Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by mikromarius

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Do you know how microwave ovens work?

From howstuffworks.com, which btw is an excellent website with answers to most questions you have about everything really:

Microwaves are radio waves. In the case of microwave ovens, the commonly used radio wave frequency is roughly 2,500 megahertz (2.5 gigahertz). Radio waves in this frequency range have an interesting property: they are absorbed by water, fats and sugars. When they are absorbed they are converted directly into atomic motion - heat.

Do you agree that the air is full of water and biological material. If so do you then agree that it is possible to heat up the air by microwaves? What's your point?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

See the other thread for my response to this.

Originally posted by THENEO
Oh and for eveyone else, is there any of you with low enough IQ out there that thinks the official line on HAARP is that the official line?

Contrails are real.
HAARP is a project to create, modify and maintain an electromagnetic grid around the earth. That is its primary objective but there are numerous secondary objectives too.

[Edited on 21-12-2003 by HowardRoark]

Well, I guess Ill try this again. I accidentally deleted my first message, so here goes!

I have been an aircraft mechanic for the better part of 2 decades, and cannot even begin to imagine why anyone would think of contrails as being anything other than contrails. I will first address the issue that the aircraft in pictures of "chemtrails" are unmarked. According to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or FARs or, Federal Aviation Regulations, all aircraft flying in US airspace must be marked. If a comercial aircraft is flying, it is marked. I will also address the point brought up earlier in this discussion about these "chemtrails" coming from comercial aircraft. All aircraft, with the exception of aircraft in the experimental category, must be considered airworthy in order to fly. In order to be considered airworthy, the aircraft must first conform to what is known as a TCDS, or Type Certificate Data Sheet. After it conforms to that document, it must then physically be tested to ensure that the information in the TCDS is accurate. This is done through thousands of hours of testing by the manufacturer under the supervision of the FAA. The TCDS is extremely specific down to the material a filter or bolt is made out of and its specific manufacturer. After an aircraft is given a certificate of airworthiness, it can not deviate from the information in the TCDS, or it is considered un-airworthy, and can not fly. There are ways around this, however. An owner/operator of an aircraft may, apply for a Suplimental Type Certificate, or STC, which would allow, after extensive testing extremely similar to the initial testing, for changes to the design (i.e. "chemtrail" sprayers). This process is extremely expensive, and is not done often. With the airlines in their current state, they most likely would never be able to come close to paying for that process. I have never worked on an aircraft that has ever in its history had a "chemtrail" sprayer STC. All STCs and TCDSs are open to the public, and can be researched at www.FAA.gov . An STC can only be applied to the specific model that it was tested on, and is, as such, model specific. I challenge anyone to find authorization in the form of a TCDS or STC on any jet aircraft. Sure, they have some for crop dusters, but they normally have a range significantly shorter than the contrails in discussion, and can not fly to those altitudes. Try one just for fun if you want. The Boeing 747-200 has been around since the 60s, and has been modified many many times. I chose the 747-200 because it is the most widely recognized aircraft in the world. I doubt it has ever had a STC for any sort of sprayer, nor will it ever.

As for the contrails that sparked this discussion, I would be willing to guess that you live in very close proximity to, or directly between two VOR stations. The contrails can be explained by that easy enough. planes fly along those lines, and may fly as close as 500 feet apart vertically. If it is a busy route, then that explains its self. I remember reading though that that was not normal traffic, and that it happened on consecutive Thursdays at nearly the exact same time. Well, airlines will many times plan flight routes according to the needs of the passengers. If an airline notices that demand for a flight from point A to point B is extremely high in comparison to a flight from point A to point Q, it will compensate for that. They compensate by adding flights at the times that they are needed on the days that they are needed. That may very possibly be the case.

Contrails are clouds. Wind blows clouds. Wind disperses clouds. Wind blows clouds together. If the weather is right, and the the contrails are dense enough, they can be spread over a huge distance and cover a large area if they "connect" with each other.

This is not only happening in highly populated areas. I visit rural Montana often, and on many occasions, I have witnessed nearly the exact same scene. I have watched it too many times to count, and I dont see the point of gassing an area with a population of 10,000 (including all towns within 60 miles). There are no military bases that hanger aircraft within 400 miles.

There has been nothing posted on this forum (or on the net as far as I can tell... Still looking.) that suggests anything other than contrails, let alone any proof.

BTW, good debate. Most of you were able to keep it civil, and professional. Very interesting.

Originally posted by Milk
I will first address the issue that the aircraft in pictures of "chemtrails" are unmarked. According to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or FARs or, Federal Aviation Regulations, all aircraft flying in US airspace must be marked. If a comercial aircraft is flying, it is marked.

not secret military aircraft though. they could be unmarked. they could also issue directives to civic airspace controllers in the name of 'national security'. you're probably aware this is another of the claims out there.

[I will also address the point brought up earlier in this discussion about these "chemtrails" coming from comercial aircraft. All aircraft, with the exception of aircraft in the experimental category, must be considered airworthy in order to fly. In order to be considered airworthy, the aircraft must first conform to what is known as a TCDS, or Type Certificate Data Sheet. After it conforms to that document, it must then physically be tested to ensure that the information in the TCDS is accurate. This is done through thousands of hours of testing by the manufacturer under the supervision of the FAA. The TCDS is extremely specific down to the material a filter or bolt is made out of and its specific manufacturer. After an aircraft is given a certificate of airworthiness, it can not deviate from the information in the TCDS, or it is considered un-airworthy, and can not fly. There are ways around this, however. An owner/operator of an aircraft may, apply for a Suplimental Type Certificate, or STC, which would allow, after extensive testing extremely similar to the initial testing, for changes to the design (i.e. "chemtrail" sprayers). This process is extremely expensive, and is not done often. With the airlines in their current state, they most likely would never be able to come close to paying for that process. I have never worked on an aircraft that has ever in its history had a "chemtrail" sprayer STC. All STCs and TCDSs are open to the public, and can be researched at www.FAA.gov . An STC can only be applied to the specific model that it was tested on, and is, as such, model specific. I challenge anyone to find authorization in the form of a TCDS or STC on any jet aircraft. Sure, they have some for crop dusters, but they normally have a range significantly shorter than the contrails in discussion, and can not fly to those altitudes. Try one just for fun if you want. The Boeing 747-200 has been around since the 60s, and has been modified many many times. I chose the 747-200 because it is the most widely recognized aircraft in the world. I doubt it has ever had a STC for any sort of sprayer, nor will it ever.

what about a simple fuel additive? and besides, once again, this does not apply to military aircraft. especially not top secret ones. ask anyone who's burned toxic material at area fifty one and had their skin bubble up, what the military thinks of the governments rules.

As for the contrails that sparked this discussion, I would be willing to guess that you live in very close proximity to, or directly between two VOR stations. The contrails can be explained by that easy enough. planes fly along those lines, and may fly as close as 500 feet apart vertically. If it is a busy route, then that explains its self. I remember reading though that that was not normal traffic, and that it happened on consecutive Thursdays at nearly the exact same time. Well, airlines will many times plan flight routes according to the needs of the passengers. If an airline notices that demand for a flight from point A to point B is extremely high in comparison to a flight from point A to point Q, it will compensate for that. They compensate by adding flights at the times that they are needed on the days that they are needed. That may very possibly be the case.

but, so many civilians, just everyday people, are noticing the same thing? it's not just one area. it's seems to be all commonwealth countries(and in case you don't know, the queen of england signed the american social security act, so don't be fooled by all this constitution nonsense, and beyond that even, i believe we already live under a one world order shadow government).

Contrails are clouds. Wind blows clouds. Wind disperses clouds. Wind blows clouds together. If the weather is right, and the the contrails are dense enough, they can be spread over a huge distance and cover a large area if they "connect" with each other.

This is not only happening in highly populated areas. I visit rural Montana often, and on many occasions, I have witnessed nearly the exact same scene. I have watched it too many times to count, and I dont see the point of gassing an area with a population of 10,000 (including all towns within 60 miles). There are no military bases that hanger aircraft within 400 miles.

a good 'chemmie' doesn't know what the hell they are doing. they just know that something is different and are searching for answers. i make no claims of 'gassing'. something that would work in tandem with HAARP to control the weather is the most likely possibility to my mind. it woud be a good way to get people to take their soma, though. then the old boys won't have to put up with any dissent after their whole 911 global ceremony farce.

There has been nothing posted on this forum (or on the net as far as I can tell... Still looking.) that suggests anything other than contrails, let alone any proof.

i know a guy who's an aircraft mechanic, too(20 yrs. +). i'm going to phone him and see what he thinks. i'm surprised i didn't think of it sooner.

BTW, good debate. Most of you were able to keep it civil, and professional. Very interesting.

well, i flew off the handle once, but i deeply regret it. it's not like me. a good lesson in zen i learned i did.
okay, and please don't take this as an attack, i'm just reasoning. how do we know your not an cointel pro information agent. it is their tactic to infiltrate, adulterate, twist, diffuse, confuse, obfuscate and steer. so if the military/shadow government WERE doing something of this nature, wouldn't you expect 'experts' to come on the scene and tell everyone to 'move along, nothing to see here?'.

so you can see how to all paranoid types like 'chemmies', all this excellent information is not enough to even sway them one iota?

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by billybob]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
See the other thread for my response to this.

You can bloody well answer me here I'd say. Give me your proofs here that it is impossible to heat up layers of the air (indirectly of course) with microwaves. When water and biological material is heated up, the air around it will also heat up in time. Correct? If you cook a dinner on a plate in a mw oven long enough, the plate will become hot as hell to use a fitting word. Or are you denying the science beloved laws of thermodynamics or whatever it is called here? Just one degree celcius up or down could mean serious change in weather.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by THENEO

NO that is not why actually. You have not DISPROVED anything that anyone has said in regards Chemtrails either and as such this is a he says, they say kind of debate which is a waste of time.

Then I guess you haven't being paying attention to what Howard has said! The disproof was pretyy damn crystal clear to those of us who WERE paying attention!

Besides, why would any of us wanto to DISPROVE something that has not been PROVED in the least, in the first place? Chemmies can't even decide what chamtrails are, what they are made of, who is making them, how they are made, or what the purpose is! Depending on the day of the week, and the message board you tune into, you'll find exactly opposing and equally outrageous claims, with everybody all over agreeing! How could we even set out to disprove something that you guys can't even define?

In case you hadn't notice, what we have actually don here is to take the standard chemmie claim about contrails, "They don't look right", and shown that there is NOTHING WRONG with the way they look, or the way they behave. They look and behave exactly like contrails should. THe only reason that chemmies don't accept this, is becuase they are totally ignorant of just how clouds SHOULD behave. They want clouds to behave in certain ways, and get paranoid whn the clouds behave in ways that they don't like. This is ONLY becuase the deluded chemmies have not the slightest understanding of the complex natural processes going on in the atmosphere, and the amazing extreme flexibility of the weather to produce ever-changing phenomena, so everytime they see something they never noticed before, the assume that it must never have happened before, and make a huge leap to the conclusion that therefore it must all be a government plot to kill them.

And you call that rational thought? And you accuse others of not researching, not learning? Hmmmm...

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by StuartAllsop
But you still haven't told us how you can determine the altitude of a plane. How do you do that?

plane big. plane close. i don't lie. stalemate on that. i'm not out to prove anything, so i haven't snapped a single picture. eyes and mind.

I didn't say that you lie. I just asked that you explain how you measure the altitude of a plane. That's all. Why are you evading the question? Why are you avoiding answering it?

It's a very simple question: What instrument do you use to determine the height of a plane?

That's all.

Why so evasive?

pollution clings to humidity in big cities. high humidity equals low visibility. it's called 'smog'.

Nope, you don't need high humidity to get smog! Sure, it helps, but it isn't a pre-requesite. You can get smog any time that you have pollution going on. And you can also have high humidity without any smog. So, I'll repeat the question: why would you expect the sky to not be blue at high humidity?

...you are not even attacking the poster! You are attacking someone who is related to a person who once ownede the company that you claim the poster works for. How on earth did you hope to prove that chemtrails exist, by following that path? What possible connection could there be between the lover of the ex owner of the company where you work, and "chemtrails"?

i thought you were into conspiracy theory. i bet even a timid lurker could answer that one. should i bring perle, buffet, black, and the whole consortium into this debate? basically. people choose their avatars based on their beliefs and values. people's connections and convictions are highly relevant in this topic. anyway, i'm just a ignorant 400 pound unscientific chemmie troll(go back and check whats been hurled at me before you shout bingo. the character howard roark was an admirable one, truth be known, so i don't see how it's an attack. just a statement of fact). here i though i was just a nice guy trying to let truth see the light of day.

Double BINGO!!!! And one more time "BINGO"! What you are saying has absolutely zero bearing on the debate as to whethero or not "chemtrails" exist, and is clearly yet another attempt to drag the dicussion off track, down into the mire of personal attacks and insults. Nothing more, nothing less. Like I said, a tatctic that is typical of chemmies and other trolls who have lost ground in a debate, and have no way to retaliate on-topic, so they attempt to deviate attention from their precarious position...

where does the name "stuart allsop" come from?

As far as I know, it comes form the town of Derby, in the county of Derbyshire, in England. I haven't traced it back much further than that, but I believe my cousin actually put together an extensive family tree, and traced our roots back to medieval Scotland, before losing the track. If you happen to find something more in your research of my ancestors, please let me know. It would be interesting... (Oh, and if it helps, I believe there was once an escaped convict in the penal colony in Sydney, Australia, with the name "Allsop". Can't tell you much more than that, though.)


well, now i can check and see if you're potentially in the masonic sphere. Cool! If I am, then please let me know where I should go to draw my pay cheque... Oh, and let me know the address of the lodge or temple or chapel or whatever they call it, where I should go to sign up.

i don't give out personal information. i'm paranoid. weird that your not, for a conspiracy theorist.

Who said I was a conspiracy theorist?

aren't you scared of 'them'?

Who? Who is it that I should be scared of?

the connection of course is the potential for a motive to misinform.

That's why I'm here! I hate to see gullible people connened and hoaxed by the misinformation spreard by the conmen, scam artists, and hoaxsters on the internet, so every time I come across them, I do my best to set the record staright.

------

OK, your turn now....

Originally posted by StuartAllsop
In case you hadn't notice, what we have actually don here is to take the standard chemmie claim about contrails, "They don't look right", and shown that there is NOTHING WRONG with the way they look, or the way they behave. They look and behave exactly like contrails should. ::snip::

You've only shown that contrails exist. Unfortunately, no one is disputing their existence.

If contrails are supposed to create an entire cloud cover over the sky, then I suggest we all go over to NASA's contrail watch site and post our concerns. According to NASA, scientists all over the "GLOBE" are concerned about contrails affecting our climate and ultimately our natural resources. They'd like for us to report when and where these persistent trails occur, so it can help their efforts in determining the effect on the energy balance.

Student observers can collaborate with scientists by observing contrails in their area and reporting on the amount and type of contrails present. The results could help atmospheric scientists determine the atmospheric conditions when persistent contrails form and thus help them predict where they will form and possibly assist air traffic managers in planning different flight-paths or altitudes to avoid contrail formation.

link

By the way, it's a new project. The site is still under construction.

Originally posted by StuartAllsop

Who? Who is it that I should be scared of?

the power brokers.

BB:

the connection of course is the potential for a motive to misinform.

That's why I'm here!

i know.

let's agree to disagree, no? all this 'trolling' i'm doing(LOL), and excellent enlightening research that you have provided has begun to bore me. i don't intend to spend the rest of my life discussing the specific gravity of an unladen african swallow.
i really think that i've shown that anything said here is questionable based on the agenda of the poster.

did you see my apology to you? i was trolling for peace.

the truth will out, one way or the other.

Originally posted by billybob
what about a simple fuel additive? and besides, once again, this does not apply to military aircraft. especially not top secret ones. ask anyone who's burned toxic material at area fifty one and had their skin bubble up, what the military thinks of the governments rules.

Well, also spelled out in the TCDS of any given aircraft engine (as they are separate from the airframe TCDS, but in the airframe TCDS is a list of approved aircraft engines) is the fuel that can be used by that engine. There are 2 types of jet fuels currently in use: Jet A, used form commercial aircraft, buisness jets, and personal jet aircraft. This does have additives in it that are used to kill microbial life that lives in any water that may be in the fuel, and it feeds on the fuel. As they multiply, it can cause a "blanket" of microbes which can cause the plugging of fuel lines and nozzles causing engine failure at some most inopportune times. Then there is Type B, or Wide Cut jet fuel (a mixture of Jet A and "Avgas" or general aviation gasoline, normaly 100 Low Lead). This is used by the military due to its low vapor pressure and high volitility which gives it more power, while lowering the efficiency. An engine cannot run on either of these, and requires some major modifications and most likely a STC in order to use the other fuel (i.e. Jet A to Jet B conversion).

but, so many civilians, just everyday people, are noticing the same thing? it's not just one area. it's seems to be all commonwealth countries

Have you checked the Chinese web? Are they noticing it? How about checking for reports coming from Zimbabwe? Maybe Chile or Argentina? Germany? I would imagine, although I dont have the time to do the research at this very moment, that these accusations are being made all over the globe. I will do that research and get back to you about it.

Originally posted by billybob
what about a simple fuel additive?

Well, let�s think about that for a minute.

Lets start with: how much additive per gallon of fuel do you think is necessary in order to produce the �Chemtrails� that are the same size as normal contrails formed by water in the exhaust. Lets say a that the amount of unadulterated fuel consumed as a plane travels 100 meters at 40,000 feet altitude produces a given amount of water (lets call it X lbs) as a result of combustion, and that X Lbs of water produces a contrail lets say, 30 meters in diameter, 300 meters behind the plane.

Will the amount of �chemtrail fuel additive (r)� (lets call it Y lbs) that you would need to produce a 30 meter diameter �chemtrail� 300 meters behind the plane be the same as X lbs? If not would you estimate it to be an order of magnitude less or more than X lbs?

Let�s say, just for the sake of discussion, that this magical chemical additive, the purpose of which is still unknown, is able to produce lovely chemtrails when it is added to the fuel at a 1:10 ratio.

Uh oh, now this means that we are using a fuel mix that has 10% less fuel than regular unadulterated fuel. That means that we will get substantially less performance per gallon of fuel than before. Our fuel usage will go up, our cost will go up. No wonder airlines are always going bankrupt.

Not only that, but the different fuel mixture parameters will also have an effect on our engines. Is the additive corrosive? Is it abrasive? (isn�t aluminum oxide used as a sand paper grit?) Will the additive settle out of the fuel if the fuel is stored for a period of time?

What about at airports? At most airports, jets sit in designated locations on taxiways while waiting for their turn to take off. Will the �chemtrail additive� accumulate on the ground at these locations? Come to think of it, how come we don�t see chemtrails billowing around airports when the panes taxi back and forth?

How is the additive put into the fuel? At the refinery? At the storage facility? At the airport? How is the additive delivered to the mixing point?

When airlines run QA/QC checks on fuel batches before they are loaded into the airplanes, do these additives show up?

and besides, once again, this does not apply to military aircraft. especially not top secret ones.

No, I bet the military is probably kind of careless about the quality of the fuel that they put into their top secret planes. After all if they crash, they can always get Congress to buy them a new one.

ask anyone who's burned toxic material at area fifty one and had their skin bubble up, what the military thinks of the governments rules.

When you say �ask anyone,� do you have a specific person in mind or is this just another one of your imaginary friends.


Damn, Milk, you beat me by five minutes.


[Edited on 22-12-2003 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Milk

Originally posted by billybob
what about a simple fuel additive? and besides, once again, this does not apply to military aircraft. especially not top secret ones. ask anyone who's burned toxic material at area fifty one and had their skin bubble up, what the military thinks of the governments rules.

Well, also spelled out in the TCDS of any given aircraft engine (as they are separate from the airframe TCDS, but in the airframe TCDS is a list of approved aircraft engines) is the fuel that can be used by that engine. There are 2 types of jet fuels currently in use: Jet A, used form commercial aircraft, buisness jets, and personal jet aircraft. This does have additives in it that are used to kill microbial life that lives in any water that may be in the fuel, and it feeds on the fuel. As they multiply, it can cause a "blanket" of microbes which can cause the plugging of fuel lines and nozzles causing engine failure at some most inopportune times. Then there is Type B, or Wide Cut jet fuel (a mixture of Jet A and "Avgas" or general aviation gasoline, normaly 100 Low Lead). This is used by the military due to its low vapor pressure and high volitility which gives it more power, while lowering the efficiency. An engine cannot run on either of these, and requires some major modifications and most likely a STC in order to use the other fuel (i.e. Jet A to Jet B conversion).

but, so many civilians, just everyday people, are noticing the same thing? it's not just one area. it's seems to be all commonwealth countries

Have you checked the Chinese web? Are they noticing it? How about checking for reports coming from Zimbabwe? Maybe Chile or Argentina? Germany? I would imagine, although I dont have the time to do the research at this very moment, that these accusations are being made all over the globe. I will do that research and get back to you about it.

Actually, Military Aircraft have almost exclusivly gone to JP8, or it's civilian equiv, Jet A1, due to the high volitility of JP4, which was the kerosene-gasoline mix. In addition, most military jets are multi-fuel, capable of burning several types. This is necessary due to the possibility of different fuel availability at captured airfields. While the different fuels have different weights and behave differently, our books take that into account, and when using alternate fuels, we adjust our performance data accordingly.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob
what about a simple fuel additive?

Well, let�s think about that for a minute.

Lets start with: how much additive per gallon of fuel do you think is necessary in order to produce the �Chemtrails� that are the same size as normal contrails formed by water in the exhaust. Lets say a that the amount of unadulterated fuel consumed as a plane travels 100 meters at 40,000 feet altitude produces a given amount of water (lets call it X lbs) as a result of combustion, and that X Lbs of water produces a contrail lets say, 30 meters in diameter, 300 meters behind the plane.

Will the amount of �chemtrail fuel additive (r)� (lets call it Y lbs) that you would need to produce a 30 meter diameter �chemtrail� 300 meters behind the plane be the same as X lbs? If not would you estimate it to be an order of magnitude less or more than X lbs?

Let�s say, just for the sake of discussion, that this magical chemical additive, the purpose of which is still unknown, is able to produce lovely chemtrails when it is added to the fuel at a 1:10 ratio.

Uh oh, now this means that we are using a fuel mix that has 10% less fuel than regular unadulterated fuel. That means that we will get substantially less performance per gallon of fuel than before. Our fuel usage will go up, our cost will go up. No wonder airlines are always going bankrupt.

Not only that, but the different fuel mixture parameters will also have an effect on our engines. Is the additive corrosive? Is it abrasive? (isn�t aluminum oxide used as a sand paper grit?) Will the additive settle out of the fuel if the fuel is stored for a period of time?

What about at airports? At most airports, jets sit in designated locations on taxiways while waiting for their turn to take off. Will the �chemtrail additive� accumulate on the ground at these locations? Come to think of it, how come we don�t see chemtrails billowing around airports when the panes taxi back and forth?

How is the additive put into the fuel? At the refinery? At the storage facility? At the airport? How is the additive delivered to the mixing point?

When airlines run QA/QC checks on fuel batches before they are loaded into the airplanes, do these additives show up?

and besides, once again, this does not apply to military aircraft. especially not top secret ones.

No, I bet the military is probably kind of careless about the quality of the fuel that they put into their top secret planes. After all if they crash, they can always get Congress to buy them a new one.

ask anyone who's burned toxic material at area fifty one and had their skin bubble up, what the military thinks of the governments rules.

When you say �ask anyone,� do you have a specific person in mind or is this just another one of your imaginary friends.



Damn, Milk, you beat me by five minutes.

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by HowardRoark]

you're my only imaginary freind, howard. there was a lawsuit against the govenmment filed by a widow of a grunt who worked at area fifty one. search for it on the web if you're interested.

different substances are needed in different volumes according to their chemical properties. a catalyst can be added in very small quantities to affect the outcome of a chemical reaction dramatically. basic stuff. would you willingly drink water that was .05% cyanide, or cement, or mystery chemical X? the only property needed by such an additive would be to enhance the crystallization process.

The debunking in this thread is 10 times that of all the other threads put together!

There is also a concerted effort by about a half dozen people to make the tide turn in their favour. I see new names coming in to fight for the cause of the debunker. They work together to convince everyone that it is all okay, there is no spraying.

Hmmmm. Who are these people, some claim to work for the military, some are pilots, some present themselves as though they are scientists?

Maybe the spook community is not addressing the issue of contrails well enough so they have been told to go out and shut down discussion of this subject.

All I know is that they have their minds made up before they came here and if so why did they come here in the first place and why do they stay?

A spooks job is never done.

Originally posted by THENEO
The debunking in this thread is 10 times that of all the other threads put together!

There is also a concerted effort by about a half dozen people to make the tide turn in their favour. I see new names coming in to fight for the cause of the debunker. They work together to convince everyone that it is all okay, there is no spraying.

Hmmmm. Who are these people, some claim to work for the military, some are pilots, some present themselves as though they are scientists?

Maybe the spook community is not addressing the issue of contrails well enough so they have been told to go out and shut down discussion of this subject.

All I know is that they have their minds made up before they came here and if so why did they come here in the first place and why do they stay?

A spooks job is never done.

As I said before, I think YOU'RE the spook, Neo...disinformation, blind and frivolous links...again, always pointing the finger instead of debating facts. You keep asking us to prove that "chemtrails" DON'T exist...however, you can't prove that they DO!!! In fact, you can't even give one single verifiable fact to back up ANYTHING you claim!!!


Before, you asked me what my qualifications to speak on this subject were, and I immediately gave same. At that time, I asked you what YOUR qualifications were, yet you ignored me...so, I'll ask you again...


What do YOU bring to the game???

Originally posted by mikromarius

I believe you could even in microwaves. Resonance.

Yeah, but not from the same antenna. Every single frequency of electromagnetic wave requires a certian exact length and design of antenna. Anything else will either be extremely inefficient, or will not work at all. When you are pumping megawatts of power into your antenna, you better make damn sure that you have it tuned perfectly to the exact dimensions that are most efficient at sedning out the energy. Because everything that does not go out of the antenna, gets turned into heat inside of the antenna, or of the feed cable, or of the transmitter. So if you have one megawatt of transmitter power (that's a million watts, for those who don't know), if your antenna is tuned to only 90% efficiency, then it means one hundred thousand watts of energy is getting turned into heat somewhere. 100,000 watts is a LOT of energy! Considering that your your average houselhold hairdryer puts out about a thousand watts of heat, this is like having a hundred thousand hairdryers all going full bore, heating up your cables and antenna. That's a LOT of heat! Can you say "metldown"?!

Therefore, you can be damn sure that the engineers at HAARP have those antenna tuned to perfection. Nobody wants the whole thing to come raining down as molten aluminium!

When different wavelengths or frequencies meet they can create some startling effects. Just listen to a guitar or a piano. One by one the strings' resonans are quite poor, but together and in patterns you can make sound you can touch or literally take your breath away and even kill you.

THe sound from a guitar can kill you? Really? I mean, I've heard som pretty bad players, but never bad enough to KILL someone!

Seriously, you are talking about sound, which is longitudinal waves travelling through a compressive physical medium. HAARP is about electromagnetic radiation, which is transvers waves travelling through no medium at all. Very, very different things!

And we know how music works directly on your psyche controling your mood, making you do things you normally wouldn't do:

NO, music does not do that. It can influence your mood, no argument, but it cannot force you to do things that you would not do otherwise. It sounds like you are confusing music with hypnosis, and even hypnosis can do what you claim, at least not in the way you imply it.

think about this instead: What if HAARP is the reason behind global warming? It is microwaves isn't it?

Not possible. No, it isn't microwaves, and even if it were, it still could not possible have even the slightest effect on the atmosphere as a whole. Do you have any idea how big the atmosphere is? Do you have any idea how much energy you would need to heat up the entire atmosphere by even a tiny fraction of a single percent of one degree?

Originally posted by billybob
who has foot in mouth now?

Looks like you do, as far as I can see. Why do you ask?

one of the stated objectives of HAARP is ELF related communication and subterranean imaging.

And your link to this would be where? (Yes, I have read that too, but I didn't see you post any link to support your claim).

as mikromarius point out, "beat" frequencies can be introduced into higher frequencies.

No they cannot. Beat frequencies are just the DIFFERENCE between two or more higher frequencies. You need at least two slightly different frequencies in order to get a beat between them. You cannot do it with one soingle carrier. Oooops! What were you saying about feet in mouth?

a little science for y'all. i'm surprised a super scientist(video store clerk, did you say?) like you forgot that simple fact.

I didn't forget anything. But you, oin the other hand, in your haste to try to show that you know something about science, have actually proved that you know even less that we gave you credit for. Which wasn't much to start with.

howard, you too. carrier waves are a principal in wave study.

No they aren't. They are a basic principal in radio broadcast, but have nothing at all to do with basic wave study. Besides, carriers have nothing to do with beat frequencies. Ooops! Is that both feet at once I see going down your throat?

this looks like another attempt to confuse the lurkers, who have no science background.

Well, you've been doing a pretty good job of that up to now, haven't you? Fortunately, the lurkers now have Howard and myslef and others around, to keep you on the straigh-and-narrow.

stuart, i hate to say it, but your off my respected list.

I didn't know that I was ever on it! And I can truthfully say that I'm not exactly very concerned about being "on" or "off" any list you might happen to have...

i've been patient with your derision. no more , you pompous windbag. stating you have won a debate does not mean you have.

No, but to those who have been following the discussion, the fact is pretty clear, regardless of whether or not you agree. Your opinion on the matter is entirely unimportant. The facts speak for themselves.

you haven't proved # with your scientific obfuscation tactics.

Hmmmm.... that's strange! I thought the science was pretty good, and I can't see anything wrong with it. What part did you not understand? If you show me where you think I went wrong, or where you got confused, I'd be happy to go over it again, and explain it for you, one more time.

you're so busy laughing and pointing fingers, that you have ignored the bigger picture.

What possible "bigger picture" could there be then sciecne? Science deals with the entire universe, from the scale of subatomic particles right up to the scale of superclusters of galaxies! How much bigger can you get that that?

To me, your comment sounds like yet another cheap attempt to try to hint that you know what you are talking about, when in actual fact you have demonstrated the exact opposite.

there is overwhelming evidence pointing to goals of weather modification and study.

Sure there is! Nobody denies that! Scientists all over the place are studying the weather, and trying to figure out if there is any way that we could influence it to our benefit, on a very small scale. So far, with only ambiguous results, at best.

But that is not what the chemmies are talking about. Not even close.

there are patents.

Yes. No doubt about it. There are NUMEROUS patents out there that have NEVER seen the light of day as a manufactured object. Did you really thin kthat every single item that exists on paper as a patent, has acutally been manufactured? And did you really think that if the Air Force intended to spray us all from jet planes, that they would go and publish the patent for doing so in the public domain? If you do actually believe either of those, then you are in far worse shape than I suspected...

there are official statements.

There are? Really? That's GREAT!!!!! WHere are they? Please show them to us!!!! Just post the links here, or photos of the documents, so taht we can see for ourselves. (in other words, I'm calling your bluff...)

eye witnesses.

Cool! Where are they? Oh, but wait a sec.... I guess you probably mean the handfull of conspiracy theorists that love to take photos of the sky and post them on web sites. Is that who you mean?

your honor, i respestfully request this man be removed from the courtroom for contempt.

Well, well, well! Bingo again! Aint that strange.... a troll who is seriously losing a debate, big time, asking for his opponent to be removed, just because the opponent is winning!!!!! Whoever would have thought.....

i have no proof of chemtrails, but you have no disproof either.

I don't need any! Why would I go around looking for proof of something that doesn't exist?

But at least you have finally admitted that you have no prrof of chemtrails. Therefore, what you have is a belief. Plain and simple. Nothing more. You believe in them, simply because you want to, despite the total lack of evidence. At least you are honest enough to admit that.

you yourself have stated you can not prove a negative,

No I didn't, Becaseu it isn't true. All I said was that it is difficult to prove a negative. It is not impossible. On the contrary, it is possible to prove a negative.

and then you go on to say that there are ABSOLUTELY NO chemtrails.

No, I haven't said that either. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that there is absolutely no EVIDENCE for "chemtrails", hence no reason at all to think that they exist. If the very best chemmie "researches" have been unable to come up with even a tiny shred of evidence after FIVE YEARS OF LOOKING, then the chances are that there is no such thing as a chemtrail, since all observations are consistent with the known behaviour of contrails.

very unscientific of you.

Nope! Think again!

same with this picture of the strange cloud. you state with absolute authority that it is natural, yet say you know nothing about it.

Nope! Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that "with absolute authority that it is natural" and neither did I say that I "know nothing about it". Why did you twist my words? How come you didn't just quote them directly, instead of presenting your own warped version, for you own purposes? Hmmmmm.... Does the word "dishonest" mean anything to you?

also very unscientific of you, objective boy. (i make no claims on the cloud, except that it is very unusual, so don't put feet in my mouth).

I don't need to put your feet in your mouth! You are doing an excellent job of that, all by yourself, without any help from me!!! It's fun to sit back and watch, though, so please do feel free to keep on doing it.

yes, i did read the NASA article
quote: Currently, the properties of soot generated by aircraft exhaust are not well understood. We do not know how effective these particles are as ice nuclei.

wow, i found an instant cure for foot in mouth!

Hmmm... I'm trying to see your point, but it is pretty elusive.... I think you are trying to say imply that NASA knows nothing about contrails, but that isn't waht they say at all. Rather, they say that it is the poperties of the SOOT that are not well understood. You are also implying that they don't know if soot particles will work as nucleation sites for condensation, but what it actually says is that they don't know exactly how EFFECTIVE they are as nucelation centers. BIG big difference....

Once again, it looks like you are playing pretezel-knots with the words of others. Either that, or your reading comprehension skills are worse than we thought they were....

despite my attempts to keep it civil,

Can't say that the rest of us noticed much of an attempt on your part. Could you give us an example?

you have continued to belittle my very sound deductive reasoning and logic.

Cough! If it was "very sound" and "deductive", then I would NOT be able to belittle it, would I? Since you yourself say that I did, in fact, belilttle it quite succesfully, then clearly it never was either sound or deductive! QED.

Besides, if the cap fits, then wear it!

at least i don't have head up ass disease like you, stuart.

Guess you haven't looked in the mirror lately....

you can't see the forest for the trees, ...especially through a microscope. how's that for ad hominem?

ABout what I was expecting! How's my comeback doing?

howard, nice math. THAT is what i like.

OK. So I guess that means that Howard's math has now convinced you that "chemtrails" don't exist? It must be so, since you made no attempt to counter his arguments...

Originally posted by billybob
a picture for you stuart, ....from the NASA article i didn't read, HAHA!

notice in this (rather hard to understand for the unscientific) picture, that the jet exhaust has created a "modified cirrus" with it's contrail. the PARTICLES in the exhaust act as something which "supersaturated" air can use as nuclei for CLOUDFORMATION.

what don't you understand, stuart?

Ummm.... Billybob? Are you smoking somethin extra strong today? Or are you just making a special effort to appear silly?

I mean, what exactly did you try to show us there? I thikn you should g back and read it again. You just gave a great description of the atmospheric physics involoved in CONTRAIL formation. Now how is that suppsed to be "CHEMTRAILS"? I entirely fail to see your point! Rather than proving anything on your side of the debate, instead you have just given our side a GREAT boost, by posting a picture of the EXACT MECHANISM involved in contrail formation!!!! I guess I must be missing something, because it makes no sense at all to argue for the other team in a debate..... Why are you doing that?

Originally posted by StuartAllsop

Originally posted by billybob
a picture for you stuart, ....from the NASA article i didn't read, HAHA!

notice in this (rather hard to understand for the unscientific) picture, that the jet exhaust has created a "modified cirrus" with it's contrail. the PARTICLES in the exhaust act as something which "supersaturated" air can use as nuclei for CLOUDFORMATION.

what don't you understand, stuart?

Ummm.... Billybob? Are you smoking somethin extra strong today? Or are you just making a special effort to appear silly?

I mean, what exactly did you try to show us there? I thikn you should g back and read it again. You just gave a great description of the atmospheric physics involoved in CONTRAIL formation. Now how is that suppsed to be "CHEMTRAILS"? I entirely fail to see your point! Rather than proving anything on your side of the debate, instead you have just given our side a GREAT boost, by posting a picture of the EXACT MECHANISM involved in contrail formation!!!! I guess I must be missing something, because it makes no sense at all to argue for the other team in a debate..... Why are you doing that?

my team is the truth. whatever side that puts me on is irrelevent to me.

Originally posted by dexxy
Hi Howard,

How about the example of a clear blue sky with average humidity? I'd assume that the moisture content would be at approx 10% of your rain cloud.
Over the 36 sq miles, this equates to 236,828,512.8 liters of water or 99089049 Kj . if it takes 1 hour to heat the air 1 deg C, it would take 458.75 megawats to do so. This would seem much more doable.

True, but you are totally missing Howard's point. To take your arguemnt to extremes, if you take the humidity down to 0.0000001%, then you can apprently raise the tmeperature of that water by using nothing more than a cell phone as your transmitter, or even a flashlight. Clearly, this cannot be the case, or else it would be raining constantly over every city, town and village in the world, due the large number oc cell phone users. So what is the difference?

Actually, there are MANY differences. Surface area, to start with. Not to mention that if you have LESS water in the SAME volume of air, you will have to heat it to a MUCH higher temperature to get the SAME result. Therefore, you'd need to increase the temperature of that air parcel by several hundred degrees to get the same result that Howard showed you for his example.

Major, major difference there.