A real chemtrail discussion

originally posted by: Abinkadoo
a reply to: waynos

I literally can't debate with you anymore, and no not because you "got me", because you didnt. But because I can ask you the same questions you ask me, pertaining to your doubtfulness on this subject, then it just turns into repetition. You're doubting claims based upon what? Feelings or actual data? And if data, where is it?

Also where are your sources disproving the people in the video? Where are your numbers disproving the numbers people have came up with? And if you liste,ed to the video, why did the aluminum levels in the air sky rocket from pre-2000 to present day?

Seriously dude, google cirrus clouds

You're asking how ice crystals can remain aloft for hours and then determinedly ignoring the blindingly obvious answer

Contrails obviously persist overtime a plane flies....
chemtrails are another thing altogether, agent' they?

Ok you're making 2 statements here. You seem to be saying that contrails obviously can persist, but that chemtrails are something else.

So how does one tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail?

You want someone to verify their existence?

No.. since that'd just be another anecdote. If there are 'chemtrails' out there, what we need is not another story form another someone, but independent verifyable evidence. And that's what's sorely lacking

Chemtrails vs. contrails. give me a friggin break.

All you peeps begging for that discussion are baiting the rest of us.

I don't understand that line of reasoning at all. What's wrong with discussing the possible explanation for those trails?

The thing is: your explanation needs to invoke a whole bunch of stuff for which there is no evidence, whereas the contrail explanation doesn't need to do that. All you need for the contrail explanation is the natural processes which occur at cruise altitude, whereas for 'chemtrails' you need to invoke all sorts of equipment in the planes, chemicals which are being sprayed, logistics in place to manufacture, transport and load the chemicals, extra tanks on the planes, millions of people involved in a clandestine program which all need to be hushed.. and there is ZERO evidence for any of that.

So which explanation is most parsimonious?

Just my experience, there. Stop, already. Most of us know what's going on here vis a vis this issue,

I know you'd like me to stop, but I'm not going to until my question in this thread is answered

If you don't, it's probably better you remain unknowledgeable.....as having knowledge these days kinda means you'll suffer through what you sought and learned. I didn't make it this way......I am simply warning people that this is where we are and what is happening.....
tetra

So what exactly is happening, and what's the evidence for it?

There is no evidence for a plane leaving a contrail? Just like a car leaves exhaust from the engine? If it's white, and the care is malfunctioning, we all realize it's one thing, where if it's a black exhaust trail, it's likely burning oil, leaving a whole other engine malfunction explanation.......

Surely this isn;t so complicated.....
All engines flying in the sky are bound to leave a trail. right?
can we agree on that, at least?
That would be the starting point, I think......

a reply to: mrthumpy

I did Google them. But where's the factual data than can definitely deny the claims that they exist? Comparing a cloud to something that's just unknown speculation, you can't really do in my eyes.

Trust me, I don't want to believe in this situation at all. Knowing how much is hidden from public eye, what would cause a person to not have a doubt?

What I'd really like to know is when the trails first popped up compared to when cirrus clouds were discovered. I don't really recall seeing these pre-2000. Now the sky is littered.

a reply to: tetra50

Yes I do agree with that, that planes can leave a trail. I'm not saying 100% of them are chemtrails. With the amount of flights per day going over our head, wouldn't you think the sky would be filled all over the place, more than it is, if it was just ice crystals? I understand elevation and the atmospheric conditions are a variable. Multiple planes fly at the same height when the temperature is the same, what would cause some to leave the trails and some to not?

I'm not going to argue my case anymore, just maybe ask questions that I've always wanted an answer to.

originally posted by: tetra50
There is no evidence for a plane leaving a contrail? Just like a car leaves exhaust from the engine? If it's white, and the care is malfunctioning, we all realize it's one thing, where if it's a black exhaust trail, it's likely burning oil, leaving a whole other engine malfunction explanation.......

Surely this isn;t so complicated.....
All engines flying in the sky are bound to leave a trail. right?
can we agree on that, at least?
That would be the starting point, I think......

Ok yes the characteristics of the trail can be indicative of what's causing it.

And indeed a plane does burn fuel, which leaves a 'trail' of pollution.

However, that's not what shows up as the visible contrail. If it were, they'd alweays leave a visible trail. Well boeing 707's and other jets from that era kindof did, but that looked like black smoke. Nowadays, on modern jets the smoke is hardly visible anymore, and doesn't account for the trails in the sky.

What you see as trails is the condensation trail. Sometimes they can even be formed by the pressure differences generated by the wings of a plane, which is called an aerodynamic contrail. And at other times, no contrail shows up at all, even though the engines are running at the same speed and producing the same amount of pollution. So contrail formation depends on local weather conditions, and are independent of the amount of pollution generated by the engine.

Just like cirrus clouds, really.

You do know what a cirrus cloud is, right? That'd be another really good starting point, and it'd be really helpful if we could at least agree on that.

originally posted by: Abinkadoo
a reply to: mrthumpy

I did Google them. But where's the factual data than can definitely deny the claims that they exist? Comparing a cloud to something that's just unknown speculation, you can't really do in my eyes.

Trust me, I don't want to believe in this situation at all. Knowing how much is hidden from public eye, what would cause a person to not have a doubt?

What I'd really like to know is when the trails first popped up compared to when cirrus clouds were discovered. I don't really recall seeing these pre-2000. Now the sky is littered.

Seriously?

And how could these ice crystals just loiter the sky for hours on end at a time?

Why do these trails, which are under the force of gravity, stay in the sky for hours?

Those were your questions. Cirrus clouds are the answer.

If you doubt the existence of cirrus clouds then there's no hope for you

What people may be seeing often is Cloud seeding. Cloud seeding can be done by ground generators, plane, or rocket. Cloud seeding chemicals may be dispersed by aircraft . Usually silver iodide is used, however NASA does use Lithium vapour trails from rockets launched. www.nasa.gov...

Cloud seeding, a form of weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. The usual intent is to increase precipitation (rain or snow), but hail and fog suppression are also widely practiced in airports.en.wikipedia.org...

An interesting list of Patents can be found here www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

What is being put into our atmosphere and by whom is anybodies guess.

originally posted by: alienscot1
What people may be seeing often is Cloud seeding. Cloud seeding can be done by ground generators, plane, or rocket. Cloud seeding chemicals may be dispersed by aircraft . Usually silver iodide is used, however NASA does use Lithium vapour trails from rockets launched. www.nasa.gov...

Cloud seeding, a form of weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. The usual intent is to increase precipitation (rain or snow), but hail and fog suppression are also widely practiced in airports.en.wikipedia.org...

An interesting list of Patents can be found here www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

What is being put into our atmosphere and by whom is anybodies guess.

Does cloud seeding result in what we see as white lines in the sky which some people call chemtrails?

Hey there, my friend:

Just like cirrus clouds, really.

You do know what a cirrus cloud is, right? That'd be another really good starting point, and it'd be really helpful if we could at least agree on that.
edit on 8201617 by payt69 because: (no reason given)

How about this? We don't insult each other, as there is no need to, since I kinda think we're on the same side. Yes, I know what cirrus clouds are.

I am trying to illustrate where you have to start with the people arguing with the whole chemtrail argument, which I find rather silly, sry, as in what I've written so far on this subject.

Frankly, I see contrails from jets everyday, all the time, and they don't make much sense, in terms of where a jet would be flying, gaining altitude, traveling horizontally, etc.....
But I'm not really interested in having this argument about chemtrails or not, for this reason: It seems to me very clear that we are experiencing chemtrails. We have lots and lots of pics in different geographies that don't match commercial jet flight patterns. I'm already a believer and knower. But I think the argument is specious and silly.

Of course commercial jets leave a contrail. Is it a purposeful "Chemtrail," well we'll never know nor be able to prove such.....

But it doesn't take much to believe, as in even if the contrails are spewing fuel byproducts not intended to do damage to the human populous, the flight pattern and fallout from what I've already described probably leaves little doubt.....

yet, I feel it's a useless, baiting argument to make one look like a conspiracy believing, paranoid fool, and so, rarely get involved in it....
regards anyway,
tetra

a reply to: tetra50

It's just an on going repetitious argument that will never be solved. Simply, like you said, because we'll never know what is truly going on. I try to stay away from this topic but got sucked in lmao.

a reply to: payt69

I believe it may be possible.

There appear to be numerous things at play. Some are trying to manipulate climate change for benefit or warfare, others are trying to reflect solar radiation. What is being done and the methods employed are what is in question. Obviously to reflect solar radiation would require some reflected substance in the upper atmosphere, how would it get there an what would it be?

If you discuss this using logic and you show some integrity in your ability to answer questions, this topic would be wildly interesting and fun, but most like to post their opinions, and scram. Then others read, and believe what sounds good to them and ignore any science offered as it's the work of shills. No integrity. Such a sad thing.

ATS is acting slower than normal.

a reply to: payt69

They can't answer that question Payt, they obviously don't understand the science of contrails, therefore can't challenge it directly, instead choosing to deflect and obsfucate.

a reply to: alienscot1

Cloud seeding is done above cloud banks. You cannot see the seeding unless it's ground based. It looks nothing like white lines in the sky.

www.weathermodification.com...

How about this? We don't insult each other, as there is no need to, since I kinda think we're on the same side. Yes, I know what cirrus clouds are.

I didn't mean to insult you, and if I did, I'm sorry. But the cirrus cloud IS a relevant question, as so few people actually know anything about meteorology, and yet have very specific beliefs that fly in the face of our current understanding of it.

Frankly, I see contrails from jets everyday, all the time, and they don't make much sense, in terms of where a jet would be flying, gaining altitude, traveling horizontally, etc.....

Ok you're going to have a bit more specific here. I see contrails regularly too, but for me it's easy to understand what's happening, and often I can track the plane and see what kind of plane it is, what altitude it's flying at and where it's going and where it came from in flightradar24. You can also check weather conditions on that altitude, and usually the conditions up there and contrail persistence match up.

So exactly what is it that doesn't match up for you?

But I'm not really interested in having this argument about chemtrails or not, for this reason: It seems to me very clear that we are experiencing chemtrails. We have lots and lots of pics in different geographies that don't match commercial jet flight patterns. I'm already a believer and knower. But I think the argument is specious and silly.

Oh my.. that's exactly what I often think the mindset of a true believer is. but here we have it spelled out. Thanks for admitting as much though, as it's very enlightening.

Of course commercial jets leave a contrail. Is it a purposeful "Chemtrail," well we'll never know nor be able to prove such.....

How about the chemtrails caused by cars, ships, industry etc.. are they purposeful? Are they any different from those caused by jets?

But it doesn't take much to believe, as in even if the contrails are spewing fuel byproducts not intended to do damage to the human populous, the flight pattern and fallout from what I've already described probably leaves little doubt.....

What flight pattern and what fallout is that?

yet, I feel it's a useless, baiting argument to make one look like a conspiracy believing, paranoid fool, and so, rarely get involved in it....
regards anyway,
tetra

Well thanks for contributing to the debate here. You leave many questions though, and I too doubt that we can answer them all. But we can maybe look at it point by point, and see if there's anything to it.

a reply to: tetra50

You seem confused, CGI is not something one can live in, it is art, created on a computer.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: alienscot1
a reply to: payt69

I believe it may be possible.

In what way? Please go the whole 9 yards, and tell us exacly how that would work.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: tetra50

You seem confused, CGI is not something one can live in, it is art, created on a computer.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps you are confused. We are living on a planet. What we see, empirically, can very well be CGI inspired and produced, meaning we cannot any longer know what empirical evidence, what is seen, can be judged with validity. I am not confused at all about this. It's quite obvious to me. Perhaps you are the one confused about what this technology really means to all of us?