Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

Originally posted by Essan
Pre 1998 persistent contrails? I don;t have the time nor inclimation to look through thousands of films and TV shows to get screen grabs, but there are plenty of photos

Wow, listen to the debunkers suddenly decide they don't have the time or inclination to find a couple examples of these so-called "persistent contrails."

But really, take their word, it's been happening forever and they've got a few photos of piston-engine bombers from WW II to prove it! Simple water vapor that lingers for hours, then slowly spreads out and obliterates a bright blue sky is a totally natural phenomena!

Nothing unusual about that at all.

Originally posted by Essan
So what you're saying is that in films where persistent contrails appear, these are actually stage props to replicate persistent contrails which actually did appear when the events portrayed occured?

Funny, aren’t they?
Kind of like a headache… :bnghd:
Yeah, they had to use smoke to make that contrail to imitate old WWII piston engine contrails, because jets didn’t leave contrails from 1950 to 1989, and only started making them again in 1990. I have yet to grasp this leap of logic, and how they are attempting to justify it, but I have to say that its pretty sad.

Maybe its called Operation Cloverleaf because the odds of proving that chemtrails exist is about the same as finding a five leaf clover…Zero…

Originally posted by Essan
Now, what about all those photos I posted links to? Photoshopped images to show people what persistent contrails would look like if persistent contrails existed?

Don’t you know that they only exist in the movies and in WWII footage, the rest is all chemtrails, and we’re covering it up this grand conspiracy.
After all “They’re saving lives”…

All I can say is that I REALLY wish I could speak my mind on here without getting , like the old days of ATS, because this stuff is just to ridicules to pass up.

All these years of being called Debunkers, Spindoctors, Disinfo Agents, etc…
Yet look who is really doing the spinning in this thread.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Maybe then, you will have the inclination to collate some supporting evidence?

You know, air test results and the like.

See this is what gets me about you guys, in YOUR mind you KNOW they're up to no good, yet you do nothing about it...

Why not? Don't you want to expose the evil government you despise so much?

This post should help you out a bit:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Here is the biggest problem with what you seem to require. I mean other than all the other photos that have been given to you. If you take a photography class, the first thing you are taught is to look beyond the target. (kind of like karate and punching beond the target) The main reason is so you don't have a picture of Grandma with telephone wires growing out of her head. So I would venture a guess since a guy who took photography once knows this, then a guy putting a 2 million dollar movie togeather might have heard this before, and if he didn't want lines in the sky he would wait for a day without clouds to shoot the oudoor shots. Or at least the right clouds. I am glad you came back to defend your title. It's just a shame you can't see the forest through the trees. Please look at the pictures that were shown to you last page. They show what you asked for. It's time to move to another argument. Perhaps you could tell us why the evil doers are spraying us. I am still waiting to hear that.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Mason mike]

reply to post by Mason mike


Mason Mike…
Rumor has it you guys are behind this conspiracy:

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Today's trails formed a letter A, like above, or as my sister called it, the Masonic symbol!!

Now how's that for another layer of conspiracy?

We caught you all in the act:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0167f2cc2a19.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 3/19/2009 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Maybe then, you will have the inclination to collate some supporting evidence?

You know, air test results and the like.

Sure, that's what I'll do -- go rent a plane that samples the barium and aluminum being sprayed so I'll have proof for the anonymous shills and debunkers on ATS!

Originally posted by Mason mike
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

The main reason is so you don't have a picture of Grandma with telephone wires growing out of her head. So I would venture a guess since a guy who took photography once knows this, then a guy putting a 2 million dollar movie togeather might have heard this before, and if he didn't want lines in the sky he would wait for a day without clouds to shoot the oudoor shots. Or at least the right clouds.

Yeah, that's probably what's happening -- before 1998, directors removed all background shots of chemtrails from their films, but after 1998, they decided to leave them in!

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


Sure, that's what I'll do -- go rent a plane that samples the barium and aluminum being sprayed so I'll have proof for the anonymous shills and debunkers on ATS!

No need for a plane, just something like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce239b1b5905.jpg[/atsimg]

Quite simple really, I don't know why no one has done it yet.

I would do it but I don't get contrails over head

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yeah, that's probably what's happening -- before 1998, directors removed all background shots of chemtrails from their films, but after 1998, they decided to leave them in!

They can leave them in on modern movies because they are a modern phenomenon. They still have to edit them out of period pieces, but now they can use computers to do that instead of having to delay shooting. Another thing that seems to elude you is that many older films, TV shows, and commercials were shot in sound stages with a fake blue background sky. Now with the smaller, more portable equipment they are more prone to shoot on location. They would create the background sky using a blue screen, then use lights to change its appearance:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/19b513b7198c.jpg[/atsimg]

For example:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7ca91e05cad.jpg[/atsimg]
That is shot on a sound stage.


[edit on 3/19/2009 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5


I am afraid we will have to dispose of you now. You should not have let the secrets out.

This should fall right in line with Doctordoom's theorys. I'm surprised he didn't jump all over this one.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by network dude]

[edit on 19-3-2009 by network dude]

I read waaaay moar than i post, but every now an then, I see somethin that just pushes my buttons



heres another



yup thats a B-17 seen it at an airshow a couple years back. ain't seein no massive smoke trail out the back of it from the engines

engine works hardest at take off and at low levels 'cos thats when its runnin at least eficiency. would be smokin like crazy if that was the case.

yea, they smoke on startup, but thats cos the crap in the engines has settled, and it gets blown out when the first compression kicks in

y'all don't know much about planes and engines obviously. only time those babys will smoke is if they get oil in the combustion chambers, like when the engines shot and the seals have gone....or someone puts a machine gun bullet through it.

so these guys claiming the war photos of the b-17's is smoke from the engines and not water vapor contrails.... what you on about?

(Weedwhacker replying to Reconpilot)

Shame on you! What is your age, anyway? 19???

I'm 16.

Anyway, I really think people should calm down before they get banned... lots of warnings. I apologise if I was too heated earlier.

[edit on 19/3/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Why should anyone want to watch through old films looking for contrails for you when you are utterly incapable of looking at any evidence yourself?

I guess this is what the youtube generation has come to? No book, no scientific report, is acceptable. Only a movie counts.

Please, please do not ask us to prove Great White Sharks existed before 1975 or that the Great Wall of China was not built in the 1950s or, indeed, that George Washington was a real person .....

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Essan]

reply to post by defcon5


"Lost in Space"......!!!

funny story...Gene Roddenberry first pitched his idea for 'Star Trek' to CBS. (Since, I guess, in LA, CBS was channel 2)

Anyway, he was rejected, after they listened to his 'pitch'.

His next stop was NBC (channel 4, in LA...) and they bought it, his concept.

BUT, the dudes at CBS used his ideas to make that shlock 'Lost in Space' crap.....

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Mason mike

 

Mason Mike…
Rumor has it you guys are behind this conspiracy:

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Today's trails formed a letter A, like above, or as my sister called it, the Masonic symbol!!

Now how's that for another layer of conspiracy?

We caught you all in the act:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0167f2cc2a19.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 3/19/2009 by defcon5]

Thanks guys, now i have to go home and change my pants.
I laughed so hard a little came out.
I think i hurt myself, too!

I've been thinking about this thread, and this topic, and wondering why it is the way it is ...

Oz, you and your "side" have one major problem - it's nearly impossible to prove a negative. It only takes one condensation trail which has "chemicals" in it to prove you wrong.

You folks on the pro-chem side have a problem too: in spite of all the claims, why aren't there lots of rock-solid air sample test results to prove your side?

The pictures and articles I linked to in my previous post - pictures and newspaper articles from the 1944 through the 1970's - were ignored. Why? Why is an archived newspaper article talking about persistent contrails changing a bright sunny day to overcast and then possibly causing rain not adequate evidence that there were persistent contrails pre-1998? Especially when there are more than one. Why the petty insistence on finding a movie or commercial shot pre-'98 that has a bunch of contrails in it? Why are photos taken by individuals and/or photos from newspapers not just as evidentiary as commercials or movies?

In any case, pictures don't prove anything. We know this because there are tons of pictures and videos of UFOs, Bigfoot, Nessie, and other anomalies but none of them are considered proof of anything's existence.

It should be apparent by now to any objective reader or participant in this thread that there were persistent contrails prior to 1998. Concede the point already; it doesn't disprove chemtrails!

As long as you (both sides) continue to try to struggle with absolutes, no one will win. Contrailers, you can't prove that NO chemtrails exist, and chemtrailers, you can't honestly believe yourselves that most or all persistent contrails are chemical-laden.

The real questions we ought to be trying to answer are:
1) Is there a secret program or programs spraying chemicals in the air?
2) If so, what is its purpose?
3) If so, how can we prove it? (because, you all know as well as I do that no secret program will be admitted to until it is proven to exist).

In any case, the burden of proof must be on the chemtrailers to prove they exist. Even if you could prove that persistent contrails didn't exist prior to 1998, that would prove absolutely nothing except that contrails ain't what they used to be. It does not prove, one way or the other, that any "chemicals" of any kind are in the contrails.

Seriously, the only way you can prove that chemtrails exist is by providing samples - or objective test results from samples - which have chemicals in them. And even then, you haven't proved the greater issue of whether or not there is a conspiracy and what its purpose/intent may be.

Both sides here are avoiding the larger questions because they are more difficult to "prove" one way or the other, but if we would all stop, take a deep breath, and think about it, the larger questions are the ones which must be answered, as they are important to all of us.

OZ, Essan, Weedwhacker, and gang - if there really IS a conspiracy and/or secret program spraying potentially harmful stuff on people, don't you want to know? I know that you believe that there isn't, but if there WERE - you'd want to know, wouldn't you?

Goldenfleece, Nobody, etc. - if there really isn't a conspiracy and/or secret program spraying chemicals and stuff on people, wouldn't you like to heave a sigh of relief and quit worrying about it? I know you believe there is, but don't you really just want to know the truth?

So we are all searching for the truth, we just have different opinions of what it is. Is there not any way that, instead of arguing about Patton movies and piston engines and other insignificant details that don't amount to a hill of beans one way or the other, we could collaborate on the one thing we have in common - finding the truth?

I believe that no one here is deliberately trying to further lies or disinformation. I believe that we all honestly believe what we believe, and our reasons for trying to promote our position on this issue are genuine and honest, and oddly the same - to protect people. One side wants to protect people from unnecessary fear, the other side wants to protect them from harmful chemicals.

So, I submit to both sides that we're hung up on pointless arguing and posturing over minor petty details that don't really matter.

Here are the things we really need to figure out:

IF there are chemtrails, then:

Who is doing it?
Why are they doing it?
What all chemicals are being used and what are their effects?
How are they doing it?
Why do only a few people get sick instead of lots of people?
Why aren't we seeing the chemicals in the soil, water, plants, and indicator animal species?
Why are atmospheric chemicals affecting only humans and not species which are normally more susceptible (such as birds)?
Why are they using relatively inefficient/ineffective means of dispersal of these chemicals instead of other possibilities? For example, in many of the Southern states they sometimes come around and spray for mosquitoes - anything could be in that stuff and it would end up exactly where they want it! Or, adding them to the chemicals which are already added to our drinking water would be much more efficient and effective, and cost a lot less!

What would REALLY be productive is if we all got together and started a research thread to try to answer some of these questions. If there really are chemtrails, then whoever's doing it has done a fantastic job of divide and conquer - y'all are so busy fighting each other you aren't actually learning or doing anything about contrails/chemtrails!

If we all put aside our differences and assumed that we're all good guys and we're all doing what we're doing for good and honest reasons, perhaps we could actually accomplish something besides another really long thread with lots of warns and mod edits which a lot of people read for the "entertainment" factor.

Looks like you guys are going to get reprieve for a day or so, as I am having some technical difficulties ATM. Believe me though I went through one movie and found at least 6 contrails, several of which were multiple contrails defusing into clouds. It does take time to review these movies, however, and to procure them. I found that many of these older movies can only be obtained online, which will take some time to receive them, but they are coming.

reply to post by Heike


An excellent post Heike and well worth a star Nice to see some genuinely objective comments!

I have always maintained that some chemical spraying may occur. My only contention is that what some people offer as evidence of this - persistent contrails - is not evidence at all.

Were I involved in chemtrail spraying, I'd be very pleased that those suspecting such thing are busy looking the other way and making fools of themselves by claiming contrails are chemtrails.

I firmly believe that any chemtrails would not be readily visible from the ground, though I accept that it might be convenient to disguise them as normal contrails if they should, for whatever reason, be visible.

I am unaware of any good evience that such spraying occurs, and doubt it does on any large scale, but I cannot exclude the possibility.

reply to post by defcon5


it is not nessesary. Everyone here (except one) I think accepts that there have been long skinny clouds in the sky before 1998 or whatever.

I personally have learned a good bit in this thread. I have even become more aware of the sky during the day. And Heike, you have some very good points. I would venture to guess that any of us here would be open to any real information that exists. It's just that subjects like this, when unproven, are the reasons people pick on us about those tin foil hats. You are all on this site, so don't give me the "he's not talking about me" stuff.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by network dude]

reply to post by Heike


There is plenty of solid chemtrail evidence, you should read OZ's previous debunk attempt. Just not from 'authoritative' sources: You must always realise in conspiracy theory that the ones with the resources to prove the phenomenon frequently are somehow envolved in it, thus lack motivation to do so. Absense of proof is not proof of absense in any case, as you well put it, you can't prove a negative.

And not many on the pro chemtrail side are discussing contrails, we all know they exist, we all know they can be somewhat persistant. Yet we have seen chemtrails and some of us have investigated the circumstance enough to realise it's some sort of covert operation. And even if it's just weather manipulation, another thing that is admitted and known about, it's still chemtrails, it's still a covert operation with an agenda which will have unknown results.

If you read previous chemtrail threads back to back you will realise the debunking follows a pattern and rejects information and sources beyond reasonable doubt.

And I'm beyond debating. I'm warning people.

Originally posted by Zepherian

And not many on the pro chemtrail side are discussing contrails

I only wish that were the case, and then we'd no longer have people - including yourself - arguing that contrails are chemtrails (which there is no evidence nor any reason we would be able to see).

But so long as people argue photos of contrails are chemtrails, we'll get no closer to the truth. Makes you wonder, eh?


Of chemtrail believers could come up with a coherent theory as to what they are, and what their purpose is, we might have a rational discussion to evaluate the idea. Personally I can't see that happening in my lifetime.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Essan]