China admits to dumping chemtrails for weather modification. What do they look like??

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
My whole point is that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and I don't believe anyone else when they say they can either, especially when they can't explain it to me in a way that would allow me to be able to tell the difference just by looking.

The difference between what, exactly?

A) Between a contrail and the trail left by a plane fitted with silver iodide flares on a blue sky?
B) Between a contrail and the trail left by a plane leaving a trail that looked exactly like a contrail.

I'm saying you can't tell the difference between a plane leaving behind a trail of water vapor, fuel, or a number of other substances just by looking at the trail itself. In other words your eyes cannot do a chemical analysis at great distances.

You are being disingenuous to the point of trolling. Nobody denies it's theoretically possible to make trails that look like contrails on a clear blue sky at high altitude.

Then why are you still here arguing with me? Because that's my only point. You claim no one is disagreeing but here you are simultaneously accusing me of trolling? Grow up man.

What people are saying is that there's no evidence it's actually happening. None.

That's a completely different topic. Judging by how emotionally polarized you became just over the point above, that you claim no one disputes, I hardly even have interest trying to go any farther with you.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The only sense in which I am saying chemtrails do in fact exist is in the sense that chemicals are dumped into the air to manipulate weather patterns. Period. And unless you work for the US military (which has asked Congress for funding for this same thing) then I'm not going to take your word on what all they can and can't do. It's still an open question.

Better go and edit wikipedia then:

en.wikipedia.org...

The term chemtrail is derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is a portmanteau of condensation trail. It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting. The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of uncharacteristic sky tracks.

"Chemtrails" already had a commonly accepted definition. You seem to want to create a new definition. Why?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can keep mocking this all you want but mockery does not equate to a logical rebuttal.

there doesnt' need to be a "logical rebuttal" to chemtrails based upon the look of the trails themselves.

Trying to say that you can't rebut them based upon an inability to chemically analyse trails by eyesight begs teh question as to whether they exist in the first place.

And your argument is apparently that they can't possibly exist because contrails exist and that's all there can be, because you have no evidence of anything else. Which is not actually a logical argument.

no it's not and it isn't what I said at all - I never said it is all that can exist - I said there's no evidene that anything else exists.

You have a cheek claiming you are using logic when you can't tell teh difference betwen those 2!!

Sorry - I hadn't realised you were trying to use logical fallacies to prove chemtrails exist - I thought you said you didn't know....

The only sense in which I am saying chemtrails do in fact exist is in the sense that chemicals are dumped into the air to manipulate weather patterns. Period.

Which are not chemtrails. Period.

If you want to argue about geo-engineering fine - jsut stop conflating cloud seeding with it.

And unless you work for the US military (which has asked Congress for funding for this same thing) then I'm not going to take your word on what all they can and can't do.

there are multiple studies into how the climate might be changed - hundreds, possibly thousands of them.

There are even some studies about how it might be accomplished by using airliners to "spray" "stuff" into teh atmosphere.

But not one single piece of evidene that it is actually being done - it's all research, study, how regulate it if it ever happens, how might it be done, what might the effects be.

chemmies seem to ahve a problem with the concept that research doing.

It's still an open question.

what is still an open question??? You haven't asked a question except can one determine by eyesight what is a cloud and what is a chemtrails - which has been more than amply covered except for your dog-int-the-manger inability to grasp that without evidence that chemtails exist in the first place the question is simply meaningless!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not ignoring this. I'm saying there is no way for you to tell the difference between a contrail and any other white cloud left behind by a plane.

We already proved that wrong.

No, you didn't. You only proved that you can tell the difference when there is an article accompanying the photograph, or there are flares or the image is close enough that you can see the actual emissions from the plane itself.

When you are looking at nothing but white clouds left in the wake of a plane, no, you can't automatically tell what they're made out of, and you haven't even come close to proving that you can. All you have done is divert onto a hundred other topics and try to straw-man the OP to death.

You are not making any comparison at all. You're just stating that something exists and therefore it's all that exists, which is pure drivel.

No - I'm saying something exists, what I see fits all the known parameters of what I see, and ther's no evidence that it could be anything else, therefore what I see is that which I know exists.

That is exactly what I just described. You are not actually making any comparison between a normal contrail, and anything else. You are just assuming in the lack of other data that everything is just a contrail, period. Earlier in the thread we already saw fuel being dumped in the air that also left a white cloud. A hundred different things can leave white clouds behind planes. And they would obviously not all be normal contrails. Yet you would say that they all are out of sheer arrogance.

I dont' have to compare anything.

Again, arrogance. You won't compare contrails to anything else it's possible for planes to leave behind, yet you want to just blindly assume it's all contrails anyway. Why do you even get into these discussions when your bottom line is that you have to be right, period? Actually I guess that answers itself doesn't it?

Originally posted by Uncinus
Better go and edit wikipedia then:

en.wikipedia.org...

The term chemtrail is derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is a portmanteau of condensation trail. It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting. The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of uncharacteristic sky tracks.

"Chemtrails" already had a commonly accepted definition. You seem to want to create a new definition. Why?

You left out this part of Wikipedia's entry:

Supporters of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for solar radiation management, population control,[1] weather control,[2] or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[8][9]

How is it that chemtrails can be used for weather control, according to Wikipedia, but this must exclude cloud seeding? I already posted another source (that Wikipedia also links to in their article) where cloud seeding is specifically referenced as a form of chemtrails.

Chemical. Trails.

The very first desperate wriggling done in this thread was about this semantic issue and now you're finally returning to it again I see.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
was once a flagger for a flying service... crop dusting helo style... having spent my whole life surrounded by pilots i have to say that "chemtrail" hypothesis are laughable and the result of delusional, paranoid behavior. the only chemtrails i have ever seen where coming out of the ears of a whack job.

edit on 29-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)

way to completely ignore the massive hole in your arguement that was pointed out for you in the post directly above yours - you just revealed your troll-ness, you and weedwhacker both lost my respect completely from your actions in this thread.

Peace,
-Bob

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then why are you still here arguing with me? Because that's my only point. You claim no one is disagreeing but here you are simultaneously accusing me of trolling? Grow up man.

Your OP was asking how different cloud seeding was (visually) from contrails.

You were shown several photos and videos of cloud seeding. None of which resembled contrails. This indicated that in common usage they looked very different.

The photos that you claimed were clouds seeding, but looked like contrail or clouds, were shown not to be cloud seeding.

You then suggested that theoretically there might be some trails that looked like contrail but were not.

Nobody disagreed with you, because it's a totally meaningless point - it's theoretically possible that anything can be not what it appears to be (like cats, they might be robots, how would you know?).

But you continue to argue, leading some people to suspect you are trolling.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Better go and edit wikipedia then:

en.wikipedia.org...

The term chemtrail is derived from "chemical trail" in the similar fashion that contrail is a portmanteau of condensation trail. It does not refer to common forms of aerial spraying such as crop dusting, cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting. The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of uncharacteristic sky tracks.

"Chemtrails" already had a commonly accepted definition. You seem to want to create a new definition. Why?

You left out this part of Wikipedia's entry:

Supporters of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for solar radiation management, population control,[1] weather control,[2] or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[8][9]

How is it that chemtrails can be used for weather control, according to Wikipedia, but this must exclude cloud seeding?

Because it is exclusively high altitude trails that are suspect - I highlighted the bit in the original post for you - and those are not cloud seeding.

you claim to be using logic and you can't parse that??!!

Originally posted by Uncinus
Your OP was asking how different cloud seeding was (visually) from contrails.

You were shown several photos and videos of cloud seeding. None of which resembled contrails. This indicated that in common usage they looked very different.

The thing is, they don't look very different. The most distinct cloud seeding images were the ones showing "tails" coming off of natural cloud formations. Otherwise, out in an otherwise-blue sky, again, you can't tell what it is just by looking at it.

The photos that you claimed were clouds seeding, but looked like contrail or clouds, were shown not to be cloud seeding.

There has been disagreement even amongst you "debunkers" in this thread as to what certain photographs show, because you can't even tell the differences yourselves. One person posting what he claimed was cloud seeding but was actually cirrus clouds, and I even said I couldn't tell them apart from cirrus clouds before someone else came along and corrected him.

You then suggested that theoretically there might be some trails that looked like contrail but were not.

Nobody disagreed with you, because it's a totally meaningless point - it's theoretically possible that anything can be not what it appears to be (like cats, they might be robots, how would you know?).

But you continue to argue, leading some people to suspect you are trolling.

It takes two people to argue (at least). So that has to go both ways. You claim no one is arguing with a "meaningless point" and yet here you still are.

Originally posted by bsbray11


You left out this part of Wikipedia's entry:

Supporters of this theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for solar radiation management, population control,[1] weather control,[2] or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[8][9]

How is it that chemtrails can be used for weather control, according to Wikipedia, but this must exclude cloud seeding? I already posted another source (that Wikipedia also links to in their article) where cloud seeding is specifically referenced as a form of chemtrails.

Chemical. Trails.

The very first desperate wriggling done in this thread was about this semantic issue and now you're finally returning to it again I see.

Yes it must exclude NORMAL cloud seeding. It can include weather control that's not normal cloud seeding. That's the definition.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Because it is exclusively high altitude trails that are suspect

So you are telling me that there is no one on this planet who is suspicious of trails that are not high altitude? This is where you put yourself up on a pedestal and act as if you are the king of conspiracy theories and you get to decide what they apply to and what they don't.

I highlighted the bit in the original post for you - and those are not cloud seeding.

The whole point of this thread is that you can't tell what they are just by looking at white cloud trails left by planes, unless you have some obvious clue like you can see flares or there's a news article about the photograph. There are a few people here acknowledging this fact and calling it a "meaningless point" but you can't even get over the fact that you can't actually tell whether they're all contrails or not, just by looking at them.

you claim to be using logic and you can't parse that??!!

You can keep beating that drum all night if you want, it doesn't make anything else you say make any more sense.

Originally posted by Uncinus
Yes it must exclude NORMAL cloud seeding. It can include weather control that's not normal cloud seeding. That's the definition.

What are you, the conspiracy police too?

Tell me when you get a job at Merriam-Webster. "Chemtrails" literally means chemical trails. Wikipedia even tells you weather manipulation is among the suspected reasons, and references articles specifically mentioning cloud seeding as a form of chemtrails. This is the same source you are trying to use to dispute the definition of the word.

Is it possible, that some are so invested in their own "debunked" definition of chemical trails that they are not able to have a conversation on the subject that isnt totally relegated to proving something "false" or "true" like has been done so many times before? i mean, its not even on topic for this thread.. Chemical trail is descriptive of all of the trails we see in the sky, in the very strictest of definitions. Chemicals?

i mean, we do call it a contrail right? Short for condensation? We also know that carbon dioxide is present in contrails, which would, by definition, also make them chemical trails. Or, if we are using the common vernacular as based by contrails, we might call them chemtrails. Come on here people, this was actually an interesting topic, but it seems like because the dreaded "C" word was used, everyone needs to come and fight the same battle again?

This thread is reminiscent of the twilight zone to me..

This is a truly bizarre experience, thanks all!

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Your OP was asking how different cloud seeding was (visually) from contrails.

You were shown several photos and videos of cloud seeding. None of which resembled contrails. This indicated that in common usage they looked very different.

The thing is, they don't look very different. The most distinct cloud seeding images were the ones showing "tails" coming off of natural cloud formations. Otherwise, out in an otherwise-blue sky, again, you can't tell what it is just by looking at it.

All the photos and videos that are known to be cloud seeding don't look like contrails.

Other than that, all you've got is "you can't tell what something is by looking at it"

Show me one photo of cloud seeding that looks like a contrail.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The whole point of this thread is that you can't tell what they are just by looking at white cloud trails left by planes, unless you have some obvious clue like you can see flares or there's a news article about the photograph.

No the point of this thread was you suggesting that cloud seeding looks like contrails. All the evidence indicates the opposite.

Show me a photo of cloud seeding that looks like a contrail.

Originally posted by Uncinus
All the photos and videos that are known to be cloud seeding don't look like contrails.

All the photos and videos that are known to be cloud seeding do look like contrails.

See how easy that is?

I just said the easiest way to tell the difference is if a normal looking cloud has a "tail" coming from it. That's literally the biggest clue anyone has shown in this whole thread. Otherwise you can't even begin to explain how they look any different.

Show me a photo of cloud seeding that looks like a contrail.

addins.wrex.com...



damarre.wordpress.com...


I know it's so easy for you to say "that doesn't look like contrails!" but in any other context, looking at these trails left by the planes, you can't even explain to me how it looks any damned different than a normal contrail from the ground.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Because it is exclusively high altitude trails that are suspect

So you are telling me that there is no one on this planet who is suspicious of trails that are not high altitude?

That wasn't the question - the question was why cloud seeding isn't included in the definition of contrails.

it isn't in hte definition of contrails because cloud seeding doesn't met that part of the definition of contrails - it's frekin' simple dude - despite your inability to accept it.

This is where you put yourself up on a pedestal and act as if you are the king of conspiracy theories and you get to decide what they apply to and what they don't.

no - this is the point where you shift the goal posts and redefine the accepted meanings because you seem unable to accept that your pet theory about cloud seeding is drivel.

Originally posted by bsbray11

damarre.wordpress.com...


I know it's so easy for you to say "that doesn't look like contrails!" but in any other context, looking at these trails left by the planes, you can't even explain to me how it looks any damned different than a normal contrail from the ground

Because it's coming from a small plane at low altitude via a tube from the bottom of the fuselage and it is not well defined - it's not coming in a "stream", and it's coming from a formation of Thai Airforce Cessna Caravan's!

And hte 1st one has a similarly non-streaming trail coming from the fuselage of a turbo-DC-3...

god how thick are you??!!

Originally posted by bsbray11

Show me a photo of cloud seeding that looks like a contrail.

addins.wrex.com...

damarre.wordpress.com...


I know it's so easy for you to say "that doesn't look like contrails!" but in any other context, looking at these trails left by the planes, you can't even explain to me how it looks any damned different than a normal contrail from the ground.

The photo is not from the ground. In your photos it's very different to a contrail: A) it starts at a point on the plane, and B) it is not shooting backwards at 2000 mph, so has visually a very different initial turbulent flow.

You have not shown a photo of cloud seeding that looks like a contrail.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Because it is exclusively high altitude trails that are suspect

So you are telling me that there is no one on this planet who is suspicious of trails that are not high altitude?

That wasn't the question - the question was why cloud seeding isn't included in the definition of contrails.

it isn't in hte definition of contrails because cloud seeding doesn't met that part of the definition of contrails - it's frekin' simple dude - despite your inability to accept it.

What I am trying to point out to you, is that you are no authority to be deciding what is the definition of a word and what is not. You are trying to exclude weather modification from the definition of the word "chemtrails" because including it would automatically lend it credibility in the fact that certain governments do manipulate weather patterns by dumping chemical trails in the atmosphere.

This is where you put yourself up on a pedestal and act as if you are the king of conspiracy theories and you get to decide what they apply to and what they don't.

no - this is the point where you shift the goal posts and redefine the accepted meanings because you seem unable to accept that your pet theory about cloud seeding is drivel.

The definition you're citing is "accepted" by no one that I see except you and your cronies who don't want the word to have anything to do with reality, which is sad for you. Sinohptik hit the nail on the head above. Even the Wikipedia article you brought up, lists as its second reference, an article that uses the word "chemtrails" to refer to cloud seeding. HELLO? Even the Wikipedia article you brought up, lists as its second reference, an article that uses the word "chemtrails" to refer to cloud seeding.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Because it's coming from a small plane at low altitude via a tube from the bottom of the fuselage and it is not well defined

You are already retreating to pointing out aspects of the plane instead of the cloud itself. You have an extremely short memory. Remember the discussion about how you can't even see where the stuff is spewing from, from the ground level? We are talking about how you can tell what the make-up of the cloud itself is, just by looking at it! If I just posted pictures of contrails/chemtrails and no plane, you would automatically dismiss them as contrails! You are chasing your own tail in circles.

- it's not coming in a "stream", and it's coming from a formation of Thai Airforce Cessna Caravan's!

And hte 1st one has a similarly non-streaming trail coming from the fuselage of a turbo-DC-3...

god how thick are you??!!

Your feelings are reciprocated, I promise you.


This is from pages, and pages ago:

Let me give you an example.

A photo is posted of "clouds," all in straight lines across the sky, all at a relatively low altitude, and there are no planes to be seen.

Poster "A" says "Contrails!"

Poster "B" says "Chemtrails!"


How in the hell can you tell the difference just by looking?

Okay?

Now stop talking about the damn planes or any other obvious cues. The only reason I posted pictures where you can actually see the planes dropping the crap, is because otherwise you would be bitching about not having any evidence of them being chemical dumps in the first place!!!