Another Chemtrail Question

reply to post by firepilot


"You would never been suspicious, except for chemtrail sites suggesting to you that if a contrail is irregular or long lasting, then its something sinister."

How is what caused me to start paying attention significant to you? Does it lessen the impact of my noticing an increase in jets and haze? Does it lessen the impact of noticing that increase suddenly stop? I say I noticed something, and that the only reason you disagree is because you read some conspiracy hoax site in 1999. If I was a hoaxter, I'd want you to be in my audience.

"There is no regular contrail and irregular contrail. The appearance of a contrail indicates favorablility of the conditions for contrail persistence. There are even charts for this, combat aircraft get briefed on this so that the can avoid flying at altitudes where they could be more prominent."

As far as you know, or does the air force keep you apprised of everything? Must be cool to be a pilot and know stuff.

"You really are not so much investigating anything, as you are looking for agreement and validation of your suspicions. Your "investigating" has not resulted in more knowledge, just more suspicions. When you make statements like it was hot on the ground, so how could there be contrails, indicates a serious lack of any attempt to learn. "

Oh here we go...is that why you come here, to be validated with all your buddies? I'm not the one who's so cock-sure of himself he can't even consider an alternative explanation. Making up stuff now? I've never said "if it was hot on the ground, how could there be contrails". I've said they were consistently heavy over several years, especially on hot days. It makes sense to me that if it's cold enough at altitude for ice crystals to form every day in July, it would be likely to be cold enough in February. We clear on that? It also makes sense to me that if I came to expect my July days to be covered with a Jetwash induced haze over several years, I might notice with delight when this July, the freaking haze was gone. We clear on that too or shall I start cutting and pasting? I don't really care if you don't see the logic in it, I'm sure it's not in one of your textbooks, so it must not be true. Snort.

"There is no secret fleet of aircraft, there are no secret bases. Every time chemmies make these allegations and try and prove it, its laughably wrong and does not stand up the the slightest scrutiny. You know how many times chemmies have put up photos claiming its their smoking gun, and its anything but? They never actually admit to bring wrong, either they disappear, or just call everyone names who told them what it really was.

There has not been any major change in the skies, just people read something and never thought to look at the sky much before. What you are saying about the sky being different now than from 2005, people in 2005 said compared to 2000. People in 2000 said it was different than from 1995.
"

Trust me says the pilot, I'm an expert...who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes? You're not impressing me, but you might be impressing your buddies, that seems to be easy to do. What am I to admit to being wrong about? Please enlighten me, since you've got all the answers...I'm just a paranoid nutcase for asking questions? Please be specific, because it sounds to me like you're trying to discourage honest discussion into something that could be sensitive to the military. I guess we can be thankful the subject is too complicated for stupid people, thank goodness we have you experts to set us straight by calling us names and telling us we're wrong. What a bunch of tripe, don't you guys share an editor? Get over yourselves.

"Basically, people read a chemtrail site and thought it was different than it was a few years before, because a chemtrail site told them. "

Basically pilots know everything, just ask one, he'll tell you.

reply to post by inpropurr


Damn. Thanks for the post. You're right, It is sick. Something is going on and even if it's not deliberate or clandestine and simply just more of the every day run of the mill corporate crime, it must stop.

Sorry, but you dont have to "know everything" in order to debunk the chemtrail religion. A 10 year old kid who loves aviation and airplanes, would know enough to find it silly. But, it does beg the question, why do you find knowledge and expertise to be suspicious? I thought you were supposedly investigating. LIke I said, you are not investigating, you are looking for validation.

And what does the Air Force have to do with me? Just because I am knowledgable about aviation, does not mean I am in the miltary. And one does not have to be a pilot either to know its all bunk...

But have you ever wondered why you do not see any chemtrailers who can talk with some degree of knowledge about aviation or weather? Do you ever wonder why they have to make fake pics, fake videos and misrepresent pics to be something else, or why the ones who started the chemtrail websites had things for sale too? I certainly do not have anything to sell to anyone, but Will Thomas, Len Horowitz and Don Croft sure do..still to this day, and they started it all

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by firepilot

 

Oh here we go...is that why you come here, to be validated with all your buddies? I'm not the one who's so cock-sure of himself he can't even consider an alternative explanation.

Alternative explanations are fine. That doesn't mean that any particular alternative explanation should be believed as being true.

...and I'm with firepilot on the idea that anecdotal information by "people" saying that they think the trails in the sky looks very different now than it did in the past should be taken with a grain of salt. First of all, anecdotal information is not reliable data. Secondly, there are more planes in the sky than there was 20 years ago, so there will be at least a bit of a difference in the number of trails in the sky.

It is not clear whether that difference in air travel volume is what accounts for this anecdotal information regarding people thinking "the trails are different", or if that anecdotal information can be accounted for by inadequate past observation and/or mistaken memories.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People



I am searching for information, but I ran into a bunch of guys who are telling me not to search. I haven't decided anything...I don't "believe" anything. Suspecting something is not the same as believing something. What's with you guys and your definitions? Projecting your convictions on me and putting words in my mouth is your only argument?

I say you have no reason not to be outraged over an illegal government quite possibly involved in clandestine operations, including but not limited to weather modification. I am a concerned citizen, that you aren't means nothing to me. Thanks for your pictures and for showing pilots have no more clue than the rest of us.

reply to post by firepilot


I believe the DoD and the air force, not you. Tell your ten year old to take it up with them.

Let's look at it another way.....

Either what is being "sprayed" is in seperate containers womewhere with "on/off" switches, or the equivalent, or it is in all the fuel & is being "sprayed" all the time.

I'm an aircraft mechanic - I've never seen anything in an aircraft other than the systems we all know and love/hate. The reason 2 trucks back up to aircraft is that you don't mix potable water with toilet ewaste - not even on the same truck.

If, OTOH, something like Stadis 450 is evil incarnate, it is being combusted in fuel ALL THE TIME.

And guess where engines burn fuel the fastest? It is at take off - at airports - at ground level and full throttle. they burn lots more fuel per second in the first minute or 2 after they star their takeoff roll until they throttle back a bit having gained some height (as I understand it from my pilot friends and colleagues).

So if that is the scenario you'd expect to find all the evil contaminants all around airports all the time - go find it!

If it isn't then you're in for a much harder time, 'cos you have to find those switches & tanks & sprayers for the seperate system - & all efforts for that have also failed miserably.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by firepilot

 

I believe the DoD and the air force, not you. Tell your ten year old to take it up with them.

edit on 21-2-2011 by Yankee451 because: added "not you"

Why don't you believe the Airforce document on contrails then? www.af.mil...

AFAIK no-one here has to ld you to stop researching - on the contrary you have been pointed to many sites that have a plethora of info - have you looked at them? there are heaps of links at, say, contrail science, to all sorts of agencies - NOAA, NASA, Airforce.

Have a look up Flight International's archives for PDF's of articles that were published in 1940-43 for some historical stuff if yuo want too - they make fascinating reading.

I'm certainly not telling you to stop looking - what I am telling you is that looking on Carnicom, Rense, and Icke, and Arizona Skywatch is pointless - they are not intersted in science and their "evidence" is shoddy at best - dishonest at worst, and there are plenty of other sites around telling you why that make a lot more sense.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I will need to read all their classified documents to do a thorough investigation, get cracking on that will you?

Talking with you guys is like herding cats.

I can ignore what you say all day too, but this is directed to all of you. I am not saying anything new here, my reasons for suspicion are are clear but you guys are all over the place.

This started as simply requesting photos. Then it moved to scrutinizing the photos and accusing each other they show nothing because neither of us could tell if they weren't bona fide contrails even if we saw them. How you figure that proves anything other than ignorance for the both of us is beyond me. Then on to showing that my premise is one of searching for information, while yours is, I'm still not sure actually. I thought it was "Jets leave contrails, therefore everything you've seen must be a contrail", but that's like saying "English is the official language in America, therefore every American speaks English".

So what's your beef? You pissed off at me for not taking your word and just dropping the subject? Silly. You wouldn't take my word, why would I take yours? Thanks again for the photos but you have no right to be so dismissive of my curiosity and so condescendingly certain about something you wouldn't know anything about anyway.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I will need to read all their classified documents to do a thorough investigation, get cracking on that will you?

What's wrong with you doing it?? :p

you say you've been told to stop researching - and when I say hey - don't stop - keep going.....yuo come back with this facecious rubbish??

Talking with you guys is like herding cats.

Ah yes....that's clarifies things...thanks.

This started as simply requesting photos. Then it moved to scrutinizing the photos and accusing each other they show nothing because neither of us could tell if they weren't bona fide contrails even if we saw them.

Not me - if someone says a contrail is really a chemtrail I jsut say "how do you know that?" - nothing complicated at all.

If they then say "Because it lasts too long" (or similar) I can point to science and clouds and say - "contrails can last a long time too - here's eth evidence. And contrails are essentially jsut clouds...clouds can last a long time, why do you think contrails can't?"

I don't see anything particularly "all over the place" about that.

How you figure that proves anything other than ignorance for the both of us is beyond me. Then on to showing that my premise is one of searching for information, while yours is, I'm still not sure actually. I thought it was "Jets leave contrails, therefore everything you've seen must be a contrail", but that's like saying "English is the official language in America, therefore every American speaks English".

1/ America does not have an official language.

2/ If you think something is different from what it "has always been" then I expect you to be able to say why it is differnt.

3/ If you cannot articulate a reasonable rason for why it is differnt then I'm going to say you are being unreasonable.

4/ What's complicated about that?

So what's your beef? You pissed off at me for not taking your word and just dropping the subject? Silly. You wouldn't take my word, why would I take yours? Thanks again for the photos but you have no right to be so dismissive of my curiosity and so condescendingly certain about something you wouldn't know anything about anyway.

Why do you say I (or whoever) know nothing about it? there is a vast amount of information on the 'neet about contrails, how and why they form, how and why they do or do not dissipate.

You say you are searching for information - if you can't find that information your google-fu must be pretty useless!

you have been given links to all sorts of information - there is no need to "believe what I tell you" - go check it out.

But personally I think yuor claim to be searching for inforamtion is rubbish - you show no interest in verifiable, factual information at all. you jsut want your poor little paranoia stroked and resent the fact that everyone else is pointing at you and giggling about the poor little fellow who's bought into another stiupid, illogical hoax.

I just hate seeing someone go away stupid when there's no need for it.

reply to post by Yankee451

I just checked in. I see you replied to a post of mine.
I used the wrong word, slander. My bad. Slander, libel. Was the point missed? Yes.
The point which was not addressed of course, was that anonymous posters that claim some level of expertise always reference the experts of THEIR choice, and ignore the others that don't agree with their viewpoint.
In fact, if anyone differs from their very narrow viewpoint, then there must be a reason for it that involves a profit motive. They will never "write" that any of them are trying to do some good...trying to determine what experiments are currently being perpetrated on an unwitting public for instance.
What is ironic, is the fact that the federal government responds TO the profit motive, not what is in the interests of the public. In other words, profits drive pretty much all real action...even by our own elected governments. At least, on the national level.
So, any site that firepilot or chemwacker brings HAS to rely on profits to survive, and any sources they bring rely on profits for their jobs. ATS relies on profits, I suppose so we can "debate" with morons...and others that are just looking for answers.
I see through the tactics of some of these posters...I have been around a while. The distinguishing factor, to me, that separates those that are looking for answers from these trolls is this. They pretend to have them.

reply to post by Stewie


Actually it costs f-all to run a blog these days - no vast income required. Hence sites like Chemtrail Science can survive just out of pocket money and don't need adds. no-one really needs adds for a blog.

Generally I have found it is the chemhoax sites that are full of adds and hence generate income. So if you want to follow the money and the self interest it seems obvious to me that it is the sites with adds that need to keep the level of paranoia as high as possible.

Of course it doesn't actually cost them much to run the sites either - so what they get is profit. For them paranoia = profit.

that's what I see when I look at who is making the money.

And here's a thought for you - the sites that "debunk" the chemtrail hoax all claim to have the answers because actually....they do. They show information that anyone with the appropriate equipment and/or training can check and get the same results from.

I think that if there was actually a problem with that information you could point it out, instead of just raving about how it's all part of the conspiracy, or making other nebulous accusations without evidence.

Why don't you do that?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

First, I should point out the term is "ads", not "adds".
Only fair, your buddies corrected me.
Anyway, the point is this. Your "answers" don't really answer anything. I have spent countless hours bringing links, only to have them discounted and scoffed with no real substance in the argument.
"Oh, it's CARNICOM, everybody knows he is a con artist." "He has been debunked". "What in the World are they Spraying" is a total hoax." '...
And then, some of you bring flightaware.com to the discussion like it is the final word on what is going on in the skies.
Never really addressing all of the NOW known top secret crap the CIA, FBI, and others have subjected us to in the past.
Look, Gaul, I can tell you this. You are on the wrong side.
Trust me.

ROFL - trust you - why would I do that?

If you show me something from Carnicom I won't say "Oh it's Carnicom therefore it is wrong" - I'll say why I think it is wrong based upon its content.....or lack of it.

You see I trust the evidence - evidnce that can be verified. Evidence that stacks up to the scientific principle.

I do not trust the evidence that can not be verified - it is, at best, hearsay. OK - so someone saw something - fine - they can't really say what it is, or it's a photo that's blobby and they tell me that it is a sprayer, or something similar - well blobs in photos are not sprayers - they are blobs in photos. someone saying they saw chemtrails does not make chemtrails - it makes someone who saw something that they think is chemtrails - what is the actual checkable evidence for their statement?

If I see something that I do not understand I say "I do not understand" - but until you show me why it is a chemtrail it's always going to be "why do you think it is a chemtrail?"

I would have thought it would be simple to show that chemtrails exist - sample them! Sample the fuel (you can buy it from Mobil!), sample the trails themselves, photograph the spraying equipmdent, show the trucks loading it onto the aircraft and show that they aren't just toilet and potable water.

Bloody heck - this is so big that you MUST have some skerrick of actual, verifiable evidence....somewhere...anywhere to back it up?? Wher the f**k is it??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You’re sure funny for not being a clown. But seriously, I urge you to get out and use the Google and the Internets too…seeing as how none of us are authorities on clandestine weather modification programs; or do you play one on TV?

You and your wing-men, with your somewhat forced and repetitive comedy routine have been quasi-entertaining and predictable if not dimly enlightening. You know what they say; you can tell you’re over the target when you start getting the flak. I had to start somewhere and without you this thread might have been a real dud, I owe you man.

For any lay-people out there, if there are any not yet scared away, let me paraphrase where we are now.

This thread began in an attempt to gather photos and movies from the last century which showed what I described in my OP, but ultimately it was decided that photos and movies proved nothing for either camp because it was admitted no one would be able to recognize any difference in contrails or modified contrails by looking at photos. So I can’t point to photos as evidence to support my suspicion, and neither can the Flying Circus use them to discount my suspicion, despite their gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth.

So now, without the photos in the mix, the discussion has devolved to whether I am being reasonable in suspecting there is a covert weather modification program in place or being tested…yes as silly as it sounds, we’re debating something as subjective as proving I have the right to be suspicious. The details are in the thread…

Back to you Gaul guy…

reply to post by Stewie


Yeah it's their shtick...it's an old debate tactic to pick a word or a phrase misspoken, hell a hair out of place will do it, anything to distract from the real message. When they get five or six all piling on and overpowering the thread, they tend to shout down anyone who might be honestly curious about the topic...it causes an unfortunate chilling effect on conversation whether its intended or not. Not much you can do about it but ignore the diversion.

I couldn't care less about grammar or spelling...they are not measures of intelligence. I pay attention to the message. Thanks for wading in...my fingers are tired!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Everything you haven't experienced first hand is hearsay. Even your name.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Fair enough...is this right, I have to use HTML to be able to split up the quotes here? Good grief, I just learned the Google; bear with me if my replies aren't as cool as yours.

I'm starting to see the light here...it seems chemtrails don't exist, just like you guys have been saying, only it's really just a terminology thing...even "powder contrails" aren't chemtrails, they're just powder contrails. Still, it seems like a misnomer to me...where would the condensation come in to give it the "con" if it's dust, not ice? I digress and I stand corrected. They are all contrails, even the ones I described as different...because even if they are different (they are) the name "chemtrails" implies nutcase conspiracy theory and not real science. I don't get why, unless that's the reason they planted the hoax, so it could be exposed and ridiculed by the true believers (which makes you the suckers, not me, but I still like you guys). But that is pure speculation and I digress some more. Contrails it is.

Now, lets get back to a couple more reasons why I have a valid suspicion and you're wrong not to. Lookie here...a chemtrail patent. Oops, force of habit, there's chemtrail again. I meant chemtrail.

Patent for Powder Contrail:

Light scattering powder particles, surface treated to minimize imparticle cohesive forces...blah, blah, blah...talk about minutiae...for the layman lets just say they're referring to whatever forces they're using in the patent to keep dust particles from clumping. To create a cloud, you'd need your particles of dust to spread...like a cloud

patft.uspto.gov...,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,8 99,144&RS=PN/3,899,144

I know you've heard of the Case Orange Symposium, and I've settled down to try to read the whole report, but It's a yawner and it'll take me a while, but there are some good reviews out there and I'm a mild fan of the global research site anyway, so I don't mind pitching their review:
www.globalresearch.ca...

There's a lot of good information above that should make any caring person raise an eyebrow. Of note on the above page is this account:

"Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone: (picture not shown, see link)

The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails aren’t visible."

Dang...that reminds me of me. I think the person who wrote that would notice if the skies cleared up again too. Just saying.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


He's on my side big guy, you mess with him you mess with me.

More of the same on some you tube vid...the speaker describes the same thing I described in Vancouver, all year long...like I said, folks are reporting this phenomenon. Not all of us can be lying or hoaxed, some but not all. The sound is distorted, but I found it supports my hypothesis. I think it was Snoopy or the Red Baron, or maybe you, but someone in your troupe said weather modification isn't new...yeah, that's true too.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Yankee451
...like I said, folks are reporting this phenomenon. Not all of us can be lying or hoaxed, some but not all...

But there are also just as many folks reporting that contrails have always been able to persist and able to spread out into clouds. So in the "what folks say" category, we're even; We can both use that argument, so we cancel each other out.

...and I don't think anyone here said all chemtrail people are lying or hoaxing -- I'm just saying many are misinformed as to what the characteristics of a normal contrail can be, and are misidentifying the trails they are seeing in the sky.

I believe that you honestly believe that many of the trails you are observing are chemtrails, I just think you are wrong about them being chemtrails.