Some More Chemtrail/Contrail/Cloud Pics?

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by firepilot


What do you call it when you put chemicals into the air from your own activities? Do you have some kind of trails conspiracy attached to that?

Ahem, I don't put chemicals in the sky.

So you have never driven a car, or , or rode mass transit, or been in an airplane or grilled food, or started a fire, or exhaled carbon dioxide, or use electricity from coal fired power plants, or even used winter heating..

I find it hard to believe you have resulted in zero pollution with any kind of chemical.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said I hadn't. The things you refer to are, however, completely irrelevant.

Regarding this chemtrail phenomenon, I do not understand, how clear and sober observations of thousands of people can still be put down as being false. Why dont we proof and disproof the existence of the sun? I am sure, if we go on like people have been going on "proofing" the nonexistence of chemtrails, we will find arguments and reasons to claim, there is no sun...-
I have no agenda for either claiming there are chemtrails nor have I an agenda to claim there are none. I simply look at what happens above my head in the sky and I necessarely come to the conclusion: There is stuff being poured out above my head. Now one does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that. So I can only conclude, that many of the people who still claim, all those who see chemtrails are not capable of observation, have an agenda to claim, there are no chemtrails and maybe are being payed for it...

Originally posted by wcitizen

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said I hadn't. The things you refer to are, however, completely irrelevant.

as are chaff and cloud seeding in a chemtrail discussion so leave it out of the discussion.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by HenryPatrick

 

Perfectly normal contrails and cirrus, other high clouds.

Las Vegas, NV.....do you realize how busy the airspace is, over that location??

High-altitude air travel.....jets going from place to place, but NOT to KLAS....they are only passing by.


See for yourself. Let's have you look at the actual Aeronautical Charts, and you can see the same thing pilots see....and, the routings:

skyvector.com...


Open it up....look for the globe icon.....hover the mouse over it, to get the drop-down menu.

Mouse over to highlight "Enroute High"....click. Look at the maps, the outlines to show their coverage.

Look for the chart that covers Las Vegas, click on it, it will open on your screen. Use it like Google Maps, to explore. Look at all the possible routings, over your city....form many different directions.

Then, see how they will intersect with each other and, yes...make "crosses".....


(SKYVECTOR website is running very slow, for my right now. Trouble on their end....maybe I link it too often, from ATS, and they're mad at me.....).

edit on Mon 30 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

I've posted this before but,...

About 7-10 years ago, GPS functionality was added to air traffic services. It's used almost primarily today as the ways flight crews navigate. GPS allows flight crews to fly "direct-to" points which shortens flights and saves fuel. The result is you're seeing more "X's" in the sky as the aircraft are not following the old highways in the sky's. The old highway's followed ground-based navigational aids which in effect, lined up the aircraft to follow each other across the US airspace. With GPS, flight crews can dial-in their destination and the aircraft, using GPS, will flight directly to that point in space (or airport). No more lining up. In addition... the jet engines are much more efficient than they were even 10 years ago. The old engines spit out mostly carbon and unburnt fuel which floated down to earth. Today's engines burn fuel much more efficiently with less particulate matter so the result is the particles stay suspended in the air a bit longer. This main by-product today is water vapor which bonds with the unspent fuel leaving contrails (clouds need some sort of particle suspended in the atmosphere so water can bond with it. No particles, no clouds). Look at the car idling next to you next time your at a stop light. You see water dripping out of the tail-pipe? That's the left over from combustion. Water, among other stuff you probably can't see (if the engine is running well).
There is a lot of things the government is up to that we probably wouldn't like but contrails, I'm confident, is not one of them...

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by firepilot


What do you call it when you put chemicals into the air from your own activities? Do you have some kind of trails conspiracy attached to that?

Ahem, I don't put chemicals in the sky.

So you have never driven a car, or , or rode mass transit, or been in an airplane or grilled food, or started a fire, or exhaled carbon dioxide, or use electricity from coal fired power plants, or even used winter heating..

I find it hard to believe you have resulted in zero pollution with any kind of chemical.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said I hadn't. The things you refer to are, however, completely irrelevant.

edit on 1-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

But you said "Ahem, I don't put chemicals in the sky. "

I do not know of any single person who can say that truthfully. And yes, by living in a 1st world country, or any place else for that matter, your existence is putting chemicals into the sky

Originally posted by General.Lee
I don't think you're crazy at all. I see that stuff all the time. The bottom line is, for clouds to form, there has to be moisture. If there was MOISTURE the clouds would form without the help of a jet engine. Furthermore, what little moisture comes out of a jet engine isn't enough to hang around half the day and expand to be what appears to be a half-mile wide.

There is always moisture in the air, its called water vapor, and its expressed by "relative humidity"

Combustion is adding additional water to the air there. Is this that hard to understand? You should stop reading all the chemtrail sites with wrong information, because contrails have been seen to persisted and spread, going back to the 1920s

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by firepilot


What do you call it when you put chemicals into the air from your own activities? Do you have some kind of trails conspiracy attached to that?

Ahem, I don't put chemicals in the sky.

So you have never driven a car, or , or rode mass transit, or been in an airplane or grilled food, or started a fire, or exhaled carbon dioxide, or use electricity from coal fired power plants, or even used winter heating..

I find it hard to believe you have resulted in zero pollution with any kind of chemical.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said I hadn't. The things you refer to are, however, completely irrelevant.

edit on 1-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

But you said "Ahem, I don't put chemicals in the sky. "

I do not know of any single person who can say that truthfully. And yes, by living in a 1st world country, or any place else for that matter, your existence is putting chemicals into the sky

Semantic games again. You know exactly what I mean.

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by wcitizen

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said I hadn't. The things you refer to are, however, completely irrelevant.

as are chaff and cloud seeding in a chemtrail discussion so leave it out of the discussion.

Uh?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

The part of your post I responded to was honestly the only part of your post that stood out to me. I figured that was the overall intention of your post (to claim that the skeptics have provided undeniable proof and that the believers are completely incorrect due to the so called proof the skeptics have provided). I have no problem answering any questions you may have, but I must apologize I am not exactly sure what it is you are asking me. Since I asked you a question, I guess it's only fair you ask me a question as well. Please specify exactly what it is you would like me to respond to, as I said I am not quite sure what you are asking.

ETA: I would also appreciate an answer to the original question I asked you in reference to your original post once we clarify exactly it is you would like me to respond to. Please keep in mind I just got home so and have some business to attend to so I may not be able to respond to you right away.

edit on 31-5-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: ETA

I hope you will not think me rude for this but in my rebuttal to your response to my statement I clearly identified the part of my original posting that I feel you either agree with or are ignoring for an as of yet unknown reason.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Before I offer an answer to your request I would ask that you kindly address the perceptual issues I raised as they are very pertinent to the thread in general.

By posting the above quote from my rebuttal I have now respectfully asked you twice to discuss the issues associated with the inability or ability of perceptions to act as a sole base for a claim of "fact." In your reply I do hope that you will engage in a dialogue with me regarding human observations; especially since a lot of the "chemtrail" debate is centered around observational based "facts."

I prefer to maintain a certain etiquette about postings and a core part of that etiquette is to thoroughly discuss a post in its entirety before engaging in dialogue about any questions that may come up during the discussion of the initial post. I must politely insist that we maintain a similar level of etiquette in this thread as this format will insure a logical and most efficient framework by which to insure a thorough discussion of all points within the debate

reply to post by CarlitosAmsel

Yes, why is it that not everyone comes to the same conclusion?

Maybe there are just as many people who do not believe there is anything different about what they see in the sky. There are photographs that show that there is nothing different. There are descriptions which show nothing is different.

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
Regarding this chemtrail phenomenon, I do not understand, how clear and sober observations of thousands of people can still be put down as being false.

Perhaps because the people claiming "chemtrails" are only guessing what they are made of.
Our modern world and it's marvels were not created by a group of people playing guessing games.
Sure, it "looks" like these planes are "pouring" stuff from their engines, in a sense they are, but it has been proven to be simple ice crystals. It has not been proven to be anything else.
Often things are not determined or proven by eyesight alone. (see my avatar ?)
If you fill your gas tank with diesel fuel, but you do not have a diesel engine...you then have a problem, even though the fuel "looked the same".

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
Why dont we proof and disproof the existence of the sun? I am sure, if we go on like people have been going on "proofing" the nonexistence of chemtrails, we will find arguments and reasons to claim, there is no sun...-

There were centuries upon centuries when civilizations were proving and disproving what the Sun was.
Let me ask you this....
...Now that we know a great deal about the Sun, if someone comes along and says, "the sun is not made mostly of hydrogen and helium.....it is made of white-hot coal, and I don't need to prove what I am saying because I go by what I see with my own eyes ...just look up !! " (carefully)
So, if someone said that, wouldn't you suggest that they go look at the data about the Sun...perhaps the data that we already have ??....and if they still insist it is made of coal...might you ask them for proof of their claim ?

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
I have no agenda for either claiming there are chemtrails nor have I an agenda to claim there are none. I simply look at what happens above my head in the sky and I necessarely come to the conclusion: There is stuff being poured out above my head.

** But the earth "looks" flat...just go look at the ocean horizon !!
** Look down a dark well, if you can't see the bottom, it 's bottomless !
** A guy goes into a tire store and sees just one set of 4 tires "on sale". He says I'll buy those. The tire store employee says, "Don't you want to see if they are the the right type and size for your car?". The guy says, "No, because they look like the right type and size, and that's all the proof I need".

You see my point here..??....that if you come to conclusions based mainly of "what you see", you often come to the wrong conclusions.

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
Now one does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that.

Correct, the "rocket scientist" will see the same thing you are seeing !! ...the difference being the scientist will not stop his investigation there, solely based on what he sees....with his curiosity peaked, he will begin to gather evidence.... a lot of evidence. He will also carefully examine the evidence gathered by others who have already examined this subject.

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
So I can only conclude, that many of the people who still claim, all those who see chemtrails are not capable of observation, have an agenda to claim, there are no chemtrails and maybe are being payed for it..

....More conclusions prior to investigation ?

reply to post by wcitizen


You seem to be the only "believer" posting now, so I'm going ask again. This is the exact same question I asked on Page 12.

Second question: Who is working on the airfields? Who is flying the planes? Who is making the chemicals? Who is in charge? Who is loading the chemicals onto the plane?

That is alot of people to control and brainwash into not speaking out to the public.

Final question: If this government is powerful enough to poison us or fix climate change from the air, why not make the chemicals invisible to the naked eye? Is it that hard to produce a chemical that is odorless and colorless?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CarlitosAmsel

 

Yes, why is it that not everyone comes to the same conclusion?

Maybe there are just as many people who do not believe there is anything different about what they see in the sky. There are photographs that show that there is nothing different. There are descriptions which show nothing is different.

edit on 6/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

but that is not true at all Phage. It is very different. Air traffic has increased exponentially over the last 20 years. Population has increased. All pointing to more lines in the sky. It makes perfect sense that people would just start noticing all this, it's just sad that they won't listen to logic and reason as to what they are seeing. Some folks need a boogyman to blame. I guess chemtrails are as good a scapegoat as any.

reply to post by network dude

I wasn't talking about quantity. Contrails behave the way they always have. But it's not as if there was not heavy contrail activity until the 1990's.
contrailscience.com...

Just because someone notices something for the first time it does not mean that it is a new phenomenon.

reply to post by Phage


trust me, I am with you on this. I just thought that the increase in air traffic is a perfect reason why so many posters here are claiming to have only started to notice this phenomenon recently.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/61d1c74ce54b.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/595447ed7996.jpg[/atsimg]

these are normal days for my area. Unless I am specifically looking for contrails, I don't even notice them. If I lived closer to a flight path for RDU or some other major airport, I would expect to see lots more of them. Just like you don't see many if any at all in your area due to the upper air conditions. It's all perspective.

WCitizen,

I wanted to caution you that you may, inadvertently, be using a disinformation tactic yourself in your replies regarding anti-radar chaff. It is a well known fact that combat aircraft release chaff in order to jam and/or confuse enemy radar. This practice is in no way a secret, a conspiracy, or a sinister plot by TPTB.

The "chemtrail" phenomenon being discussed here has no relevancy to chaff. I am seeing from you this insistence that chaff being released proves that "chemtrails" are real and it is this observation which prompted me to post. What you are doing is forming what I call a false association between chaff and "chemtrails." Often times the goal of a false association is to cause two unrelated topics to be seen as associated and thus one topic receiving validation causes validation to be applied to both. In the instance of chaff your posts are dangerously close to looking like a classic disinformation tactic of false associations. By very definition the "chemtrail conspiracy" and chaff are not in any way related. By a broader definition of "something man made being dumped in the sky" they do have commonality. This commonality does not survive zooming back to the "sinister PTB super secret conspiracy" definition of "chemtrails". In other words you can from a macro definition to encompass both but you can not form a micro definition from that macro and have both still encompassed. Therefore I want to caution you about referring to chaff as any sort of "proof" of chemtrails as it greatly weakens your position to be seen as using a classic disinformation tactic such as false associations.

If 'chemtrails' exist, there would be proof. People point at contrails (something known to exist) and say they are 'chemtrails', but offer ZERO evidence of what they are composed of.

This really is the 'true believer' topic to take the cake. It's like debating the reliability of the Bible with a fundamentalist christian. They 'believe' and no FACTS or lacktherefof will sway their pre-determined, ne'r wavering FAITH.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
If 'chemtrails' exist, there would be proof. People point at contrails (something known to exist) and say they are 'chemtrails', but offer ZERO evidence of what they are composed of.

This really is the 'true believer' topic to take the cake. It's like debating the reliability of the Bible with a fundamentalist christian. They 'believe' and no FACTS or lacktherefof will sway their pre-determined, ne'r wavering FAITH.

You are correct, some of our resident chemtrailers have a religious like zeal in their faith that we are being sprayed. And they do react in the same way that someone who is deeply religious acts when something is pointed out that contradicts their faith.

I still would like to know why the sky is washed out white instead of Azure day in and day out it is white when you look up from the ground.
Anyways good thread and lots of ammo being tossed around and I like it but I do not like white sky's
Regards, Iwinder