Striking Chemtrail footage from Vancouver. Debunk this!

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'm assuming you didn't read my previous post or the final part of the post you were responding to.

Here is my initial post.

My Post

And I say in my last post that I don't think they are doing for any depopulation agenda but are perhaps doing it to mitigate the effects of global warming, as stated in the policy document I provided.

reply to post by mclarenmp4


Those points have been addressed on more than one occasion at ATS. On akll occasions, the samples taken were either:

1. Not confirmed to have been from contrails

2. Taken in spots were the surface or soil was affected by mining.

And considering the high speed winds, with varying direction and speed in the upper troposphere....do you really think that something released up there will keep its form and float gently to the ground?

reply to post by mclarenmp4


Oh, I did read it, I di I did!

I was editing, got kicked off, had to re-boot.

Go see my finished masterpiece, now.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mclarenmp4

 

Oh, I did read it, I di I did!

I was editing, got kicked off, had to re-boot.

Go see my finished masterpiece, now.....

No need for the piss taking, you submitted a post which I assumed was your reply and unbeknown to me you got kicked off and had to reboot. Less of a condescending tone might get your points across without sounding full of yourself. Just some friendly advice for you.

I again am going to assume; since you didn't reference the article I posted, that you didn't actually read it.

I posted an article from a gentleman in Edmonton who had been to the air traffic control when the supposed spraying of chemtrails were occurring and I quote.

"The signature is significant" commented one radar operator, referring to trails clearly visible on his scope extending for miles behind the KC-135s. In contrast, a commercial JAL flight on the same display left no visible trail.

External Link...Again

So you are also denying what these air traffic controllers were seeing on their scopes? Please read the page before commenting this time, please.

I also posted a news report which had RAINFALL samples which were independently tested, which I assume again you didn't watch because you proceed to talk about GROUND samples. Bit of a difference me thinks.

Also I know where the troposphere is located.
Again you are taking one salient bit of information from my post and twisting it for your own agenda.
My point in referencing the study is that they were discussing using Barium Oxide and Aluminium and independent studies using rainfall not ground samples have found that there is a very high barium content in areas where chemtrails have been believed to have been sprayed.
Now I'm not a meteorologist like OZ but I don't see how mining can have such an effect on rainfall, perhaps OZ can clarify to me how mining operations can have an effect on rainfall?


[edit on 9-3-2010 by mclarenmp4]

Originally posted by mclarenmp4
where chemtrails have been believed to have been sprayed.
Now I'm not a meteorologist like OZ but I don't see how mining can have such an effect on rainfall, perhaps OZ can clarify to me how mining operations can have an effect on rainfall?

Ok, since you asked

1. Dust from in-situ leaching, where water soluble materials can be evaporated within water molecules into the air

2. Dust from digging, strip mining and quarrying will end up with some particulates in the atmosphere

3. Smelting plants can produce chemicals in the form of particulates in the atmopshere

4. Effluent and waste dumped into water bodies can cause contamination of water through causing evaporated water to be contaminated.

The big problem with particulates in the air, is the fact that water molecules, wether they be in ice or water droplet form, cling onto them.

This is almost the exact way in which cloud seeding is supposed to work.

Have you also considered factors such as heavy industry pollutants?

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by mclarenmp4
where chemtrails have been believed to have been sprayed.
Now I'm not a meteorologist like OZ but I don't see how mining can have such an effect on rainfall, perhaps OZ can clarify to me how mining operations can have an effect on rainfall?

Ok, since you asked

1. Dust from in-situ leaching, where water soluble materials can be evaporated within water molecules into the air

2. Dust from digging, strip mining and quarrying will end up with some particulates in the atmosphere

3. Smelting plants can produce chemicals in the form of particulates in the atmopshere

4. Effluent and waste dumped into water bodies can cause contamination of water through causing evaporated water to be contaminated.

The big problem with particulates in the air, is the fact that water molecules, wether they be in ice or water droplet form, cling onto them.

This is almost the exact way in which cloud seeding is supposed to work.

Have you also considered factors such as heavy industry pollutants?

Thanks for the reply OZ. I did appreciate through evaporation that there maybe levels of rainwater that may have these particulates in them but surely these samples would be diluted to very low levels of said chemicals? If the rainwater samples are providing Barium levels much higher than expected levels then surely we would find that the ground samples would have even higher level of Barium in them and that would be an ecological concern in those areas?

You are also talking about very localised pollutants, where ground barium levels are present. Again you are assuming that mining operations are present all over the world where these samples are being taken. I will try to find a study from the UK where there are almost no mining occuring.

Again, thanks for the response.

reply to post by mclarenmp4


I've been exposed ( ) to that article before, saw no reason to elaborate about it. Quite old, it is. AND I find its account less than stirring. Sorry.

I see it as an instance of a vivid imagination, putting two plus two together, to draw a conclusion of 'five'. In other words, 'guilt by association', although no direct evidence, just speculation.

Some aspects of the narrative strike me as inconsistent, as well.

I would question the veracity and credibility of the source.

Now, could it have been an 'experiment'? Perhaps. But, if it was somehow nefarious, why do it in broad daylight, in full view of civilians???

See, that's where the "chemtrail" argument tends to fall down.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mclarenmp4

 

I've been exposed

Well it's good to see that you are being honest about your obvious bias on the subject.
Only joking of course, I'm just wanting to point out that it's very easy to take small portions of peoples posts and using them to fit your own skewed agenda.

I see it as an instance of a vivid imagination, putting two plus two together, to draw a conclusion of 'five'. In other words, 'guilt by association', although no direct evidence, just speculation.

Again you are showing your bias on the subject by dismissing the narrative I supplied which is a verifiable and in my opinion a credible source.

Some aspects of the narrative strike me as inconsistent, as well.

Care to elaborate?

I would question the veracity and credibility of the source.

Again which source are we talking about here? The study I provided, the enws report or the gentleman from Edmonton I quoted? If it was the quy from Edmonton then fair enough but the local news report I would say is a credible source.

Now, could it have been an 'experiment'? Perhaps. But, if it was somehow nefarious, why do it in broad daylight, in full view of civilians???

See, that's where the "chemtrail" argument tends to fall down.....

Now that made me laugh. Don't you see that you are proving exactly why they could do it in broad daylight in front of everyone?
Because people like yourself will easily dismiss it becuase they wouldn't do it in plain site would they, no of course not..

Excellent post, thanks very much.

Hey guys great discussion.

I still have to learn how to embed the rest of my photos.

I tried to search ATS, like I did when I learned how to embed the video but I just couldnt find it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Those who subscribe to sticking "science" to their argument make me laugh though. You could talk to me about the edge of the earth (which was "science" at one time also, peak oil, (which was science at one time as well), or no life anywhere except earth or of course man made global warming to be cured by carbon tax.

Ever heard of

READ BETWEEN THE FREAKIN' LINES!

Get it.

It means...if you need to be told by the powers that be what IS and IS NOT the TRUTH then you are already DEAD.

its really quite simple. I'm not here trying to scare you. I am here trying to help you.

"Gee the EPA said the air was safe to breathe..I guess it is."

Do you get it. Your government doesnt love you. And no I'm not talking about your auntie the secretary at City Hall buddy.

Ever heard of a slow kill? Of course you have....and of course its not true.

I can't believe Im on a site like this arguing about the existance of chemtrails or contrails that act like chemtrails...whatever the hell you want to wrap around it, its a joke and the sad thing is...they have those who are being screwed over by it...arguing with those trying to help them!

Wake Up buddy.

I can't speak for where you live and I hope that you only experience contrails.

But I GUARANTEE you this...

You see them being laid just ONCE...JUST ONCE and when you see them spread out and seep down toward your town or city and you see the mountains across the water thick with haze like a fog with your own eyes and breathe it with your own lungs...you will be on these very message boards singing a very different song.

Until then, i guess its just air traffic...prevailing winds....weather patterns....mother nature....in your imagination.

I'll be here

reply to post by mclarenmp4


Allow me to be a little more clear, then.

I tried to inject a little humor into this topic, because it isn't nearly as big a deal as people wish to think.

In your article, we have two KC-135s, and on one occasiion they're over 30,000 feet. Are you aware of the normal winds, the winds that prevail at those altitudes? It, of course, varies day to day, and by season, latitude, etc, etc. But, since you mentioned Edmonton, Canada...that's the Northern Hemisphere. The prevailing wind direction here is West to East, and at the higher altitudes, those wind velocities are quite strong.

ANYTHING 'sprayed' out, at those altitudes, will NOT immediately fall straight down! They will stay aloft, for some time, carried in the 'currents' of the winds, and disperse greatly along the way. It's like pouring a gallon of dye-colored water into a large flkowing river!

It gets diluted, rather quickly.

In fact, if as suggested the activity had something to do with the 'G7' conference, that one time, to enhance radio communications in some way, then whatever it was was temporary in nature.

Think on it....a 'G7' conference, where you have a lot of "high-horsepower" officials from various countries attending....surely one can't imagine the intent is to 'poison' them?

The other thing about these "chemtrail" proponents (is that the right word?) --- who claim that these are designed to 'poison' the population...well, there are other people, the ones alleged to be 'behind it all', who also live on the planet. How are they not going to be affected too?

It is illogical to fear what is very benign and commonplace.

reply to post by Game_Over


Unless your eyes have sensitive spectrometers in them, you can't tell what a contrail is made up from.

We shouldn't trust the government? Fine. There are millions of independent scientists around the world who will raise the alarm if this is actually happening.

Your argument seems to be that we should all be scared of everything. Paranoid much?

Originally posted by mclarenmp4
What I find funny is that the debunkers don't seem to think that we don't know what normal contrails look like, I mean it's not as if contrails are a new thing.

Exactly, they've bene hangiong around spreading across the sky for decades.

So why do you think that all of a sudden people started to think they were chemtrails about 10 years ago

More like 15 years ago.

And the answer is simple: the internet.

To this day I'm not sure if it was a deliberate hoax planted as an experiment or not.


What is clear is that however often people explain that what you see today is no different in any shape or form to what we saw in the 1950s or 1960s (except being much, much more common for obvious reasons) there will always be new people find the chemtrail hoax on the internet and falling for it.

I'm sure we'll be having the same conversation in 2020. Although hopefully by then we'll be perfecting technology that prevent contrails from forming Otherwise we might never see the sun again!

I'm very open minded about most conspiracies - that's why I come to this site. Chemtrails though? Not buying it for a second. That video, for example, shows good old fashioned CONtrails......they're easily explained, and have been many many times. The atmosphere is incredibly complex and ever-changing - you can't expect every contrail to behave the same any more than you could expect every single wave on the ocean to be exactly the same in a particular place.

Of course there have been experiments (I'm guessing) involving spraying stuff from planes. Of course there is such a thing as cloud seeding. But to suggest there's a large scale, ever-present spraying effort around the globe is just paranoid in the extreme.

Originally posted by Game_Over
Hey guys great discussion.

I still have to learn how to embed the rest of my photos.

I tried to search ATS, like I did when I learned how to embed the video but I just couldnt find it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Those who subscribe to sticking "science" to their argument make me laugh though. You could talk to me about the edge of the earth (which was "science" at one time also, peak oil, (which was science at one time as well), or no life anywhere except earth or of course man made global warming to be cured by carbon tax.

Ever heard of

READ BETWEEN THE FREAKIN' LINES!

Get it.

It means...if you need to be told by the powers that be what IS and IS NOT the TRUTH then you are already DEAD.

its really quite simple. I'm not here trying to scare you. I am here trying to help you.

"Gee the EPA said the air was safe to breathe..I guess it is."

Do you get it. Your government doesnt love you. And no I'm not talking about your auntie the secretary at City Hall buddy.

Ever heard of a slow kill? Of course you have....and of course its not true.

I can't believe Im on a site like this arguing about the existance of chemtrails or contrails that act like chemtrails...whatever the hell you want to wrap around it, its a joke and the sad thing is...they have those who are being screwed over by it...arguing with those trying to help them!

Wake Up buddy.

I can't speak for where you live and I hope that you only experience contrails.

But I GUARANTEE you this...

You see them being laid just ONCE...JUST ONCE and when you see them spread out and seep down toward your town or city and you see the mountains across the water thick with haze like a fog with your own eyes and breathe it with your own lungs...you will be on these very message boards singing a very different song.

Until then, i guess its just air traffic...prevailing winds....weather patterns....mother nature....in your imagination.

I'll be here

Have you ever seen water tankers fighting a fire, to have enough effect they dump their load at low level and it takes all of a few seconds to drop tons of water to be seen as a solid plume, even when relatively close by.
If you have any sense of scale, you'd realize that the contrails are quite large at altitude, often larger than the aircraft and they form behind the engines a long ways back as the large volumes hot exhaust and combustion vapor cools. Unheated spray wouldnt be expected to be ejected from the engines and at 30k ft room temp fluids condense immediately at the nozzle as it hits 40 degrees below zero, heating the nozzles only keeps the nozzle open, it doesnt heat large volumes of fluid per minute to high temp, only just above freezing,. Particulates of course would be seen immediately and most dense at the nozzle and disperse further from the nozzle. It takes many many tons of water vapor to be seen many miles high and many miles long. There isnt that much capacity of the aircraft to carry it plain and simple. Sure it could be done to some lesser degree or in some partial fashion, but not to the degree and result in what you think the results would be. Basically youre fussing about events that COULD be plausible when taken in isolated fragments, but when stacked together as required to perform the kind of mission you suggest, just cant be done the way you say.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by thatredpill]

[edit on 10-3-2010 by thatredpill]

[edit on 10-3-2010 by thatredpill]

Originally posted by Game_Over
Those who subscribe to sticking "science" to their argument make me laugh though. You could talk to me about the edge of the earth (which was "science" at one time also, peak oil, (which was science at one time as well), or no life anywhere except earth or of course man made global warming to be cured by carbon tax.

So I guess you just discounted the evidence I provided earlier. The actual data taken from the weather balloon, launched just prior to your photo. The one that is factual observations? Ignorance...

I can't believe Im on a site like this arguing about the existance of chemtrails or contrails that act like chemtrails...whatever the hell you want to wrap around it, its a joke and the sad thing is...they have those who are being screwed over by it...arguing with those trying to help them!

More like scare mongering. Something which Cliff Carnicom and other conspiracy theorists have done for decades, promoting books, and seminars and other items for sale. Also, you dont seem to know anything about meteorology, so why not try to learn a little bit of the basic stuff, so your argument doesnt sound so one sided. Myself and others have tried to wrap our heads around your side, but most of us find it unplausible.

So go ahead, prove the meteorology wrong

You see them being laid just ONCE...JUST ONCE and when you see them spread out and seep down toward your town or city and you see the mountains across the water thick with haze like a fog with your own eyes and breathe it with your own lungs...you will be on these very message boards singing a very different song.

Agian, you are discounting the enormous variation in wind speed and direction. Another example of ignorance, by simply ignoring actual observations. Prove to us why the observations are incorrect and prove how 70 odd years of meteorological aviation science is wrong, and you may have an argument, but simply saying that you (well you think) know that contrails cant spread out, without providing an explanation why, is nothing but an invalid point of view

To repeat the sentiments posted by several others, may I add... how many times have you seen a report of 'trails' accompanied by supporting information? It may not be clear what I mean, so allow me to elaborate ..

1. By taking note of the location, date, time and direction of a flight, it is relatively simple (in 99.99% of cases) to identify the flight. That will let you determine the height to a reasonable level of accuracy.

2. It is also relatively easy to find out what the atmospheric conditions are at a given altitude at any location, date and time.

3. And it is easy to research the atmospheric conditions that are likely to produce contrails (mainly temp, dewpoint, humidity, pressure).

Now put those together and what do you have? Why do you think the chemtrail believers NEVER do this?

(Note that this is all easy to do in the USA, not so easy in some other countries.) If anyone needs more information on exactly how to do this, let me know and I'll post all relevant links and references (some of them are scattered back in the thread). However, if you have to ask, it shows you simply haven't done your homework...

FYI, I live in a large metropolitan area *not* in the USA, and in a region and climate not conducive to contrails. I see them only on a few days each year. Does that mean my region contains only people 'they' don't want to affect? I'm insulted - we aren't a 'threat'?

As for the whole 'chemtrail' conspiracy... as someone who knows science pretty well and meteorology *extra* well, I cannot, even in my wildest imagination, think of a less efficient, less controllable, and frankly, completely IDIOTIC methodology for delivering chemicals.

I'm not saying contrails are good - quite the contrary - they DO affect climate/weather, and this area is not particularly well-researched..

By the way, I have a specific request for 'Romans 10:9', who claims to have logs - POST those logs. In other words, I call your bluff.

Also, to the other so called 'researchers' populating this thread with unsupported rubbish 'supporting' 'chem'trails, thanks for the proof of what you really are.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by CHRLZ]

While I'm waiting for Romans 10:9 to post his 'logs' (does it take this long to create something half believable??), here's a list of sites that may be of interest to contrail watchers in the US. There are many others, but I like the ones below. Frankly, if you haven't seen/used these, you aren't really that seriously interested...

To identify the aircraft you are seeing, try Flightaware:
flightaware.com...

To see contrail likelihood estimations, try NASA Langley's Contrail Formation Forecast system:
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

Or if you want to do it the hard way, use actual high altitude soundings collated by U. of Wyoming:
weather.uwyo.edu...

Of course to use that last one you will need to understand which numbers are important, and what sort of combination will produce contrails. But I can't give you everything - that one I'll leave to the serious researchers to find/work out for themselves.

Having said that, once you spend some time poring over the figures, you will start to see the sort of trend that guarantees contrails.