It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Chemtrail Pictures!! (or is this just a Natural Phenomenon?)

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by stars15k

No, aluminum spray is not called chaff. Chaff are small particles dropped, not sprayed that reflect radar to mask other targets. It's been used since radar was first used for planes.

You took the one part of my post that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (re. military chaff) and made that your serious point. If you'd followed the next article ("Shhh, What if it was reported that they are spraying aluminum"?), then you would see the serious side of the concerns.

So far as this little collection of quotes you made, you are sounding about as much a slanderer as Weedwhacker was becoming earlier in this thread, which incidently, is the primary reason I posted
anything at all here.

Unlike "chemtrail" sites, which conduct their own tests, make their own assumptions, and have bad science behind them, real science requires thinking and knowledge.

Therefore, any person posting on a site that claims "chemtrails" is under your immediate disqualification category. This is the same

You are so far out in the fringe, claiming so much crap from such nonsensical sources I thought originally that you were joking. You really believe all that stuff? Why? Did you sleep through all 19 years of school?

All topics under media suppression by the PTB are "on the fringe" or in the realms of conspiracy, to my understanding. Should I be ashamed to discuss them, or am I nutter for ever considering it? Neither. As for believing or not, I brought up information to discuss the distaff of your revered "truths" - which are entirely cherry-picked points regarding contrails (which I never denied exist - they exist in abundance), and which fail to look at the whole scope of the agendas in place.

As to the other parts of your "claims", you are so far off the facts that are provable and have been studied for decades, by real scientists, in experiments that are published and critiqued by other real scientists it's actually amusing.

Another useless comment. Observation is the truest science, and hate to break it to you, but university is only a means to an end so far as science is concerned. To you and your methodology of argument I present the following.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

I, too, am also called a disinfo agent, here and in other sites.

It's worth studying disinformation. It sure beats getting caught up in a purposefully designed deflection for the reason of avoiding personal frustration, And it might help counter the severing of links which are being attempted in other readers minds.

If some of my own information is off, that's fine - I'm just as happy as you are to weed out the bad and retain the good. I agree, there's a lot of hasty conclusions floating around out there. Unlike yourselves, I don't throw the baby our with the bathwater. Unless you don't care about the reality of the situation, maybe you should start listening to a few of those people on those chemtrail sites, and on this board who, like myself, don't appreciate being lied to, seeing everything we put forth subjected to rude and crude disinfo treatment, and seeing the information put out by concerned citizens glazed over. By your same broad strokes, you discredit a lot of worth. That, in turn, only lowers your integrity.

So far as your claims of disinformation go, I'd like to see how you can pass off everything Alex Jones or that found on Rense as nonsense. That makes as little sense as calling you a disinfo agent for working on a forestry project years ago and collecting a government paycheque. If I choose to pick articles from those sources, it's because of the articles worth, regardless of the source.

I consider this post filler, and a dealing with your objectionable and laughable approaches to the matter, clearly designed not so much to answer me, but to discredit sources, and the person who brings them up. Classic disinfo work on this board has been a mainstay of you contrailers, along with a collective of you starring each other up to some favourable standing! It's a joke.

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 09:25 AM
What about the J-75 aircraft?
What about the 15th Aerosol Attack Sq.?
Ultimate Proof - Chemtrails

What about November 5th, 2010 over Seattle.

The trails are East / West and the landing patterns are North / South. (for both Sea-Tac and Boeing Field)

About a month ago, I saw a plane leave a short burst of "trail" North by North-West of the City and as ot slowly dissipated, It made it's way right over the city just before sundown. It covered much of the Western Sky by then and seemed to be "aimed" to expand over the city as it's destination with precision to do so, and with miraculous timing as it traversed the sky over a 2 hour period to lay itself perfectly above the City.

Debunking these as contrails or natural cloud formations is a possibility, but so is it possible to be Chemtrails.

Just last winter the Navy notified of it's intent to use Wa. State, Oregon, Ca. and Idaho planning to study the impact of chemicals/new fuels/other in the Skies and Water.

The Northwest Training Range Complex EIS/OEIS Website has more info here

So maybe, just maybe it is possible the pictures posted by OP are in fact Chemtrails rather than Contrails.

Is it that far-fetched? The evidence is abundant. Debunking; a challenge I feel has so far not been met.

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by stars15k
And finally, they are contrails. Tests have been done, many, many times by many different entities for many different reasons. They have all shown the expected products of exhaust from jet fuel through a jet engine.

This is bull. You must know this to be untrue, so why would you state this unless you truly are a disinfo agent. Why do you keep spouting out false absolutes. What is up with you supposed "skeptics".
edit on 6-11-2010 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:13 AM
They spray a lot in Seattle, WA I've noticed.

What they are doing is called "Solar Radiation Management" .

(SRM) projects are a type of geoengineering which seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming.

A study by Lenton and Vaughan suggest that marine cloud brightening and stratospheric sulfur aerosols are each capable of reversing the warming effect of a doubling of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere when compared to pre-industrial levels.[3]

This is the sole principle reason for global chemtrail spraying. Our stock markets and monetary systems pay for it.

edit on 6-11-2010 by deathproof because: Added last 2 lines for emphasis.

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:15 AM

Chemtrails over Utah, found with flashearth. Use the Nasa (updated daily?) setting. You can see a lot of trails and the shadows of the trails on the ground.

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:36 AM
Seattle, WA.

What started as a typical clear blue sky soon changed before my very eyes. These photos are typical, weekly sometimes daily occurances for residents of the WA state area. I thought they sprayed a lot in Texas, but it's more frequent here in WA.

In order of sky changing:






....And now the huge white cloud coverage moves SE. This all took place within 1 hour. These planes can create clouds that cover cities within just the span of an hour. We don't know what this is doing to our health over the long-term. I speak for myself, included as I have developed MS in the last 5 years in Texas.

Solar radiation management.

edit on 6-11-2010 by deathproof because: time duration of photos

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by unityemissions

It is in fact correct. Actual planes set up to do actual in situ testing. They test for both content and size of particles. Being in situ sampling, from contrails still visible (these planes actually fly behind a plane leaving contrails), these samples are "clean" without the ground level pollutants skewing the results.
Can you show one such test that shows otherwise? I doubt it. I've been looking for several years, others much longer. It does not exist. The only information I've ever seen from a "chemtrail" site about this type of testing was a call for funds. Whatever funds were collected were not used, or if used the results were never released.
It's the only way someone is going to be able to prove anything like a "chemtrail" exists, yet there is silence, pouting, avoidance of the tests that actually are done. Go figure.
Here's a report from my side:
A Real, Valid Test of Contents of a Contrail
And here's a thread where this has all been discussed:
Contrail Content ATS thread:

And before you get all "that's just one" testy on me, googling "contents of a contrail -chemtrails" gets 140,000 results. Enjoy!

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by deathproof

The overall climate of Washington over Texas would be very different. West of Washington is ocean and lots of humidity. To the west of Texas, much of the moisture will have been lost. But still, weather at ground level has no bearing anyway.
You first picture, you have cirrostratus clouds. That means contrails will form and persist, so spread. Do contrails spread? Absolutely. Their persistence, and whatever effects it causes, is what gets the most study. It's unknown at this point how much of an overall global climate change it produces. Some tests show they cool during the day by blocking sun's rays, but warm at night, blocking heat from escaping. There are studies I've read where is in effect seems to cancel each other out. Here's a study about just how much they do spread:
Contrail Spread Study

The last picture is a coming bank of stratus clouds. They are not from contrails, chemtrails or any other type of trails. They are clouds, made the same way clouds have been made since the beginning of the atmosphere. They are not remarkable in anyway. There is some undulatus features, but that is absolutely normal, too.

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by Northwarden

Should I be ashamed to discuss them, or am I nutter for ever considering it?

You said it I didn't.

I'd like to see how you can pass off everything Alex Jones or that found on Rense as nonsense.

If someone gives you a cooky with poo on it, do you break off the dirty part and still eat the cookie? Or do you throw the whole cookie away? I throw the whole cookie away. I've yet to see anything off from either of these guys I would trust without throughly researching the point. And I've done that, and found they spout half-truths, conjectures, exaggerations, and out right lies. They provide no facts or support for anything they say. I consider it a matter of discernment. I use it with all research I do, no matter the source. In matters of science, it means I look for facts, repeatability, expertise of the researcher(s), good method, using a control, and peer-review. I've yet to find within those standards anything which supports any part of the "chemtrail" theory, whatever it's story du jour is. If you can supply it, please do so. I, and many others, have been looking.

Observation is the truest science...

But observation alone is flawed. You cannot, for instance, see chemical content of a contrail using just your observation. You need to sample and test. Isn't that what this is all about anyway? "Chem-" or con-trails?

don't appreciate being lied to, seeing everything we put forth subjected to rude and crude disinfo treatment, and seeing the information put out by concerned citizens glazed over.

Who's lying to you? We have published science to back us up. And tests. They are not lies. Unless you are "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and avoid using science. Being able to answer questions with science is hardly disinformation. Science is very exacting. Either there are "chem-" or there is not. Science says there is not. There is no good science that says there is. I consider putting forth suppostion and suspicion instead of imperical fact disinformation. I can say, "here's a study showing the contents of a contrail". You can say...."here is what people think is in them"? And not much else.
Which means the "concerned citizens" aren't really doing anything but spreading their observations. Which seem by many of us to be flawed.
Remember, Chicken Little was a concerned citizen.

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by imd12c4funn

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
What about the J-75 aircraft?
What about the 15th Aerosol Attack Sq.?
Ultimate Proof - Chemtrails

You didn't realize that YouTube video was a spoof, making fun of "chemtrail" believers?

Pretty funny, actually. I liked the pictures of birds, with "chemtrails" coming out of their butts.

Oh, dear. The "J-75 aircraft"? Doesn't exist. J-75 refers to a Pratt & Whitney turbojet engine design from the 1950s. Google it, to see. That "diagram" of the engine, and those labels, is just photoshop!!

Oh, and the opening scenes, the airplane cockpit panel? The first one is a photo of a Boeing 767 overhead panel that has been re-labelled, again with photoshop. The square buttons, marked with red hashed borders? Those are the fuel jettison control buttons.

My favorite bit (the birds were funny, but...) the frame with the text and arrows that said "Invisible Chemtrails" was hilarious!

BTW, here is a real Boeing 767 overhead panel, unaltered by photoshop:

(only partial panel)

Here, re-sized it to fit better on ATS thread page:

edit on 6 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:47 PM

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
What about the J-75 aircraft?
What about the 15th Aerosol Attack Sq.?
Ultimate Proof - Chemtrails

What about November 5th, 2010 over Seattle.

The trails are East / West and the landing patterns are North / South. (for both Sea-Tac and Boeing Field)

I know this is a few weeks old, but this is just too good to pass up. A J-75 aircraft? What research led to to mistake an engine designation for an aircraft? An aerosol attack squadron? hahahahahhahahaha thats too funny, I am not sure who did those pranks, but chemtrail believers will fall for most anything that fits into the feelings of their hoax.

What do overhead contrails have to do with runway landing direction? And are you actually saying that if runways face north/south, that there cant be any normal overhead traffic going east west?

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:32 PM
This explains the wave patterns in the sky.... there are also Chem trails you are seeing... but the waves are pulses... this guy has predicted over 100 times tornadoes based on his HAARP and RADAR watching... with 100% accuracy... including before the devastating Moore - Oklahoma tornadoes

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:34 PM
I haven't read through all the posts.. but if anyone tries to say there are contrails.. they are trying to mislead you... contrails are different than chemtrails... scientists have proven that. Just ignore these people. They have a mission... and an agenda.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in