Chemtrail plane over NJ 11/14/10

Mathius.....here is what you want

Yes, there is geo-engineering going on right now. (cloud seeding)
Yes, they've tested various techniques. (reflectivity)

Albedo...en.wikipedia.org...
SRM ....en.wikipedia.org...
CDR.....en.wikipedia.org...
Radiative forcing....en.wikipedia.org...
hydroscopic....en.wikipedia.org...


...there you go.
Now what in those, makes long lines in the sky ?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



I do know those terms. What does reflecting a bit of sunlight back into space, managing CO2, albedo (a measure of reflectivity) have to do with chemtrails? Fine, those are a type of geo engineering, i shouldnt have said that it isnt going on. Thats my bad. What i meant by that was that it is not going on on the scale you seem to think it is.If you are suggesting that they are spraying the air with chemicals to reflect sunlight back out then show me the proof.


Show me pictures of the tanks of chemicals. Show me the fittings on the planes. Show me a picture that isnt a contrail. SHow me that you at least understand that its possible for contrails to suddenly start and stop as the plane climbs through layers of different temps of air, show me interviews with people who work at the chemical plants making the thousands of tons of the stuff , show me interviews with mechanics who have come across odd fittings on planes. Show me SOME actual concrete proof. Not a series of vaguley similar dots that you deem fit to connect.

As it is right now, you have forced 2 jigsaw pieces together and get indignant when people try to tell you its not right. You spout big words, as if to show that you know all this "science". Well done. You read a few articles and found a few more unconnected dots to try to force into your "pattern".

But i dont want to know all this. Its a very very simple request. Dont try to impress me with your entry level science knowledge. Just show me actual concrete proof. Not a link to more crackpot youtube channels, not a link to another conspiracy theorists webpage...and if you cant see how that does not equate to proof then i cant help you.

Im happy to be proved wrong, but it will ONLY be by concrete proof. Not by bandying scientific terms around and wild assumptions. Saying "contrails used to look different!!" is not proof. Do you know the ins and outs of every engine made in the last 20 years? IS it not more likely that engines have changed and flight properties have changes in 20 years and therefore contrails than there is a global conspiracy on a scale that is hard to image of people spraying the air we breathe with chemicals? Seriouly, which one is more likely?

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


Anyone can google or wiki

I asked for THE OTHER POSTER to describe them in their own words.

But since you decided to cheat and help him, maybe you'd like to define them using your own words.

They are relative to Geoengineering, radiative forcing effects of clouds like cirrus aviaticus affect the Earth albedo.
The hygroscopic material found in jet exhaust creates the persistent contrails.

NORMAL contrails do not persist because they do not contain hygroscopic salts

BTW, you failed CDR

CDR does not stand for Climate Data Records

CDR is Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reduction


also you failed hygroscopic, I did not say hydroscopic

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



he didnt "cheat". LOL.

I was typing my reply as he typed his. Plus i have a degree in physics and am not an idiot and other than CDR, i knew what those terms meant.

reply to post by 3danimator


you actually came closer with CDR than eye did.

At least you said "managing CO2

Originally posted by 3danimator
....Show me SOME actual concrete proof. Not a series of vaguley similar dots that you deem fit to connect.

www.youtube.com...=03m52s
...tried to link the video to the precise time, 3m52 seconds....forward to that time....

So videos of snow falling is the new chemtrailers holy grail???

reply to post by EyeDontKnow



What am i supposed to be looking at? I skipped to that time

reply to post by 3danimator

i have a degree in physics and am not an idiot

Dont try to impress me with your entry level science knowledge.

Hmmmm, funny how my "entry level" of science knowledge seems to be a lot more useful than your degree in physics. When it comes to this topic.

BTW, 20+ years ago, taking my SAT.... I scored in the top 1% of the USA in science

reply to post by 3danimator

You were supposed to see how lines can be connected anywhere, and conclusions upon those invented lines are baseless.

Regardless if I post the wrong links.....the question still stands.......How do those definitions relate to long white lines in the sky ?

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


I already answered this

They are relative to Geoengineering, radiative forcing effects of clouds like cirrus aviaticus affect the Earth albedo.
The hygroscopic material found in jet exhaust creates the persistent contrails.

Persistent contrails are one kind of SRM

BTW....how would "describing them in our own words"...change what they really are ?
In fact, that would be distorting them.

What is "The hygroscopic material found in jet exhaust " ??

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


Get me a sample and I'll tell you exactly.

Right now I can only assume,

Here's the wiki link again and a quote to help you out

en.wikipedia.org...

Hygroscopic substances include sugar, caramel, honey, glycerol, ethanol, methanol, diesel fuel, sulfuric acid, methamphetamine, many salts (including table salt), and a huge variety of other substances.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by 3danimator

 

i have a degree in physics and am not an idiot

Dont try to impress me with your entry level science knowledge.

Hmmmm, funny how my "entry level" of science knowledge seems to be a lot more useful than your degree in physics. When it comes to this topic.

BTW, 20+ years ago, taking my SAT.... I scored in the top 1% of the USA in science

edit on 16-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

Well done. And go ahead and ignore my calls for concrete evidence. Its just as i thought. You cant provide ANY. Therefore will ignore it. LOL

Why am i still bothering? OK, this time, im really out. Go get help. You need it if you are so desperate for something like this to be true that you see patterns that dont exist and believe things without proof. Top 1% you say? Yeah right!

Where is Mr physics to explain this?



Threw this one here just for fun




Enjoy this video below

Belfort Group Symposium on Geoengineering

really ?....





...all that positiveness....and you don't even know ?

Why doesn't someone else get the sample then ?
Why doesn't Carnicorn or Rense, or the makers of WITWATS, etc...get a sample.
Surely they could pull away some video and book sales.....to garner enough money to break the story wide open ?
Why do they refuse to do so ?
In fact they could triple (or more) their investment, by doing so.

It just seems strange to me that they would hold back on that....like they are happier to just sell books and t-shirts....a sure bet.
If they were truly convinced.....they certainly would.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


The first two videos are not relevant. They are not proof. How is that proof? Do you understand what that word means? I understand the physics/chemistry of what you are saying. Im just sayng that they are not being applied to our atmosphere. Do you understand Mr 1%? Proof! Show me proof that they are spring our atmosphere with Dysprosium Nitrate or whatever.....

And since you are Mr 1% you know that for anythign to be scientifically valid, it has to be examined by different groups and they need to come up with the same results. So, your Belfort group might have a theory of what is going on (i dont have time to watch 55 mins of vid now) but unless what they are accusing can be corroborated by PROOF, not by valid science...proof, then its pointless.

Jesus....do you guys not understand what proof means. In this case it means multiple groups showing EVIDENCE of somethign and coming to the same conclusions. NOT talking about valid scientific theories/experiments that are only vaguely relevant.