The Chemtrail Phenomenon, page 15

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:44 PM

link

reply to post by weedwhacker

Here we go again. . .

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority
and present your argument with enough "jargon" and. . .

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered,
avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense,
provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning
backwards with an apparent deductive logic. . .

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here,
find a way to side-track the discussion with. . .

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s),
leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground. . .

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract
from sensitive issues, or. . .

Blue skies.

blc4r4

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:46 PM

link

reply to post by weedwhacker

www.911-strike.com...

C-JEAN

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:50 PM

link

reply to post by blc4r4

Hi, blc4r4.

I have EVEN seen a Boeing 707, or a DC-8 radio-controled,
for a simulated crash, with wings torn apart with steel posts. . .

We often see that scene, on TV. . .

Blue skies.

neformore

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:27 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Mindmelding
Honestly Neformore, if you say you live in england and are an aviation nut and have never seen a chemtrail despite looking regularly at the sky... I just can't believe you. Sorry, I just can't. If I'm wrong I'm wrong I guess. I know it's not pleasant to hear someone dosen't believe you, but hey, at least I'm honest...

It doesn't upset me that you don't believe me at all.

Did you see this ?

more than 7500 planes a day, over an area that is less than the size of Texas. See the patterns they form? See how the stacking systems work? See how there are blank spots as well?

I used to live under the main north south air corridor on the west coast, inbetween Manchester airport and Liverpool John Lennon Airport. I now live under the main east-west air corridor.

So I ask again - because you have not answered - what am I supposed to be looking for, exactly?

How do I tell the difference between a persistant contrail and a "chemtrail"?

Its a a simple question. You claim to be able to do it, so enlighten me.

Its no use just saying "I know". Explain.

I'm trying to learn here. Its not like I don't breathe the air, is it?

Everything I know about the subject matter tells me that is hogwash. You claim to know different.

So.... educate me,properly, with decent facts that are irrefutable and scientifically verified, and don't rely on random pictures of lines in the sky, false assumptions about aircraft altitude, ignorance about differing types of cloud formation, photos of aircraft that have proper explanations and random soil samples taken without background controls.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

weedwhacker

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:42 AM

link

Originally posted by C-JEAN
reply to post by weedwhacker

Here we go again. . .

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority
and present your argument with enough "jargon" and. . .

Number 8!!! The infamous Number 8!!
Invoke authority....love that one, do ya???

How do you think we learn? From our parents, for instance? THEY have, and invoke 'authority'. Teachers, in shcool and University. THEY certainly 'invoke authority'!!

ANYONE who knows a subject better than you, will be seen to be 'evoking authority'!!!

Oh, not to let 'Number 8 get away!! Jargon??? WHAT, precisely, is 'J
jargon??? IS it, maybe...techinical terms that laypersons don't understand?? Such as used by, say your doctors, when speaking to one anopther?? Or pilots....nurses, teacher, construction workers.....chemists??? Professionals who, in conferring with their colleagues, use 'jargon'??? Is it so wrong to attempt to educagte the lapeople???? Would the layperson prefer to be spoken to as a seven year old???

I think that is insulting to a logical, thinking Human adult.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered,
avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense,
provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
Mix well for maximum effect.

Tactic best used by the original proponents of nonsense and bollocks theories, in the firt place!!!

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning
backwards with an apparent deductive logic. . .

See above....used by the OPs of nonsense and rubbish....and their 'friends'

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here,
find a way to side-track the discussion with. . .

See above...

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s),
leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground. . .

Oh, dear, oh dear...proponents of outlandish 'conspiracies' are really adept at this tactic...."Forge New Ground"...."Change the Subject"....that is about the same as "Manufacture a New Truth"....another component of this series of idiotic rants.....

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract
from sensitive issues, or. . .

Again....tactic tried and true, by the 'proponents'...NOT by logical, intelligent and eduacated individuals who simply wish that bollocks ideas aren't promulgated!!!

Blue skies.

Ah,the clever, so nice 'sign-off'.

So disarming, in it's simplicity.
Of xcourse, you've never answered my direct question: Your username is very, very similar to how airplanes, in Canada, are registered. I asked if you fly, or own an airplane. No answer.

You mentioned, if memory serves, you have a son who is a pilot...and believes in "chemtrails' as well....that disturbs me. If true.

A delusion is a terrible thing.....and attempting to promote it, based on fear, paranoia and horribly bad innuendo, form suspect websites with hidden agendas....even worse.

wonderworld

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:46 AM

link

reply to post by weedwhacker

I understand you are very opinionated but truly hope you can follow the ATS T&C rules. Please and Thank You.

wonderworld

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:48 AM

link

reply to post by C-JEAN

People have reported seeing drones during some of the grid patterns. They make almost no noise like a jet would and are less conspicuous.

observe50

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:01 AM

link

The denial on this is just as bad as with UFO's and Alien's. I say if people think they are contrails go out on a spray day, look up, open mouth and deep breathe.

I belonged to a site that had members from all around the world that monitored and collected samples. Samples then were tested and all I can say is again for the non believer's go ahead go out open and breathe.

The non believers need to do there own research.

neformore

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:10 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by observe50

More rhetoric.

Interesting that you think that people who don't believe this stuff don't breathe

What criteria were your samples based on, and how did you take them?

How did you capture your control samples?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

wonderworld

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:41 AM

link

reply to post by observe50

Yes I know that weather control and chemtrails are proven; however they go to extreme lengths to cover it up. Have you noticed the few that are dead set on debunking the unbunkable? Very odd.

Mindmelding

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:00 AM

link

reply to post by neformore

Simple. You watch a few aircraft laying down persistant trails, where others don't leave trails. You jot down the time. You wait and see if those trails spread out into cloud cover. Then you try and confirm the flight numbers... and you'll see they're not normal airtraffic. You'll have a lot of false positives, britain has a lot of air traffic, but sooner or later you'll stumble on the chemtrailers.

Another way is to go to those no fly zones in England, as there are a few fairly big ones as that video shows, so you reduce the noise, and you try spotting there to see what turns up. Or you go to the seaside and out into the ocean. Sooner or later you'll stumble on suspicious air traffic and the sort of grey brown cloud cover coming from chemtrails that I describe. Then you can hunt it down for yourself. Educate yourself.

From a strictly visual pov it's hard to distinguise, so you have to be aware of context. This is a bit like confirmation bias, you have to believe in the possibility so you put the effort in to look for them. If you're dismissive, as per usual, you'll not see them simply because you don't spend enough time.

I'll give you my example. Up untill a while back I was a bit dismissive of chemtrails, although I had noticed the sky was changing slightly, becoming dirtier so to speak, but I thought it was global warming (tm; bs). Them, by chance I had my first sighting. After the interest sparked by that I started to look more often and the pattern showed up. And my current opinion formed over time with the experiences. This is where you are now, the early pre sighting skepticism. Since you a priori don't accept the possibility your brain and ego are dismissing the sightings you probably already have had, if only out of the corner of your eye.

Pay more atention and, again, educate yourself. The scientific validation will be you getting off your high horse and actually calling ATC and the government once you get your first solid sightings. Their reaction will give you more clues as to what is going on. And then you might want to do the atmospheric testing, if by that point you're not already crapping your pants by being on a MI5 terrorist watch list or something along these lines.

wonderworld

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:27 AM

link

There are tons more news articles out there, some are in a foreign language. We all need to be aware of this.

NETHERLANDERS protest chemtrails

[edit on 4-6-2009 by wonderworld]

[edit on 4-6-2009 by wonderworld]

neformore

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:55 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Thanks for the information. Now we can get down to brass tacks, as they say in these parts...

Originally posted by Mindmelding
Simple. You watch a few aircraft laying down persistant trails, where others don't leave trails.

You jot down the time. You wait and see if those trails spread out into cloud cover. Then you try and confirm the flight numbers... and you'll see they're not normal airtraffic. You'll have a lot of false positives, britain has a lot of air traffic, but sooner or later you'll stumble on the chemtrailers.

Ok. Screeching halt right there.

If I'm going out into the field, I'm going to do it with a decent pair of field glasses, and more probably a telescope. If I do that, then I'm going to know exactly what type of plane I'm looking at.

What I won't know - at all - because I don't happen to have a height finding radar with me, is the altitude that the aircraft is flying at.

I'm also not going to have the real time information of the atmospheric conditions at the altitude that the plane may be flying at - conditions that vary minute by minute in some cases or details of any prevailing weather that is coming in that might be causing a change in the atmosphere. Yes, I can probably get a rough idea from meteorological charts published after the fact, but the specific conditions, at the specific times are going to be damned hard to come by. See...I'm not at the plane. I'm separated from it horizontally and vertically by some considerable differences.

I'm also not going to know, from my position on the ground, the actual bearing the plane is flying along, or my distance to the target I'm observing horizontally. (No fixed reference points to relate to). So the absolute best - and I do mean best thing I'm going to get out of all that information is an educated guess, so when I go back and try and see what that plane might have been, the only definite information I'm going to have is a time and a very rough geographical area.

Knowing the exact plane type will help with those guesses, but even then if there is more than one of a particular type of airframe in the area at the time, unless I can pin it down to a specific airline (and I'd need to ID the tail logo usually to do that, which may not be possible due to viewing angle) its possible I could misidentify, and thus get the altitude details wrong, if I can get a copy of the exact flight plans for that area, for that day.

I'm also not likely to find any details whatsoever, short of filing an FOIA request, of military flights in the area, as they don't have to make their flight plans public knowledge. Of course, if I can see the plane, I can probably ID it, but the same problems of altitude and bearing apply.

Another way is to go to those no fly zones in England, as there are a few fairly big ones as that video shows, so you reduce the noise, and you try spotting there to see what turns up. Or you go to the seaside and out into the ocean. Sooner or later you'll stumble on suspicious air traffic and the sort of grey brown cloud cover coming from chemtrails that I describe. Then you can hunt it down for yourself. Educate yourself.

The no fly zones are there for a reason

I have been ejected from the vicinity of two of them

From a strictly visual pov it's hard to distinguise, so you have to be aware of context. This is a bit like confirmation bias, you have to believe in the possibility so you put the effort in to look for them. If you're dismissive, as per usual, you'll not see them simply because you don't spend enough time.

And theres the crunch. If you want to see something, then you are going to see it. Particularly if you aren't looking at it from a totally cold standpoint and applying logic to it. Imagination is a powerful tool, and it can run away with a person before they realise it.

This is where you are now, the early pre sighting skepticism. Since you a priori don't accept the possibility your brain and ego are dismissing the sightings you probably already have had, if only out of the corner of your eye.

Actually, its the other way round. See, initially I was taken in by the stories, until I applied the research, and the time, and the science.

Pay more atention and, again, educate yourself.

Always with the sniping. I'm particularly well educated by anyones standards in the topic, thank you very much.

And then you might want to do the atmospheric testing, if by that point you're not already crapping your pants by being on a MI5 terrorist watch list or something along these lines.

Again, what would my base sample be? How do I adjust for the local pollution levels with regard to manufacturing and heavy industry, as well as automotive and other local pollutants.

And, more importantly, how on earth do I correlate a sample on the ground with a moving target that may well be five miles up? What about the affects of dispersion, and dilution?

I'm enjoying the discussion. Maybe you could answer my points and we can continue it?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 4/6/09 by neformore]

observe50

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:03 PM

link

neformore that video was sad really, but to be honest I expected no less.

Let's leave it at a no win

Mindmelding

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:09 PM

link

reply to post by neformore

No, you're not well educated on the topic, as I have seen you gloss over good information in your skeptical bias. And I'm not sniping, I'm disagreeing with you because I have seen these operations and know your negation is baseless. We won't get over this, either you accept that I may be right and rethink your position to the point you look again, closer, or we're done as nothing more am I willing to do.

Yes, some people see what they want to see, but I'm suggesting you keep an open mind and look, not confirm my opinions. I don't need the confirmation, you do. I'm not telling you to be a delusional, I'm telling you to look again.

And you can calculate the height through triangulation, if you put the time in, again comes the personal effort, to learn the techniques and the math. You don't need radar, just learn some trignometry and use a point of reference and some decent optical equipment plus some spotters guide which shows aircraft dimensions.

Your subconscious is putting up restrictions, barriers, where there are none. Should you want to you can confirm that chemtrails are real, especially in England, a country frequently hit by them.

Again, you can't be well versed on the topic because you're wrong. I say this based on my own experience, so either you accept that I could be right and act on this acceptance or you don't and we can stop this tangent of the thread.

Either way nice discussing it with you.

C-JEAN

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:19 PM

link

reply to post by weedwhacker

. . .you've never answered my direct question:. . .

I made the mistake to remove some IGNOREs, to see the reasons
for some answers. . .

You mentioned, if memory serves, you have a son who is a pilot. . .

Hoooooo BOY !! Where is THAT coming from ????

Now,
I'm correcting my mistake to remove some IGNOREs, to stop seeing
those totaly useless 2 pages answers. Click click. . .

Sooooo, no use to write/answer to me, I am not there to read it ! B-)

Blue skies.

neformore

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:24 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I came looking for reasoned conversation and answers, and I got this.

Again, you can't be well versed on the topic because you're wrong.

That is the point where all rationale goes out of the window. I've been wasting my time.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Spirit Warrior

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:53 PM

link

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by Spirit Warrior

That is one detail which bothers me too, the lack of whistleblowing pilots. I have two theories...

1) They are military pilots. These won't talk about classified operations for fear of getting thrown in the brig.

2) They are civilian but scared senseless by some classified environmental data along the lines of "if we don't do anything all life on earth will spontaneously combust", just slightly less silly so they buy it. Of course this would be a lie, it takes a special sort of person, a conspiracy theorist, to realise that most of our society is run on lies. Most people can't stomach this and live in denial all their lives, A type personalities like pilots being no exception.

But I honestly don't know what's going on other than I see chemtrails...

Edit: another theory which is so obvious I didn't think about it, that is that maybe the chemtrail airliners are retrofitted fuselages retired from the airliner industry and fully automated, as has been done for target drones and UAVs. Perhaps there is only a handfull of pilots, controlling these things in computer centers and they take off and land either by remote control or on full autopilot. This way a relatively small number of people would actually be controlling the planes, knowing where they go and what they do. This would make sense, and would reduce the number of potential whistleblowers.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Mindmelding]

The problem with that is I don't believe it. As military, we are sworn to serve and protect the public. Maybe you disagree, but we take that very seriously. We absolutely would not harm the public we are sworn to protect. The US public that is. The military indoctrination makes sure that there is an us vs them atitude, but they would not do harm to the US. Also, we are duty bound to NOT FOLLOW any order that we deem is morally wrong and against the law. In fact we are supposed to report these issues up the chain of command.

Spirit Warrior

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:04 PM

link

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by Spirit Warrior

You would be surprised to know the technology coming from Aerospace technology!

Just think about the blackbird we never knew of it until it was retired. Guys wont spill the beans.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by wonderworld]

Actually, as I stated before I am in the industry. I work on cutting edge R&D projects people don't even know about. Military projects, civilian, homeland security, and I have also worked in the UAV (drone) industry. I have a vast amount of knowledge and experience here.

I can tell you for sure that they don't use drones, and they cannot turn an airliner into a drone either. Well, it would be possible, but you would have to completely redesign the entire control system. It would be more cost effective to just design a new bird. Second, there is a big problem with take-off and landing heavy drones. You need a dedicated airport for that.

Spirit Warrior

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:11 PM

link

Originally posted by C-JEAN
reply to post by blc4r4

Hi, blc4r4.

I have EVEN seen a Boeing 707, or a DC-8 radio-controled,
for a simulated crash, with wings torn apart with steel posts. . .

We often see that scene, on TV. . .

Blue skies.

This test was done for many reasons. Number one reason was to test a new detergent based jet fuel that cannot burn in a crash. The test used wing shredders to dice up the wings (fuel tanks) and see if there would be a fire ball. The plane drifted during landing due to control data link system delay and the shredder hit the unconditioned fuel at the engine nacelle. This caused a brief low temp fire.

The interesting thing here is that the fuel additive actually worked. If the planes that hit the towers had this system, only the people in the planes and impacted floors would have been killed. Hundreds and not thousands. Some pencil necked A-hole decided it was not worth implementing even though it was relatively cheap.

Lets all give a short golf clap for that guy.