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

Originally posted by CaDreamer
dude stop being lazy and look it up yourself.. get an education, learn something.
i am not your personal encyclopedia. anyone with half a scientific mind knows exactly what i mean.

Who is being lazy? You act like you can tell one white cloud apart from another white cloud, but you won't even explain how in the hell you're able to do it. That's lazy.

Actually I take that back, because if you were truly lazy you wouldn't be bickering page after page with me. You obviously are just talking out of your rear because you want to keep the argument going but you can't actually give me the information I'm asking from you: how in the hell you are able to tell one white cloud at high altitudes apart from another white cloud at high altitudes.

reply to post by bsbray11


Because they look and behave as all contrails have done since they started studying the things. There is no need for me to think otherwise. Studies have been done and published that show the content of anything believed to be a contrail has, in fact, contained only the expected elements found when jet fuel goes through a jet engine, down to the trace quantities of metals from the engine itself due to wear.
It is like knowing that the white liquid I routinely put into my coffee everyday is milk from a cow. It's been milk from a cow every day of my life, so I don't feel the need to question it in anyway. When something, anything has existed for a lengthy period of time, and the basic facts of study of that thing continues to ascertain that there is no difference from one to the next, then there is a certain amount of faith that gets used.
But all of this comes around to your "chemical dump" phrase and trollish behavior. Cloud-seeding is not dumping anything. Many times it is not even done from a plane. Anything that is used is done sparingly and over a very small defined area. It is a known activity, with a known record of results. Contrails are a known thingg, with a known record of results.
There is no difference between a contrail and a "chemical dumping" from a plane because no one is dumping chemicals from planes except for fire retardent as needed. The only one dealing in semantics is you.
You are basically asking us to prove the negative that we can't identify what we would call "chemtrails" from a contrail, so we cannot possibly say that one or the other does not exist. You are wrong with your logic. That some people believe that what have been studied and shown to be exhaust plumes from airplanes are something different requires them to prove the difference, it does not require anyone to prove that the known, studied trail continues to be the same.
The only one saying chemicals are being dumped for weather modification is you. Therefore it is your requirement to prove it. Not just because you read an article somewhere. Or saw it on a video. Prove that someone is "dumping chemicals" from a plane.
It's your claim.
Own it.

btw he hasn't explained how they look differently when seeded its because they look exactly the same as they did before being seeded as displayed in the multitude of videos of the process so far.

As has been said. Weather manipulation experiments have done done via silver oxide for a long time.

They can make it rain you know. But only in the exact area that the silver oxide is sprayed. It was experimented with in an attempt to maybe help extremely dry areas. Prevent fires etc....

China does it to, I am sure...

The US has done it... But it was not harmful and not for the sake of controlling the population or whatever conspiracy theories are out there.

reply to post by sinohptik


You probably don't - in which case why would you label it as one or other?

Or you could get more magnification - such as this guy www.skystef.be...

In practice fuel dumping does not happen very often, it would NEVER result in induced clouds forming, it will never be hundreds of kilometers long (even a 10 minute contrail is 160km at jet cruising speed!) - the kerosene will atomise & disperse in the atmosphere.

reply to post by weedwhacker


and what's the ingrediants in cloud seeding..

Silver Nitrate.............Chemical~Derp

Originally posted by adeclerk
The obvious answer is if it looks like a contrail, behaves like a contrail, and is forming at contrail altitude, it's a contrail. This is not a hard concept.

But you are simultaneously saying that chemtrails don't even exist. So how can you tell the difference when you obviously wouldn't even know what a chemtrail looked like if you think it doesn't exist?

If I had no conception of trucks, then if I saw a truck I would just say it was another kind of car because I would be ignorant of the concept of truck. This is no different from you pretending that chemtrails don't exist, and yet simultaneously believing you would be able to tell the difference from a normal contrail. You don't make any sense at all!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
In practice fuel dumping does not happen very often, it would NEVER result in induced clouds forming, it will never be hundreds of kilometers long (even a 10 minute contrail is 160km at jet cruising speed!) - the kerosene will atomise & disperse in the atmosphere.

You're doing a great job at avoiding the question presented in the OP, but you still haven't explained how you would just be able to look at some random white cloud left by a plane and tell that it's water vapor, fuel or anything else being dumped just by looking at it.


And save all the crap about where it comes from on the planes, because, for the third time...

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?

fuel dumps and contrails don't look alike even after the aircraft has passed... however i will admit that sometimes in proper weather conditions it is impossible to discern one from the other at high altitudes once air currents blur them around a bit.

when you have seen something like a contrail and are positive its a contrail thousands and thousands of times, if you are paying attention you can identify those contrails. some i know can even tell you the exact aircraft that is laying the contrail at 35 thousand feet. i however am not that good.... yet

Originally posted by stars15k
Because they look and behave as all contrails have done since they started studying the things. There is no need for me to think otherwise.

Unfortunately just because you don't have a "need" to think anything else, doesn't mean you automatically know what a white cloud is behind a plane, just by looking at it.

I don't know whether all of you are intentionally intellectually dishonest or just intellectually dishonest with your own selves. I'm not claiming to know what a plane is leaving behind just by looking at it, so I'm not trying to prove a damned thing to you, except that you don't actually know what you're talking about when you blindly assert a white cloud is such-and-such based on nothing.

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

What if you cant see the source (the plane itself) for whatever reason (cloud block, horizon, etc) ?

Then, how does one tell the difference between a fuel dump and a contrail?

If you put them side by side they actually look very different. Fuel forms a very fuzzy edged trail that gradually blurs into the background. Contrails have much sharper edges, and the shorter ones disperse by getting smaller, with far less blurring.

I too would like to see some photos of cloud seeding from the ground, but unfortunately it always happens in clouds, so you just can't get photos, except from inside the plane itself, or very close to it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a8f7a5666f61.jpg[/atsimg]

If this type of cloud seeding were being regularly done on a clear blue sky, then it would be trivially easy to get photos of it. The lack of photos suggests it is not being done.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
The obvious answer is if it looks like a contrail, behaves like a contrail, and is forming at contrail altitude, it's a contrail. This is not a hard concept.

But you are simultaneously saying that chemtrails don't even exist. So how can you tell the difference when you obviously wouldn't even know what a chemtrail looked like if you think it doesn't exist?

If I had no conception of trucks, then if I saw a truck I would just say it was another kind of car because I would be ignorant of the concept of truck. This is no different from you pretending that chemtrails don't exist, and yet simultaneously believing you would be able to tell the difference from a normal contrail. You don't make any sense at all!

The burden of proof is on the claimant, you are making the fantastic claim that some contrails are not contrails, and yet you have no proof.

Do you understand what logic is? Because you certainly demonstrate an inability to use it.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
fuel dumps and contrails don't look alike even after the aircraft has passed... however i will admit that sometimes in proper weather conditions it is impossible to discern one from the other at high altitudes once air currents blur them around a bit.

That's all I am trying to get at with this thread!

I'm not even claiming that I can tell the different between a contrail or a chemtrail. The whole point is I don't think any of you can always tell the difference. Sure you can when you see flares, or you have an article with the photograph conveniently explaining it for you, but when you have nothing but your own two eyeballs and a white cloud way up in the sky, forget it! Nobody here has logically explained any way they can tell what it is. It's just all been a bunch of huffing and puffing and insults.

Originally posted by adeclerk
The burden of proof is on the claimant, you are making the fantastic claim that some contrails are not contrails, and yet you have no proof.

I am not making a claim, I am asking a question, which is your first error.

Your second error is weaseling in the phrase "contrails are not contrails" when you never proved that all white clouds behind planes are contrails to begin with, and in fact this has already been refuted in this same thread.

Do you understand what logic is? Because you certainly demonstrate an inability to use it.

I certainly understand what it is. Do you understand what an insult and a substanceless jab is?

reply to post by bsbray11


simple answer to the question you pose is one of the persons is at least a little bit educated and the other is a fear monger with no practical education to speak of and lives under a rock.

I don't think you guys are understanding the question. It's really quite simple. Let me attempt to pose the question to get across the point I think that the OP is trying to make.

People do seed chemicals into the air for the purposes of weather modifications. The same techniques can be used to seed any chemical into the air for any reason. Many people have reason to believe that there are clandestine groups doing just that, for various purposes, and disguising their planes as commercial jets.

There is various evidence to support such beliefs, such as alleged insider testimony, and anomalous levels of heavy metals in the air, such as aluminum. In light of the fact that he has seen photos of cloud seeding activities, which in technique and appearance would be the same as any chemical seeding activities, and could not distinguish between those and normal contrails. What evidence do you have, that this clandestine atmospheric chemical seeding is not taking place. OR, can you provide video or photographic evidence that there is a clear distinguishable difference, in appearance, between cloud seeding and normal contrails.

Originally posted by bsbray11

And save all the crap about where it comes from on the planes, because, for the third time...

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?

If you can't tell the difference, then the real question here is why is Poster "B" saying "chemtrails"

Occam's razor dictates they are almost certainly contrails. Planes leave contrails. There is no evidence they are not contrails. So why not contrails?

It's like pointing at your wife and saying "doppleganger".

Originally posted by bsbray11
Your second error is weaseling in the phrase "contrails are not contrails" when you never proved that all white clouds behind planes are contrails to begin with, and in fact this has already been refuted in this same thread.

Since the beginning of aviation there have been contrails. Your suggestion that anything but contrails are coming out from behind airplanes at contrail altitude is absurd, where is the fantastic proof for your fantastic claim?

Let's apply some logic.
1. If 'chemtrails' were anything but contrails, there would be some sort of evidence that 'chemtrails' existed.
2. No air, soil, or water tests have ever shown anything anomalous (we would expect an anomaly, since this 'chemtrailing' is so widespread, rather since 'chemtrailing' might be widespread, we can't know if it is widespread if 'chemtrails' look like contrails, right?)
3. Therefore we must conclude that only contrails exist.

Again, this is not a hard concept.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
simple answer to the question you pose is one of the persons is at least a little bit educated and the other is a fear monger with no practical education to speak of and lives under a rock.

I asked how you can tell one white cloud from another white cloud, not for your emotional characterizations of each hypothetical poster. I thought you said you were done with this thread, but I guess what you really meant was you were done taking it seriously and are just going to troll now.

Originally posted by renegadeloser
There is various evidence to support such beliefs, such as alleged insider testimony, and anomalous levels of heavy metals in the air, such as aluminum.

The second one has been debunked time and time again. So really all you have is "alleged insider testimony"