has never been more true.


To be fair to Zaphod and the others (and me) who make assumptions about what chemtrailers believe, we have come across and read/contributed to many many many of them and pages of threadfs and the assumptions is one that is made from experience.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

One could even say....

"The only evidence I need is my eyes," right?

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: waynos

Absolutely. And to prove one of your points, look at the front page, someone has said "i only need my eyes as evidence" and has been showered with stars.

its absolutely insane. And ridiculously pigheaded

My thoughts exactly when I saw the response and the reaction it got in stars. Such people do not deny ignorance. They revel in and celebrate it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Except they're not really assumptions. They're memories of what someone actually said, and often repeated when asked, so not really the same thing.

The hard part is trying to remember when you're speaking to someone else. I've made this error too, and it does suck when it happens.

Everything you have posted has already been addressed in my earlier posts. I'm sure someone will come along and pat you on the back with a star anyways.

I'm asking because you bring up weather modification and try to pass it off as evidence for 'chemtrails'. This is a common error often made by chemtrail believers. All they see is an airplane and it's 'spraying' something. Then they go on to point at contrails which in their minds is what weather modification looks like. But of course it doesn't.

For one thing, if you look at the weather modification website, they tell you how they do it, and it soon becomes clear that their operation doesn't involve thousands of commercial airliners all over the world leaving lines accross the sky at 30.000 feet and up. Instead it involves a couple of small planes leaving no visible evidence at an altitude at which normally no contrails form.

Anyway this isn't the first time a chemtrail believer brings up weather modification, so I was just trying to make sure what your stance on all this is.

a reply to: waynos

Yes, I know. I was sarcastically using the "it's proof because I saw it with my eyes" line because in this case, you actually can see it with your eyes and it's actual proof.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FaceMyBook

So you don't believe anything read in a book, or anywhere then...

Exactly. I believe not a single word of written history.

One of my favorite books was about the destruction of literature over thousands of years & how much assumed information has been lost. I'm excessively wary of anything having to do with modern reality.

Learning & knowledge come from personal dissemination of all information received. Too many people will believe anything so long as it fits their long term conditioned ideals. Religious doctrine/documents being the most apt example.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: waynos

Absolutely. And to prove one of your points, look at the front page, someone has said "i only need my eyes as evidence" and has been showered with stars.

its absolutely insane. And ridiculously pigheaded

I've been in 5 states over past month & it's amazing how some areas have, what I would consider, blatant chemtrails & other areas I never see anything of the sort.

There's too many moving parts & potential groups who could actively be doing "testing" on specific population areas & without any knowledge of timetables flight plans & private contracts, we can never say "chemtrails do/do not exist".

To vehemently deny even the possibility it *might* be happening is absolutely insane & ridiculously pigheaded.

originally posted by: FaceMyBook

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FaceMyBook

So you don't believe anything read in a book, or anywhere then...

Exactly. I believe not a single word of written history.

One of my favorite books was about the destruction of literature over thousands of years & how much assumed information has been lost. I'm excessively wary of anything having to do with modern reality.

Learning & knowledge come from personal dissemination of all information received. Too many people will believe anything so long as it fits their long term conditioned ideals. Religious doctrine/documents being the most apt example.

Wouldn't you say that the chemtrails phenomenon is in many ways like a religion, or even a cult? It's adherents believe in something despite the lack of evidence to prove it's existence, and like a cult distrust and shield themselves from any information that contradicts their beliefs, no matter how well founded or how scientific it is. Any such information is disregarded as being 'from the devil/unbelievers/debunkers/the government' and therefore not to be trusted. Recognize any of those patterns?

originally posted by: FaceMyBook

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: waynos

Absolutely. And to prove one of your points, look at the front page, someone has said "i only need my eyes as evidence" and has been showered with stars.

its absolutely insane. And ridiculously pigheaded

I've been in 5 states over past month & it's amazing how some areas have, what I would consider, blatant chemtrails & other areas I never see anything of the sort.

What's so surprising about contrails being localized? They depend on weather conditions, and as you know, weather conditions aren't the same everywhere.

On this map you can see relative humidity levels at 250 hPa (about 30.000 ft). It's a pretty good indicator for where contrails are likely to persist. The blue patches are such areas:

earth.nullschool.net.../wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=relative_humidity/orthographic=-105.99,41.61,430

There's too many moving parts & potential groups who could actively be doing "testing" on specific population areas & without any knowledge of timetables flight plans & private contracts, we can never say "chemtrails do/do not exist".

To vehemently deny even the possibility it *might* be happening is absolutely insane & ridiculously pigheaded.

Nobody is denying that it COULD happen in some shape or form, it's just that there's no evidence. That which is pointed to as evidence by chemtrail believers is nothing of the sort. In general it boils down to a lack of understanding of aviation and meteorology, which together with a great distrust of 'the government' creates fertile ground for the chemtrail CT to fester on.

So it's important that you learn nothing about aviation and meteorology in order to keep the chemtrail gravy train going. Which might explain why so few chemtrail sources deal with these matters, and if they attempt to do so, they get it all wrong. If you need examples, let me know, but of course the most fundamental one is the notion that contrails can't persist. I know, it's utter sillyness, but many (if not most) chemtrail believers swear it's true without being able to explain why.

a reply to: payt69

Are you asking if I despise all human institutions?
Because the answer is yes.

That includes science & history.

originally posted by: FaceMyBook
a reply to: payt69

Are you asking if I despise all human institutions?
Because the answer is yes.

That includes science & history.

Umm no that's not what I was asking.

Science is not an institution though, just a method. But it makes sense for a chemtrail believer to despise it

And since that is the case, that leaves me wondering how you go about acquiring data, and how you test the validity of it. That is.. if you test it at all, since it appears that it's not a given that people verify the things they end up believing.

a reply to: FaceMyBook

An interesting question is raised: if you believe absolutely nothing in a book, then how do you learn anything? You can't quantify your beliefs in any way at all beyond "because I said so" with that concept of "learning." Even my 1st grader doesn't use "cuz I said so" when trying to explain something science related.

Not believing history books is one thing. Though it's ironic that you'll believe a book about how much history was lost...seeing as how you're reading a book about history. So really, it's just the author advancing his idea about history, which you chose to believe.

But really, your last para sums everything up nicely: you reject anything that doesn't fit with your own thinking, and couch it in lofty terms about how everything is lost and then got made up, etc. and then go on to talk about how people believe what they've been conditioned to believe.

Pot, meet kettle

a reply to: Shamrock6

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read page 4 of that thread