Chemtrails? I never believed in them until now

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


In order to be next to it it would have to be at the same altitude. That is to say unless the definition of next to has been altered?

There could be massive distances between these aircraft in terms of both altitude and horizontal proximity. This photograph offers nothing to prove these two aircraft are "next to" each other.

I love how certain people on ATS will go to great lengths to defend a photograph as soon as someone points out its obvious invalidity in reference to a topic they foolishly believe in.

Originally posted by elfulanozutan0
here is a photo of a Chemtrail right next to a normal Contrail.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/529d937129c4.jpg[/atsimg]

No. That's a picture of two commercial airliners producing contrails.

In all my many years on ATS I have never yet seen a picture of a chemtrail - although I have also never yet heard any explantion as to why a chemtrail would be visible ......

If it looks like frozen crystals of dihydrogen monoxide and is formed in the same way as frozen crystals of dihydrogen monoxide and acts exactly in every way the same as frozen crystals of dihydrogen monoxide, then, just maybe, what you're seeing is a common or garden contrails as seen and studied since long before you were born.

There may be chemtrails, but if there are you won't see them.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


Great assumption my friend. I could care less about the "obvious" invalidity you claim about this photo. But since when did the definition of "next" mean the same altitude. I never read that in the dictionary. Would you rather me said "near-by" or does that have to connote some other specific measurement requirements to satisfy you?

I love how certain people on ATS will go to great lengths to defend a photograph as soon as someone points out its obvious invalidity in reference to a topic they foolishly believe in.

Hmm... I thought ATS was suppose to be a forum for intellectual conversation between like minded individuals. You say I foolishly believe in something but yet you have no Earthly clue in what I believe in. I brought up a photo and you jumped to assumptions about my character without a single hint of who I am or my intellect or reasoning. While you yourself offer no contrary argument to the argument at hand, you just ridiculed a point and lead to the thread being off topic. Thank You.

reply to post by Essan


You have seen thousands of pictures of chemtrails, and also seen the evidence for them...it is interesting that you use terms that are entirely ridiculous in support of your claims....of course your schooling has all but made up your mind so of course you think you haven't seen anything but a "contrail".

reply to post by elfulanozutan0

i'm a pilot....that picture is not two commercials....it's either air force or one taking pics of the other... also, the two are different types probably....they are almost at the same flight level, the one on the right is a hundred feet lower for the pic.
air traffic doesn't allow two aircraft to be within two thousand feet of each other going the same ground track...east bound gets the odd thousands, westbound gets the even, etc...the radar ident would overlap on centers screen... there's more but good enough....MD-80 or 90 with a falcon or a gulfstream doing the photo

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


If it looks like an elephant, acts like an elephant, and experts who have been studying elephants of over 80 years think it's an elephant, why should I believe you when you tell me it's a canary that just happens to look and act like an elephant?

reply to post by elfulanozutan0

Great assumption my friend. I could care less about the "obvious" invalidity you claim about this photo. But since when did the definition of "next" mean the same altitude. I never read that in the dictionary. Would you rather me said "near-by" or does that have to connote some other specific measurement requirements to satisfy you?

I am sorry but when you say these two are "right next to" each other then that means they are at the same altitude. You have to understand that the atmosphere is not homogeneous and that the only way your statement about the pic showing a "chemtrail" and a contrail in the same photo could be valid would be if indeed they were at the same altitude or "right next to" each other. You don't have to satisfy me in any way but you do have to satisfy challenges to your reasoning regarding the photo; which by the way you have not done.

I love how people on ATS are EXTREMELY fast to take things WAY out of context.

The above is what you said.

I love how certain people on ATS will go to great lengths to defend a photograph as soon as someone points out its obvious invalidity in reference to a topic they foolishly believe in.

The above is what I said.

Please explain to me why it is acceptable for you to make such a statement but when I make a statement of almost identical structure it is not acceptable?

I brought up a photo and you jumped to assumptions about my character without a single hint of who I am or my intellect or reasoning. While you yourself offer no contrary argument to the argument at hand, you just ridiculed a point and lead to the thread being off topic.

Please show me where I made any assumption about your character. I may have made a statement about your belief, and I may have made statements about the tactics used by individuals within the "chemtrail" debate; but I truly challenge you to quote directly from one of my posts any attack insinuation or insult upon your character!

As for the off topic part I fail to see how my response to your statement of the validity of the evidence in a pic that you posted can be called off topic? Is it that since I am not praising your pic I am off topic and were I to be supportive of your viewpoint would I then be on topic? Again I challenge you to provide any evidence of me having gone off topic regarding "chemtrails", your photo "evidence", and the OP!!

reply to post by Dilligaf28


I'll reply tomorrow when I am on a computer as I am on my phone in the car on a road trip.

Until then, peace!

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


You say chemtrails don't exist but geoengineering lobbying which involves aerosol spraying from airplanes exists. My first post links to an article by Bayer CropScience who's studying the effects of certain chemicals like the ones mentioned on plants and people. Monsanto has a patent on seeds that are immune to these chemicals. Do you really need more evidence??



Contrails really can't be argued because it's scientifically impossible. I don't care what altitude, a contrail goes away, chemtrails remain and spread out into a milky cloud. It's hard now for a skeptic to argue ANYTHING until you can come up with an explanation for the soil samples PROVING the fallout exists. So if not from chemtrails what's it from?? Chemtrails are the only piece that fits the puzzle so if you insist on remaining skeptic come up with an explanation. I bet you can't.

we don't need drums of chemicals spraying us day and night, the fuel exhaust itself is enough of a chemical to cause trouble to our enviroment.
Personal opinion here, I believe that over the years jet fuel has undergone changes as the engines themselves have improved and additives may get added to the fuel to prevent things such as sediment settlement and other additives to water down the fuel itself, we see more and more contrails/chemtrails now due to the new fuel additives and the new engines themselves.

for years cars had lead added to the fuel, engines became better and lead was removed, possibly something similar has happened with aviation fuel.

Originally posted by munkey66
we don't need drums of chemicals spraying us day and night, the fuel exhaust itself is enough of a chemical to cause trouble to our enviroment.
Personal opinion here, I believe that over the years jet fuel has undergone changes as the engines themselves have improved and additives may get added to the fuel to prevent things such as sediment settlement and other additives to water down the fuel itself, we see more and more contrails/chemtrails now due to the new fuel additives and the new engines themselves.

for years cars had lead added to the fuel, engines became better and lead was removed, possibly something similar has happened with aviation fuel.

Show me where fuel additives raise levels of Aluminum and Barium and I'll say we have another smoking gun. SHOW ME. I've shows scientific data to backup what my own personal belief is. Where's your data to backup fuel additives as a possibility? I'm truly curious to rule out any other possibilities.

Start backing up statements with facts and data that can help prove or disprove effects on the environment by chemtrails. Right now besides what I've brought forward all I'm seeing is oppinions stated as absolutes. Sorry the world soesn't work that way. I don't claim to have cracked the case and proven chemtrails are real but right now the only explanation I can come up with for reasons all point to chemical aurosol spraying to control the food supply and population.

reply to post by libertytoall

I've shows scientific data to backup what my own personal belief is.

No you haven't, a youtube video is not scientific data, also you've ignored VeniVidi's requet for sources for this quote:

Both rainwater and soil samples have PROVEN the data without any other explanation for the causes.

And while we're at it, wheres your sources for this statement?

soil samples have been taken and analyzed by various labs in different parts of the country. The findings are identical in all the areas where chemtrails are taking place. Raised levels of Aluminum, Barium, Titanium, and Sulfer.

Love to see these identical findings please.

Keep reading everything on this subject-You will find its weather modification. Its been going on for over 15 years. Global warming is true-thats why. Keep reading and you will see.
Watch as they spray a few trails and their chem-trails spread out and haze the sky by mid-mornings. Look Up People and JUST WATCH--GO out and listen to the planes when there is a storm front approaching-The government planes are flying constantly.
MY DEDUCTIONS ARE -if your in your twenties your f***ed- YOU will see the bad attemps from the governments trying to fix the global warming problem with dire consquences--[ever here of the government fixing anything??]--
Planning on haveing children--Better think about what kind of life he-she will have before haveing any-
Here in n-wisconsin they have been spraying for over 15 years now and its got to a point that 5 years ago they are even spraying in winter ---Look up people and watch-you will figure it out

reply to post by libertytoall


seem to have hit a nerve, obviously not an optic nerve otherwise you may have read the part of my post where I say that it was my personal opinion.

Now why do I come to my conclusion that this is probably a fuel additive,. you find me a pilot who admits to flicking a switch in a plane to turn on the chemspraying which he/she knows is doing harm to themselves and their families, by now I suspect at least 1 pilot would have a concious, or are we to believe that all pilots are in on this conspiracy.

reply to post by munkey66


These aren't normal commercial aircraft carrying passengers that do the spraying. It's the government contractors, big agrobusiness, and companies like Bayer.

Did you not read the link in the first post I made? It's a government document regarding to Bayer being involved in aerosol spraying and studying the toxicity levels on water, animals, and humans. Do you really think they may not be doing it already?? That is proof of the interest at the very least. What do scientists or professors have to gain from putting their reputations on the line to falsifying soil sample test results? I highly doubt there are hundreds of scientists and professors who don't know eachother in on a mass scheme of proving something that's false.

reply to post by GBP/JPY


You keep claiming this:

i'm a pilot....

...yet you usually get your facts wrong, when you post on this topic. That photo in question? Sure looks like it was taken from the GROUND, of those two airplanes. Two commercial jets, on parallel courses. AND at different altitudes. Also, we don't know where in the world the photo was taken nor its date.....

...that picture is not two commercials....

More than likely it is....

....they are almost at the same flight level, the one on the right is a hundred feet lower for the pic.

Nope. I'd say, based on angle (and from experience) at least 1,000 feet vertically. The one on the right appears lower.

...air traffic doesn't allow two aircraft to be within two thousand feet of each other going the same ground track...

???? Guessing you don't fly jets?

....east bound gets the odd thousands, westbound gets the even, etc...

Generally, THAT is correct...(but you just contradicted yourself, per the previous sentence, right??). As I said, the high altitude "east/west" paradigm is the situation now, with the widespread implementation of RVSM standards. Above FL290, in decades before RVSM, there was ALWAYS 2,000 feet vertical separation required, within 20 miles. Now, the minimum is 1,000 feet (both airplanes and crews RVSM certified).

...the radar ident would overlap on centers screen...

ATC radar targets overlap all the time...the software is smart enough to bias the data blocks so that they can be read. This is a non-issue...

And, you cannot tell the make and model, from that photo!!! To claim such is a falsehood.

Now, the "east/west" rule? Mostly common to the USA...it is not a "rule" though...a convention, really. Nothing wrong with same direction, 1,000 feet separation. HERE you see opposite direction, 1,000 feet below the pilot filming. Quite common on the NAT Tracks, because of the amount of daily traffic:



And here, cockpit view again....same direction, 1,000 feet vertically:

reply to post by libertytoall

Did you not read the link in the first post I made? It's a government document regarding to Bayer being involved in aerosol spraying and studying the toxicity levels on water, animals, and humans....

You mean that ~101- page PDF? Care to cite a page number or two??

Bayer?? Flying what, exactly? From where? (What airports?). HOW is this "secret"??

Or....do you think, maybe, you misinterpreted that information? (Partly because OTHERS have done the misinterpreting for you, already...).

Monsanto, making GMO seeds resistant to aluminum and barium....because, of contaminants of that sort that occur...due to GROUND-BASED polluters. The existence of those metals in soils have been known for a long time. "Chemtrail" hoaxers get it backwards. Besides...what purpose?? It's not even logical, per the "chemtrail" claims...


...BTW, back to the PDF. I see this all the time....the word "aerosol" makes the uneducated jump to the wrong conclusion, immediately. They picture the word, and think a can of paint, or hair spray, or something like that.

Aerosols occur naturally, all over the world. THAT is what's being studied. Dust (from the deserts, for example), man-made ground pollutants, to include factories and vehicles...even ocean salt spray contributes aerosol particles into the atmosphere!!

Look it up......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, before you get too wrapped up in the video "What in the World Are They Spraying?", may want to see the critque done here:

contrailscience.com...

I had thought of taking the video apart too....but, they've done it already......

But why the funny soup of ingredients that are similar to thermite?

Is it just me or is thermite enjoying some time in the spotlight in the conspiracy fraternity lately? I mean, I know it SOUNDS like some super secret government/alien technology, but it's been around for ages and has never even been classified. We used to make it in school and set it off with magnesium ribbon.
Also, the list of ingredients you posted looks nothing like thermite. From what I remember, it's just a mix of powdered Iron oxide (rust) and aluminium powder. When heated the more reactive aluminium strips the oxygen from the iron oxide, relulting in molten iron being created.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Monsanto, making GMO seeds resistant to aluminum and barium....because, of contaminants of that sort that occur...due to GROUND-BASED polluters. The existence of those metals in soils have been known for a long time. "Chemtrail" hoaxers get it backwards. Besides...what purpose?? It's not even logical, per the "chemtrail" claims...

How do you think the ground gets polluted? From the earth's core?? All pollutants come from ABOVE GROUND. As far as chemtrail believers having it backwards I think you have been misinformed. I agree 100% aluminum and barium are found in the soil all over, but the levels tested are FAR higher then normal in areas the public is claiming chemtrail activities are frequent. In many cases thousands of times higher then the EPA lists as safe. Don't try and twist this again I would greatly appreciate it. It's really not even arguable to claim "it's common" in soil because you fail to pay any attention to the abnormally high levels unheard of anyplace else on earth.. It's common though.. Soil contamination thousands of times higher then what's considered safe by the EPA. Nothing to see here, it's just swamp gas.. As if believers in chemtrails don't understand the information. I think we understand it much more then those who refuse to actually look at the information.

Are you a hack trying to cover up the truth?

reply to post by libertytoall


Still waiting for your sources and links to your claims on the first page, you do have this hard data you were talking about right? you're not a liar are you?

Also, did you know that 2,714,155,762 pounds of aluminium and barium were released into the air between 1997 and 2006 in the USA?

Nearly 3 BILLION POUNDS!

Just from factories.