Geoengineering - caught in the act?

Then that link takes me to Contrails

Military aircraft take precautions to avoid contrails which greatly enhance visual detection ranges, including choice of altitude and (at least in Ryan Model 147 reconnaissance drones) use of chemical agents (chlorosulphonic acid) injected into exhaust.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Contrailer will always state.
chemtrails prove it!

The easy way to do that would be to,
prove there is no chemicals in contrails.
I have not been able to prove
there is no chemicals in contrails.

With their info alone how many chemicals do you see in this picture?

reply to post by Gmoneycricket

That's great that you're aware that there are by products from the burning of kerosene, but I've not seen a single person proclaim that this is a device used by the military government to chemtrail the population.


Obviously there are 'chemicals' in the exhaust of jet engines, or any combustion of fossil fuels. No one has ever denied that. But the premise of "chemtrails" is that there is a concerted effort to add something else that wasn't there before ~1998, even though no one who believes wholeheartedly in chemtrails can seem to tell you what it is. Did you not know this or are you deliberately obfuscating the topic?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
The Contrailer will always state.
chemtrails prove it!

The easy way to do that would be to,
prove there is no chemicals in contrails.
I have not been able to prove
there is no chemicals in contrails.

With their info alone how many chemicals do you see in this picture?

edit on 18-3-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)

Every two weeks someone gets the bright idea that chemtrails must exist because airplane exhaust has chemicals in it (like H2O), and it forms a contrail.

But that's not proving chemtrails exist. It's just broadening the definition of chemtrails to include contrails.

That's like broadening the definition of aliens to include humans, and then saying you've proved there are alien bases on earth, such as Edwards AFB.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
The Contrailer will always state.
chemtrails prove it!

The easy way to do that would be to,
prove there is no chemicals in contrails.
I have not been able to prove
there is no chemicals in contrails.

With their info alone how many chemicals do you see in this picture?

edit on 18-3-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)

That brings up a question...

Do chemtrail believers think the chemicals are produced/added to the exhust of the engine or is it sprayed out of some kind of nozzle tank system?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I have a few questions.....

If the Government was going to disperse chemicals etc why not always do them at night?

Where would these planes come from, how are they filled, how are these vast amounts of chemicals transported, made all in secret? When we are talking, what, 10,000s people involved with huge factories, huge specialized aircraft fleets, massive storage...... one needs to follow the strings to the source and not just look at the end result, if there is no string...then I would bet they are ALL just normal contrails.

All it takes is someone in a higher position then you telling you to do your job and fill that plane with chemicals... I do not know too many people that question their job orders when it's normal routine.

Just because the person is flying the plane, it does not mean they know what they are dropping, for sure... As far as the pilots are concerned they were told to do something and they did it... That's what good sheeple do...

Eat, work, sleep... feed the machine...

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Captain Beyond
reply to post by ProudBird

 

What airline was that? Air America?

If it was Air America then what do you think the purpose of ATS really is??

Is that you PROUD BIRD? Are you and Aloysious The Gual the same person?
If not, why then do YOU answer for him?

I didn't answer the question

And it is a public forum - you don't get to choose who responds to public posts.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I am not saying you can not or should not answer questions directed to Proud Bird,
just cant help but notice the identity confusion. Thats all

You know, kind of like the confusion Proud Bird has when he claims he is a pilot
working for an airline, but he somehow knows the flight paths of USAF KC-135
and also is positive they are not practicing SRM flights, even though he is
not in the USAF.

Confusion abounds with you deniers.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I am not saying you can not or should not answer questions directed to Proud Bird,
just cant help but notice the identity confusion. Thats all

There's none here - and if you are confused perhaps you should improve your reading skills or get new glasses - the names are not the same, nor are the avatars.

You know, kind of like the confustion Proud Bird has when he claims he is a pilot
working for an airline, but he somehow knows the flight paths of USAF KC-135
and also is postive they are not practicing SRM flights, even though he is
not in the USAF.

Oh - right - yes I can see why you would be confused.

He uses evidence, research, and knowledge. There's your problem.

Confusion abounds with you deniers.

Only for you.

And I'm amazed that you consider this some sort of confusion, and yet apparently you are not at all confused by the contradictory and unsupported claims about the existence of chemtrails and non-existent geo-engineering programmes.
]

reply to post by burntheships

Confusion abounds with you deniers.

Confirmation bias, (dear or sir)....confirmation bias.

There are MANY people who understand this basic concept.

There are ALSO many people who grasp many, many aspects of aviation.

Try to learn....many of US know already....we are attempting to educate you others....

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by burntheships

 

Confusion abounds with you deniers.

Confirmation bias, (dear or sir)....confirmation bias.

There are MANY people who understand this basic concept.

There are ALSO many people who grasp many, many aspects of aviation.

Try to learn....many of US know already....we are attempting to educate you others....

edit on Mon 19 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Try to learn is your favorite statement, we are all here to learn how the moon is the sun and then lectured to extremes on how the sun never lies?

Yep we are all here to learn allright.
and if you don't mind can you lay off the caps on your preferred catch phases and words.
We can all read fine here without your capping every word that you want to stress.
Now back to the topic at hand, I believe and nobody has yet to sway me here that they are definitely doing the Geo engineering thing and they are doing it heavily here day in and day out.

What I am looking at out the window as I type this is not natural in my opinion and my opinion is 52 years in the same city under the same flight paths.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by ProudBird

There are ALSO many people who grasp many, many aspects of aviation.

Yes, and some of them even keep proper log books.

However, once again Proud Bird, a civilian pilot would have no knowledge
whatsoever of USAF KC-135 SRM flights.

So, your ingonorace is showing, and your argument from "authority" is
an EPIC fail.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by burntheships
You know, kind of like the confustion Proud Bird has when he claims he is a pilot
working for an airline, but he somehow knows the flight paths of USAF KC-135
and also is postive they are not practicing SRM flights, even though he is
not in the USAF.

Oh - right - yes I can see why you would be confused.

He uses evidence, research, and knowledge.

I just about fell off my dainty little swivel chair laughing at that.
There you are again, speaking up for Proud Bird.

How do you know what he presents is true, as its usally his argument from "authority"
which is a fallacy to begin with.

And you certainly have been caught red handed, presenting disinformatiom,.
claiming that the E-PEACE experiment was simply "ship tracks".

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by ProudBird

There are ALSO many people who grasp many, many aspects of aviation.

Yes, and some of them even keep proper log books.

However, once again Proud Bird, a civilian pilot would have no knowledge
whatsoever of USAF KC-135 SRM flights.

so do you think that any civilian can have any knowledge of KC-135 SRM flights at all? Or is it only civilian pilots who cannot, and civilians other than pilots would have knowledge?

How does this all relate to claims by civilians these flights are happening at all?

Ultimately should it not be about evidence - such as there should be some to support any claims that such flights might actually be happening?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


"so do you think that any civilian can have any knowledge of KC-135 SRM flights at all? Or is it only civilian pilots who cannot, and civilians other than pilots would have knowledge?

How does this all relate to claims by civilians these flights are happening at all?"


Actually it relates very much so and if you cannot see that you are wasting your time I think.
Regards, iwinder

Regarding Proud Birds last post, If I may I will list his capped words in order.....


MANY
ALSO
US

That is is sure way to plant some seeds I think?
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

"so do you think that any civilian can have any knowledge of KC-135 SRM flights at all? Or is it only civilian pilots who cannot, and civilians other than pilots would have knowledge?

How does this all relate to claims by civilians these flights are happening at all?"


Actually it relates very much so and if you cannot see that you are wasting your time I think.
Regards, iwinder

Perhaps you could explain the relationship then?

reply to post by Iwinder


It is VERY clear that the YouTube video that claimed that the FedEx flight was in a near "mid-air" is WRONG!!!!

In ti a LIE!!! A LIE, a LIE a LIE!!!!

I cannot explain it any more clearly than I have done, already.

The date of the YouTube video gives it away.

A FedEx jet has TCAS onboard.....do you know what TCAS is??

Here, I will post a link:

THIS is the video I am discussing...

It is a FedEx airplane....so reight there, the TITLE is a LIE!!! (The title calls it a "passenger" airplane).

Just...THINK!!!!

That is a request....I am trying to help, here.....

TCAS, a Wiki description

THIS MEANS that, contrary to the "claims" of that YouTube video.....there was NO,,,,and I repeat NO "near mid-air collision" risk.


YOU (all of you) that fell for that premise have been FOOLED!!!

The point of a TCAS that was present on the FedEx airplane is....they (the crew) KNEW of the airplanes that were above, and below thie!!

THAT IS WHAT TCAS DOES!!!!

I cannot be more clear on this fact.....other airline pilots UNDERSTAND this basic con cept!!!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
so do you think that any civilian can have any knowledge of KC-135 SRM flights at all? ........

Once again, your false dilemma
argument is an epic fail.

Actually the truth is, civilians certainly have witnessed the KC-135 Stratotankers
spraying, yet you and your crowd deny that credible.

Even so, you can not deny that in multiple research papers, and even
Congressional Reports, the KC-135 is named as the most affordable
aircraft that is already capable to perform the Solar Radiation Management
Flights. Here, again the KC-135 is in the GAO 7/11 Report.

It could cost $35 billion to $65 billion in the first year and $13 billion to $25 billion in each
subsequent year to inject sufficient sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to counteract global
warming caused by doubling preindustrial CO2 concentration.

Robock and colleagues estimated the cost of injecting 1 million tons of a sulfur gas (that will
become sulfate aerosols) per year into the stratosphere (Robock et al. 2009). ............

.........The scaled cost estimate is $35 billion to $65 billion in the first year (the cost of the airplanes
used to inject the aerosols plus 1 year of operations) and $13 billion to
$25 billion in operating costs in each subsequent year to sustain the effort. Robock and
colleagues considered several potential aerosol injection systems,

including KC-135
aircraft-refueling tankers and F-15 aircraft. www.gao.gov...