This Forum Should Be Closed Down !

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thank you for such an in depth reply it was most informative !
So this is a normal occurance then aircraft coming so close to each other ?
I would kak myself I think getting this close to another jet ?

I naively assumed these were near misses !
Wonder what route that would be seems busy ?

Thanks again

Peace

The problem with such crazy theories like chem trails is that anything is possible.

If you can think of a scenario, then it is possible in some universe/dimension, the question is if it is in our universe or not.

I for one have not seen any interesting evidence, mainly on the fact that I do not actively research it because I don't find it interesting. On the other hand, I am a huge believer of the AAA ancient astronaut theory, mainly due to real evidence that I can go there in person and be confirm it, I cannot confirm the clouds, so we just got to take your word for it, which in there lies the problem.

People lie, and chemtrail stories suck, period.

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Thank you for such an in depth reply it was most informative !
So this is a normal occurance then aircraft coming so close to each other ?
I would kak myself I think getting this close to another jet ?

I naively assumed these were near misses !
Wonder what route that would be seems busy ?

Thanks again

Peace

edit on 023131p://05America/Chicago13 by ProRipp because: (no reason given)

Yes, it is called Reduced Vertical Separation Minumums (RVSM), allowing aircraft to be on the same airway seperated by 1000 ft, instead of the previous 2000 ft. However, it does have some strict requirements for aircraft equipment and certification, and the pilots need specific training for it too.

But yet, now it is completely legal and normal, for aircraft to be passing within 1000 ft vertically on the same routing. You can see some great photos on airliners.net of 3 aircraft stacked like that, all passing in the same direction.

Its why as a pilot, its a big aggravating when chemtrailers claim that seeing multiple aircraft on the same way is spraying because they must have been in formation, when from the ground, you can tell apart aircraft at 34,000, 35000, 36000, especially when they have varying sizes.

Actually the trolls should be banned, not the closing of the forum.

Ex:
"Have you thought of this avenue... what if it's pollution? Pollution is common there
[Link here]"
THAT IS GOOD



Ex:
"Youre a lunatic for believing in this stuff, it's just pollution. Go sterilize yourself because you can't grasp science "
THAT IS BAD



Neither of those posts get banned, then the skeptics get labeled with the trolls because mods seem to have a problem banning trolls.
EDIT: The good skeptics that prevent everyone from becoming scienceless sheep are getting lumped in with the trolls.
There is no place for name calling or belittling. There are subtle shots that are taken at people that mods don't deal with; which I feel is irresponsible on their part. The inactivity of the mods in dealing with this has partially caused this problem to grow.

In addition, some skeptics should just NOT be here. Example, I don't have any evidence of chem trails (but I'm not naive to rule them out), but I won't be fighting someone tooth and nail on a point saying "oh well you don't know the exact chemical composition, so you just don't know", and while that is true... asking for something that specific is going to the extreme. If that was the case, that person probably is a hypocrite as that goes down a slippery slope that just becomes broad and applies to everything. Ex: "Seeing virus reproduction inside a compromised cell"

reply to post by NuclearMitochondria

Go sterilize yourself because you can't grasp science " THAT IS BAD

....sounds very similar to a Troll

ahahah ohhh the Irony

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by NuclearMitochondria

 

Go sterilize yourself because you can't grasp science " THAT IS BAD

....sounds very similar to a Troll

ahahah ohhh the Irony

I agree that me going in big caps locks is just as judgmental, but I'm sure common sense appeals to people that what is being said should be banned

OP, what you are saying is a bit ironic. You say people wouldn't believe if we saw the nozzle and tanks of the stuff... but the truth of the matter is that there is NO proof other than contrails in the sky. Let me get this straight:

They "spray" at altitudes that would be massively ineffective. And if it -were- effective, nothing ends up getting on the ground. If it's not getting to the ground (and water), then what is the point of spraying at all?

All the testing that goes on around major cities every single day.. and nothing is found. Over cities where they supposed spray so much, that it creates a "fog" in the sky. Yet nothing is found in the soil, nothing is found in the water. This doesn't seem.. odd.. to you?

And not one person who believes these chemtrail theories can explain why this is the case.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
those delusional people who flock to the sorts of crap "9/11 conspiracy" garbage are prone to fall for "chem"-trail nonsense too...

Is that so? I recall standing side-by-side with you debunking the "chemtrail" disinformation on more than one occasion.

Originally posted by fleabit
OP, what you are saying is a bit ironic. You say people wouldn't believe if we saw the nozzle and tanks of the stuff... but the truth of the matter is that there is NO proof other than contrails in the sky. Let me get this straight:

They "spray" at altitudes that would be massively ineffective. And if it -were- effective, nothing ends up getting on the ground. If it's not getting to the ground (and water), then what is the point of spraying at all?

All the testing that goes on around major cities every single day.. and nothing is found. Over cities where they supposed spray so much, that it creates a "fog" in the sky. Yet nothing is found in the soil, nothing is found in the water. This doesn't seem.. odd.. to you?

And not one person who believes these chemtrail theories can explain why this is the case.

And then they claim they had their pics of nozzles and tanks, it was anything but. However what was it??

1. Picture of KC-135 icing attachment for spraying water so preceding aircraft can test how its wing handles ice.

2. Interior shot of Boeing 777, with water barrels so it can shift weight, to see how it flies with Center of Gravity moved back and forth. Someone, probably an overzealous chemtrailer, even doctored the pic to read "Hazmat" and something else. Some chemtrailers are so into it, they are convinced the doctored one is the real one.

3. Shot of Navy E-6A TACAMO aircraft, which has fuel dump vents moved to wing roots, since wingtips had pods for communications equipment.

4. French KC-135 with drogue pods, since its many of its military aircraft do not use boom/receptable for in flight refueling, but more like what US Navy uses for, hose and drogue system.

Its not like these pics have just been trotted out once, but they have multiple times, with their "Aha, this is our smoking gun proof, debunk this", and when the truth is mentioned, either they get mad about it, or disappear. Never a "thanks for the correction" though.

Anybody using photographs taken in a different time period in comparison against modern photographs as evidence for change in "color temperature" of the atmosphere has no basic grasp on the development arc of color photography. I am here simply to evince the fact that vintage and dated film formats read color in drastically different ways than modern film or digital cameras do. It is not that "the sky was so blue in 1915...," it is simply the fact that dated film is not as readily capable of reproducing an accurate color image. Depending on the specific film type, I would be happy to discuss the process by which the color is achieved and why it is in fact a distortion of what was seen instead of evidence of huge shifts in the color temperature of the atmosphere. (which in truth I would blame on the fact that the world's population has nearly tripled since the forties; the sullying of our atmosphere most definitely increased in kind).

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I was referring to (didn't write it out, sorry) the "no-planers" aspect, among others, of that "other" topic. The really "out-there" nonsense.

In terms of THIS Forum, tho.....it should also stay in place because there certainly is real plausibility that, sometime in future, more and more thinking will be going towards the implementation of such tactics.

Frankly, when it does happen, will be BIG international news....and, really....some is underway already....GROUND-BASED activities. Whether intentional or not....one off top of my head is deforestation and jungle-razing around the world. This DOES affect the Earth's albedo, even if it isn't directly targeted in some manner.

There are more examples...but, suffice that the most likely projects that will be undertaken, in future for express purposes, will be the cheapest, most cost-efficient probably......aviation is NOT very cheap...some more passive methods are certainly on the table, and being discussed......

reply to post by weedwhacker


'There are more examples...but, suffice that the most likely projects that will be undertaken, in future for express purposes, will be the cheapest, most cost-efficient probably......aviation is NOT very cheap...some more passive methods are certainly on the table, and being discussed...... '

My thoughts exactly in one of my earlier posts !

We agree (sort of) LOL

Peace

reply to post by fleabit


I'm pretty sure if the government wanted to tamper with our water, doing it at government -run water treatment facilities would be far more effective than dropping it at thousands of feet hoping a molecule may land somewhere. Glad to see a few people thinking out here.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I was referring to (didn't write it out, sorry) the "no-planers" aspect, among others, of that "other" topic. The really "out-there" nonsense.

Fair enough. Thanks for the response.

I couldn't agree more that no matter what evidence you present the people saying that chemtrails aren't real won't be satisfied.

HOWEVER

That is no reason to take the forum down. This forum is important. People are out there looking for the truth and they can find it here. They may have to sift through some garbage to find it, but atleast it's there.

Naysayers will always say nay, that can't be changed, but if you remove this forum guess who wins.

reply to post by Jaydee055


But they won't find it here if the back biting and bickering does'nt stop !


Peace

reply to post by Jaydee055


I consider myself a pretty reasonable person, I've flipflopped on a lot of issues when there is competing evidence and I'm never wed to my opinion for the sake of defending something that I said before. I'd much rather change my opinion to reflect the truth than defend for the sake of feeling right of my faulty opinion. That said, I still see no evidence for this. I have read through this forum and all I have found is a resounding "NO." I would be very open to evidence to the contrary, as being a victim of the human condition, I am concerned with my physical wellbeing. Thanks.

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
Anybody using photographs taken in a different time period in comparison against modern photographs as evidence for change in "color temperature" of the atmosphere has no basic grasp on the development arc of color photography. I am here simply to evince the fact that vintage and dated film formats read color in drastically different ways than modern film or digital cameras do. It is not that "the sky was so blue in 1915...," it is simply the fact that dated film is not as readily capable of reproducing an accurate color image. Depending on the specific film type, I would be happy to discuss the process by which the color is achieved and why it is in fact a distortion of what was seen instead of evidence of huge shifts in the color temperature of the atmosphere. (which in truth I would blame on the fact that the world's population has nearly tripled since the forties; the sullying of our atmosphere most definitely increased in kind).

Do you consider the 1970s "vintage and dated"?
Is my memory also to be dismissed because I too am "vintage and dated"? Also my eyeballs?

See, this is what I was talking about with moving goalposts: "Here's a picture." .... "That's photoshopped!".... "It was taken 20 years ago and is an original Kodak print." ... "Oh, that was XYZ film from an ABC camera, which overemphasized blue, and probably used a filter." ... etc. etc. etc.

My main thoughts towards this subject is that there's still people who don't know how this Stratospheric Aerosols are being severely and continuously sprayed throughout the world, at a daily basis.

Please, I invite all of you that whant to educate yourself upon this subject (Chem-trails / Stratospheric Aerosols), to go to The Royal British Society and download and read the first PDF (98 pages) called Geo-engineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty

Only after reading the entire document you will be able to compare what your senses have been seeing out there since approximately 1997 to present days. Take special attention when analyzing the graphical comparison of all known geo-engineering methods and their safety evaluation.

I simply cannot tell you more, otherwise I would be removing... the surprise!


To those who are willing to read the full document » Thank You!

To those that actually read the full document » Congratulations!

reply to post by SaberTruth


Absolutely! That was 40 years ago, technology changes in the bilnk of an eye, not the roll of your wheelchair.