It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am slightly confused. Looking for Info

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 


The thing is, and something I neglected to state in my original, was when I went outside at first, that cloud was not directly overhead, but close to it ... while I was facing east-northeast. As I watched it, it maintained it's form, but did drift to the east until you see where it was located in the video (Maybe 1000-1500 feet from me). It was never more than 500 feet from the ground. Again, this was a dark colored, tube-shaped, tightly compact, very long, and fast-moving cloud. I wish I would have got my camera earlier and went out back. The horizon is uninterrupted out there and you could have seen how far that cloud extended into the horizon ... a straight, long cloud extending for miles. I just can't imagine that it was what you described ... not saying it wasn't, I just can't imagine it. First time in my life I saw something like that, so yes, it was memorable. And yes, maybe clouds can form like that and it is just unusual for my area. Still, it was weird and it is difficult for me to comprehend that as a naturally occuring phenomenon. Just sayin.




posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Interesting. A couple from the first video, and particularly that second video, are very similar to what I witnessed. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another10Pin
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 


The thing is, .....(snip)
.....The horizon is uninterrupted out there and you could have seen how far that cloud extended into the horizon ... a straight, long cloud extending for miles. I just can't imagine that it was what you described ... not saying it wasn't, I just can't imagine it.


It's hard to "imagine" distance, with some sort of visual aide, after-the-fact.....
metabunk.org...



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAsay1LOVE

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

Unicorns:
17,700,000 hits
2,530,000 blogs
10,800,000 images
769,000 videos

They must be real too!


lol, really? if you dont like my thread man go to another please. i wont be offended, although i would miss the awesome trivia stats like this. youre like a snapple lid in a post


I thought he made a very good point with his post, to be honest.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 


I would like to offer you a few links to help you with your research.

Personally I think that these Geoengineering techniques are mostly still in the research and development phase.


Aerosol Disscussion-Some of the techniques possibly in R&D

Geoengineering Cost Analysis Study

Belfort Group - Case Orange Report

Rense Chemtrail Data Page

Rosalind Peterson on persistent jet contrails and Geoengineering


Clifford Carnicom Aerosol Crimes


Video Overview of the Case Orange Report


This should give you a good start in your research. I know this is a lot of material to go over. Take your time and review it. There's a lot more I could post for you but I don't want to overwhelm you with too much at once.

I hope this info helps you in your research OP. S&F



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Here is an excellent resource.
contrailscience.com...-125137
edit on 2/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdRock69


This should give you a good start in your research. I know this is a lot of material to go over. Take your time and review it. There's a lot more I could post for you but I don't want to overwhelm you with too much at once.

I hope this info helps you in your research OP. S&F


Don't just start researching in the 2%
Perhaps study the 98% science too...
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 27-2-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
This is from the coast to coast website:

"Research scientist Clifford Carnicom discussed his latest findings in the chemtrail phenomenon. Differentiating chemtrails from contrails, he noted that contrails from jets occur in cold dry air, and unlike chemtrails don't stay visible for long in the sky.Chemtrails result from planes conducting aerosol spraying in covert operations that pilots may not be fully briefed about, he said."

www.coasttocoastam.com...

OP. You may want to try to get ahold of Clifford Carnicom. Not sure how credible he is since i don't know him personally
, but I'm sure one of ATS's certified debunkers will come in soon and try to attack his character

edit on 28-2-2012 by mojo2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
There has been a buttload of posts about this topic on ATS and neither side can clearly present evidence of any kind. Soo with that being said we should just stop with this until there is solid proof( which will probably never happen) this topic is sensitive. people who think they know everything about everything always post what they think they know. But they really dont know anything. Confusing yes, informational..maybe. Ugh this is literally the 20th time i have posted on someones topic about this. I am a firm believer of chemical trails. And in my opinion it is a form of population control. but i have 0 evidence to support my claim..so to the nay sayers..Just say nay...lol and ill keep my mindset no matter what. But in the end this is going to be a dead end. So to the OP thank you for yet another forum about Chemtrails. I appritiate all research done about this topic.


and again i know someone is going to come and shove me off a cliff for agreeing...but ill gladly leap...


Excuse my spelling

edit on 28-2-2012 by Thisbseth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


thank you very much for the sources, i will def read through, and watch through the information you have provided



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


thank you, i will def look into the link provided. i understand with this topic people will stand firm on either side, and not much ground will be gained in either groups minds on the matter, but to say one side is ridicules, especially when so many people support the opposing side, that is ridicules to me. I will look at all of the information provided that may be in favor of chemtrails, as well as all information which disproves them. The search for knowledge should be never ending, and always adapting. i believe chemtrails are a real entity, but can appreciate non believes opinions, and can always learn from any perspective on any subject



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 


i appreciate your sources and will def research in to them, thank you



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thisbseth
There has been a buttload of posts about this topic on ATS and neither side can clearly present evidence of any kind. Soo with that being said we should just stop with this until there is solid proof( which will probably never happen) this topic is sensitive. people who think they know everything about everything always post what they think they know. But they really dont know anything. Confusing yes, informational..maybe. Ugh this is literally the 20th time i have posted on someones topic about this. I am a firm believer of chemical trails. And in my opinion it is a form of population control. but i have 0 evidence to support my claim..so to the nay sayers..Just say nay...lol and ill keep my mindset no matter what. But in the end this is going to be a dead end. So to the OP thank you for yet another forum about Chemtrails. I appritiate all research done about this topic.


and again i know someone is going to come and shove me off a cliff for agreeing...but ill gladly leap...


Excuse my spelling

edit on 28-2-2012 by Thisbseth because: (no reason given)


i couldnt had summed up this thread, and the several other chemtrial threads, any better than that. the debates really go no where. my main point in this thread was majority to gain more sources of information, for i knew believers and non believers alike would post many links to support their beliefs, but as a welcomed side effect of posting the question was the debate. i believe discussion and debate are very effective tools for not only increasing knowledge on areas we are unfamiliar with, but holding firm to a position also increases ones knowledge on the familiar material as well.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


i like the new thread you posted... i understand what you were saying and trying to do...but to me all you did was add your opinions to sources you quoted. those sources validating chemtrails and uses.

just because you say nay, and YOU cant find the references does not mean the sources do not exist...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

anyone please check out the OP by Gaul, very well presented i thought, easy to read. i may be wrong, but you gave me more tallies in my real column vs my hoax column.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
To the OP;


I find good reason to be encouraged by your measured approach towards researching this phenomenon. I say that acknowledging that the phenomenon in question might be the simple fact that people - despite assurances otherwise - are reticent to accept that the visible remnants of the passage of aircraft overhead are benign or entirely reasonable. It does not require assertions of support or dissent to me that you believe that they are what many confidently assert are simple contrails and nothing more, nor do I expect that these are some part of an evil or covert nefarious program kept secret from the public. Only that one is willing to accept that the question is legitimate.
Those of us here to assert the correctness of our position, or the obtuseness of the opposition are engaged in a long-standing contest; one not necessarily conducive towards answering the question surrounding the "lines in the sky."


Several members have made outstanding contributions to this thread, although I am afraid it may not lead to answering the matter at hand.


I apologies should this lead only to more confusion.


I note that you chose for this inquiry the heading of "Geoengineering" rather than "HOAX" so I am hoping that indicates your predisposition to not simply accept the pat "it can't be true" approach which many seem to bring to the table.


There is an interesting social engineering observation regarding this 'latest' iteration of curative technique to contain the dialogue. But that would be off-topic at the moment, so I will generalize in saying that even the stalwart must occasionally recognize that the nature of the topic is not one of deceit - no one here is making money by claiming anything one way or the other. We are simply discussing the matter among many who wish we would just accept their answer and move on to something else.


_________________________________________________________
In general


Some have addressed me directly, and I am obliged to respond, a few lead to areas which are not exactly germane to the OP proposed, and I would very much like to respect the topic and not stray far off that mark so forgive my referencing them. I'm just trying to be polite.


"Pilots"

Amazing as it evidently sounds, and as much as some pilots will object, yes - they are NOT "automatic" experts. Cab drivers are not automobile experts, Chefs are not gastroenterologists, gastroenterologists are not chefs, pilots are not mechanical engineers, nor are they atmospheric physicists. Why there should be hesitation to make such a statement is indicative of the nonsensical programming many of us have been subjected to throughout our lives.


Since the early days of aviation it seems we have been told that pilots are some kind of superheroes, 'captains' of the sky, and people whose seriousness and judgment it is foolish to contest. I say some might be so, some may have been so, but some are mere 'bus drivers' of the sky with little room in their minds for anything outside the routines they deal with and the demands their activities put on them. The same can be said of doctors, who we traditionally had been programmed to accepts as cookie-cutter copies of "Marcus Welby" the well-meaning and sincere doctor who dedicated his life to helping the infirmed and afflicted - instead of the 15-minute wonders who probably couldn't successfully pick out 5 patients they saw from a lineup of the last ten. But they, like many here will posture themselves, insist on the inviolate nature of their logical skepticism as "the end of the story."


I have long lamented this 'faux-godhead status' given to people who are apparently well-satisfied that they can - with authority - simply 'end' and inquiry such as the OPs. Sadly, many of my colleagues occasionally gravitate towards this position as well. Even I may have from time to time, fallen for the answer which relies on the ignorance of others (though I promise it would have been a lapse for me.)

Insofar as chemtrails..... "Pilots" - as in those who fly aircraft for a living - are in my estimation, as likely to be 'aware of' and 'technically competent' to discuss the possibility as any professional truck driver would be to discuss sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide trails which persist along their well-trafficked shipping routes. Some may well be experts, but not all are... and they are certainly not so by "definition."

As a result of this position, I am sure that all of our pilot members consider me among their 'least' favorite Mods:

"Something is real..."

Observational comments are often the most vulnerable to the "zero-effort" retort. "You're wrong." "You don't understand." "You're lying." "You're ignorant." Each such statement is traditionally approached by the same three-point strategy for the 'serial skeptic:' every skeptic's comment surrounding the "but I saw this..." claim will frame the observation as if

(1) the claimant were the only person to ever have made such a bonehead statement OR,

(2) that you have been influenced by some Kool-Aid-drinking fringe group psychobabble OR,

(3) you are some mentally deficient person who can't provide any satisfactory evidence for what you claim to have seen.


"Where’s the evidence?"


You will get none. Get over yourself. You define evidence in such a manner as that it cannot be provided. Nothing you will accept as evidence exists - especially in a digital medium. Most of you know that. So why ask?


So that you can exercise your skepticism? So you can belittle someone, diminish their dignity, make them feel 'wrong' for even asking about the topic? Please, join Madison Avenue/Hollywood where producers, directors, and editors do that for a living.

When I say I saw something you have either two choices - accept that you weren't there and try to help understand what was seen, or call me a liar. The rest is theater; and not conducive towards learning or teaching anything.


People have been watching aircraft fly with intense interest since the Montpelier brothers took off in their first balloon. Ask many people older than 60; and find out how many remember "persistent" contrails in the sky from horizon to horizon lasting for hours, let alone multiple trails....


Interestingly, it would appear logical that the persistence could be related to changes in our atmospheric consistency; airborne particulate matter, perhaps even other factors that have changed since the mid-20th century exploded in air traffic. But instead, people simply want a contrail to be a contrail and no other possibility exists which can threaten their iron-clad grasp of reality. Their doesn’t have to be a necessarily conspiratorial point to it all; but that doesn't mean we should blithely stumble about our lives not asking questions.

We know that certain commercial and 'governmental' agencies cooperate in research that is not officially 'sanctioned' don't we? Are we contending that some who have been exposed to this are lying... because "chemtrails don't exist?"

This is a bit further off topic than I would normally want to go but here are some links about how things get "done" in our world... and how we find out:


The Army has acknowledged that between 1949 and 1969, 239 populated areas from coast to coast were blanketed with various organisms during tests designed to measure patterns of dissemination in the air, weather effects, dosages, optimum placement of the source and other factors. Testing over such areas was supposedly suspended after 1969, but there is no way to be certain of this. In any event, open air spraying continued at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah.
Following is a small sample of the tests carried out in the 1949-69 period:
Watertown, N.Y. area and Virgin Islands
1950:
The Army used aircraft and homing pigeons to drop turkey feathers dusted with cereal rust spores to contaminate oat crops, to prove that a "cereal rust epidemic" could be spread as a biological warfare weapon.
San Francisco Bay Area
September 20-27, 1950:
Six experimental biological warfare attacks by the US Army from a ship, using Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcescens, at one point forming a cloud about two miles long as the ship traveled slowly along the shoreline of the bay.
One of the stated objectives of the exercise was to study "the offensive possibilities of attacking a seaport city with a BW [biological warfare] aerosol" from offshore.
Beginning on September 29, patients at Stanford University's hospital in San Francisco were found to be infected by Serratia marcescens. This type of infection had never before been reported at the hospital. Eleven patients became infected, and one died.
According to a report submitted to a Senate committee by a professor of microbiology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook: "an increase in the number of Serratia marcescens can cause disea 2000 se in a healthy person and...serious disease in sick people."
Between 1954 and 1967, other tests were carried out in the Bay Area, including some with a base of operations at Fort Cronkhite in Marin County.
Minneapolis
1953:
61 releases of zinc cadmium sulfide in four sections of the city, involving massive exposure of people at home and children in school.
The substance was later described by the EPA as "potentially hazardous because of its cadmium content", and a former Army scientist, writing in the professional journal Atmosphere Environment, in 1972, said that cadmium compounds, including zinc cadmium sulfide, are "highly toxic and the use of them in open atmospheric experiments presents a human health hazard". He stated that the symptoms produced by exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide include lung damage, acute kidney inflammation and fatty degeneration of the liver.
St. Louis
1953:
35 releases of zinc cadmium sulfide over residential, commercial and downtown areas, including the Medical Arts Building, which presumably contained a number of sick people whose illnesses could be aggravated by inhaling toxic particles.
Washington, DC area
1953:
Aerial spraying from a height of 75 feet of zinc cadmium sulfate combined with lycopodium spores. The areas sprayed included the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland and Leesburg, Virginia, 30 miles from the capital.
In 1969, the Army conducted 115 open-air tests of zinc cadmium sulfate near Cambridge, Maryland.
Earlier in the 1960s, the Army covertly disseminated a large number of bacteria in Washington's National Airport to evaluate how easy it would be for an enemy agent to scatter smallpox through the entire country by infecting air travelers.
The bacterium used, Bacillus subtilis, is potentially harmful to the infirm and the elderly, whose immune system is impaired, and to those with cancer, heart disease or a host of other ailments, according to a professor of microbiology at the Georgetown University Medical Center. A similar experiment was carried out at the Washington Greyhound bus terminal.
Sometime during Richard Nixon's time in office (apparently 1969), the Army "assassinated" him with germs via the White House air conditioning system.
And at a building used by the Food and Drug Administration, the Army surreptitiously placed a (supposedly harmless) colored dye into the water system. Whether anyone suffered harm from drinking a certain quantity of that water is not known.
Florida
1955:
The CIA conducted at least one open-air test with whooping-cough bacteria around the Tampa Bay area. The number of whooping cough cases recorded in Florida jumped from 339 and one death in 1954 to 1,080 and 12 deaths in 1955. The Tampa Bay area was one of three places that showed a sharp increase in 1955.
Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida
1956-58:
The Army, wishing to test "the practicality of employing Aedes aegypti mosquitos to carry a BW agent", released over wide areas hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of this mosquito, which can be a carrier of yellow fever and dengue fever, both highly dangerous diseases. The Army stated that the mosquitos were uninfected, but prominent scientists said that, for several reasons, the experiment was not without risk, and was a "terrible idea". The actual effects upon the targeted population will probably never be known.
New York City
Feb. 11-15, 1956:
A CIA-Army team sprayed New York streets and the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, using trick suitcases and a car with a dual muffler.
June 6-10, 1966:
The army report of this test was called "A Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents". Trillions of Bacillus subtilis variant niger were released into the subway system during rush hours.
One method was to use light bulbs filled with the bacteria; these were unobtrusively shattered at sidewalk level on subway ventilating grills or tossed onto the roadbeds inside the stations. Aerosol clouds were momentarily visible after a release of bacteria from the light bulbs. The report noted that "When the cloud engulfed people, they brushed their clothing, looked up at the grating apron and walked on."
The wind of passing trains spread the bacteria along the tracks; in the time it took for two trains to pass, the bacteria were spread from 15th Street to 58th Street. It will never be known how many people later became ill from being unsuspecting guinea pigs, for the United States Army exhibited not the slightest interest in this question.
Chicago
1960s:
The Chicago subway system was the scene of a similar Army experiment.
Stockyards
November 1964 to January 1965:
The Army conducted aerosol tests over stockyards in Texas, Missouri, Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska, using "anti-animal non-biological simulants". It's not clear why stockyards were chosen, or what effect this might have had upon the meat consumed by the public.



This is an unattributed post entry.. but nevertheless I will research for you examples of what kind of "it could never happen" theories similar in scope to "chemtrails" there were and are....


PRESS ADVISORY from the United States Department of Defense
No. 173-P
PRESS ADVISORY October 8, 2002
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) William
Winkenwerder, Jr., will hold a news conference to release 28
detailed fact sheets on 27 Cold War-era chemical and biological
warfare tests identified as Project 112.

The briefing will take place tomorrow, Oct. 9, 2002, at 1 p.m.
EDT in the DoD Briefing Room, Pentagon 2E781. These documents
will supplement information already posted on the World Wide Web
at.... "page not found"



Britains-Anthrax-Island-Known-Agents-of-Biological- Warfare


Here's one... in 2002 on October 8th, Matt Kelly reporting for local news in Miami

The United States held open-air biological and chemical weapons tests in at least four states - Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland and Florida - during the 1960s in an effort to develop defenses against such weapons, according to Pentagon documents.
A series of tests in Alaska from 1965-67 used artillery shells and bombs filled with the nerve agents sarin and VX, the records show.
The Defense Department planned to release summaries of 28 chemical and biological weapons tests at a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday. The Associated Press obtained the summaries Tuesday.
The documents did not say whether any civilians had been exposed to the poisons. Military personnel exposed to weapons agents would have worn protective gear, the Pentagon says.
The Pentagon previously acknowledged that it had conducted biological and chemical tests, but this was the first time it disclosed that some tests were conducted over land and not out at sea.
The tests were part of Project 112, a military program in the 1960s and 1970s to test chemical and biological weapons and defenses against them. Parts of the testing program done on Navy ships were called Project SHAD, or Shipboard Hazard and Defense.
The tests were directed from the Deseret Test Center, part of a biological and chemical weapons complex in the Utah desert.



There's more but the original article has been scrubbed from the Miami News archives... only copies can be found with broken link references... go figure
Look up Project SHAD....

There are films on Youtube of the documentation of the biological dispersal tests (or at least there used to be) ... but I cant access them at the moment.
-----------------------------------------


All of this is to say I like to have a place where this can be discussed - and I grow weary of those who "grow weary" of the fact that "they" can't be given the keys to a chemtrail plane with chemtrail chemicals as proof. Suffice to say you’re not going to get your proof the way you’re asking for it.


There are chemtrail patents, there are chemtrail contracts, there are geoengineering plans being discussed by think tanks, and lobbied for by certain industries (who can get rich doing it) ... best get used to the idea that the chemtrail conspiracy is not likely to dissipate the way contrails are alleged to....


I'll say it one last time for the crown to stick pins later if they desire.... Not all contrails are "just contrails." And if someone wanted badly enough to conduct aerial dispersal of aerosol chemicals they would rely heavily on those who insist that "all contrails are just contrails" to get away with it.


edit on 28-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
How could I forget this? www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 


Speaking of thinking outside the box, has it ever occurred to people that jet exhaust is a perfect way to put things in the atmosphere, because contrails are a known phenomenon and have existed as long as jets have been flying? Patents for aerial spraying do exist. I have posted them before and been blasted with such intelligent logic as, "Just because there is a patent doesn't mean it has ever been used in real life." LOL! Patents of this nature are usually the result of research and have a real purpose which is being underwritten, either by a large corporation, the government, or a rich sugar daddy who loves to dabble in science.

Here are a few links which list patents related to the topic at hand:

www.lightwatcher.com...

www.sovereignindependent.com...

www.thetruthdenied.com...

www.natmedtalk.com...

www.rense.com...


Here are some links that talk about it:

www.youtube.com...

www.cleanairandwater.net...

www.natmedtalk.com...

theintelhub.com...

I could have posted a bunch more, but I think this is plenty to start with. As the OP and AquaLung have pointed out, people KNOW that something isn't right, and all the denying and insulting in the world isn't going to change that. I personally didn't really believe in chemtrails until I moved out to a desert region and saw the jets spraying lines all over the place, when normally this area isn't a flight path for that many jets. I have seen them spray a long line, then turn around and do it in the opposite direction. I have seen them spray in short bursts, like lines on a road. Some have said that it's just jets from the Air Force Bases in New Mexico doing drills and practices. Somebody said the short bursts are due to temperature variations in the sky.

Whatever. All valid arguments, but the bottom line is, a lot of people know that something is screwy and not right. Our national health is in a death spiral. Asthma, Alzheimer's Disease and autoimmune disorders are going through the roof. Cancer is rampant. Plants and trees are dying and nature is not acting the same. Whatever the true cause is, I don't expect our government to tell us the truth, and I do expect there to be a fair share of nay-sayers and snarky posters who like to make fun ONLY ON CHEMTRAIL THREADS.

Do they change my mind? Hell no. Something is definitely wrong, the scientific patents are out there to do this, and as far as I can see, chemtrails and contrails exist side-by-side, and we are none the wiser as we all get sicker and sicker.

I applaud the OP for putting this thread out there and putting up with the nay-sayers. There are two forums that you can bet your bottom dollar you will get slammed on: Chemtrails and 9/11. I believe both are conspiracies.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 


Take a look through the following timeline. Persistent contrails have existed for a very long time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aqualung2012

My point in this comment should be clear: facts are relative to the observer. You can try all you want, but in the end, there is no silencing people's gut feeling.


That 'gut feeling' is based on complete ignorance of aviation. You see it repeatedly on ATS and on other media such as You Tube. People stumble upon these videos and dvds and come away that persistent contrails didn't exist before the late 1990s. They stumble upon misleading videos by the likes of Tanker Enemy and armed with that 'evidence' stumble onto internet forums and simply repeat. It is a never ending circle and these fraudsters are laughing all the way to the bank on the back of it.

How many 'chemtrailers' have actually researched upper air routes or joined aviation enthusiast group to find out about radio monitoring of Air Traffic Control? They just can't comprehend why airliners cross in the sky simply because they are ignorant of upper air routes and the Air Traffic Control procedures governing them.

Also consider that some of those believers are suffering from a mental illness. It is a very sad fact and I make no light of it. Sad as it might appear they need that bogeyman in their lives to justify their medical and mental problems. I feel extremely sorry for many of those individuals stumbling upon the money making 'chemtrail' fraudsters out there. They have comment approval pending on their You Tube Channels and therefore the viewer only can only see one side of the argument.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
While I'd be willing to accept that the longlasting effect of 'chemtrails' is only a function of altitude, temperature and humidity conditions at the height the plane was flying, what gets me is that the 'chemtrails' are often criss-crossing designs, and flight paths don't do that, at least not around here.

I live in the I-5 corridor about halfway between Seattle and San Francisco; planes are flying up and down between all the cities in that line all day long. Their contrails only last seconds and they seem to all be flying at the usual 30 to 40,000 feet that the pilots love to tell you about; so high up the plane is only a speck.

The contrails I see, and there's not many any more around here, make a darn plaid pattern in the sky. There's no where a normal flight would be going to create that pattern and if they did want to go from east of here to, say, Hawaii, the hubs are either Seattle, Portland, SFO or LA. Not straight over me and certainly not in a crisscross design. And, weirdly, I never see the plane; just notice the trails after the fact.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join