A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science:

Chemtrail believers claim that persistent contrails are a new thing, and they call the persistent trails "chemtrails". They also claims that contrails don't last a long time, and they certainly don't spread out and cause cirrus clouds and overcast skies. They also claim the chemtrails started in the late 1990s.

And yet, here's an issue of Popular Science, from 1969, 43 years ago, which says:

How Jet Planes affect weather

The reflectivity of the earth is also altered by jet contrails, say Dr. Walter Orr Roberts, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Contrails, Dr. Roberts explains, do not simply spread out at the 30-40,000-foot altitudes where jets fly, but spawn cirrus clouds by seeding the upper atmosphere with ice crystals from the water vapor in jet exhaust. On a clear day, you can often see this happening near heavily traveled airways.

"It is almost certain that on many occasions - 30 to 40 days a year, say - the cause of cirrus cloud cover can take in a substantial part of a continent, perhaps half of the U.S., and has a substantial influence on our radiation budget"

- Popular Science, May 1969, Page 76

So if contrails did this 43 years ago, and back then they were doing it for 30 to 40 days of the year, then why do some people insist that this is something new? Why the mantra of "contrails fade away, chemtrails persist and spread"? Clearly contrails quite frequently persist and spread, at least according to the science of 43 years ago.

So consider your options here, what could be going on?

A) The Popular Science Article is a modern fake. Clearly not true, Popular Science was a magazine with a very high circulation, and there are thousands of copies of this issue still in existence, all of which are the same. This particular copy I bought on eBay for $3. Many people have collections that include this copy. It's impossible for it to be a modern fake unless that includes having a time machine.

B) The Popular Science Article is 1969 Propaganda, brainwashing people for the chemtrails to come. If this were true it would be quite breathtakingly ambitious, risky, and entirely nonsensical. Why would they put an article in a magazine about something that they were not planning to do for 30 years? Why would they put descriptions of things that anyone with eyes could see were not happening at the time? They expect nobody to notice this blatant lie for 30 years?

C) The Popular Science Article is true. Contrails do quite often persist and spread and turn into cirrus clouds and affect the weather. The claims of movies like "What In The World Are They Spraying" are lies.

So what do you think, chemtrail believers? One of the above? Something else? Clearly someone is lying to you. Is it me? Is it Popular Science from 43 years ago? Or is it Michael J. Murphy?

reply to post by Uncinus


Well this should be very interesting to see where they go with this.

I have found that when you really put their backs to the wall they seem like they are scared to reply, and especially with what you are showing them.

I can't wait.

Geoengineering research began as a war tactic in the 1940s for the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.[49] During the Vietnam War, the US used geoengineering to flood certain areas. Then in 1976, 85 countries signed the U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.[47]
The Environmental Modification Convention generally prohibits weaponising geoengineering techniques. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may serve as weapons of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy.[76] They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war[77] (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.[78]
Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war,[79] it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.[original research?]
Carnegie's Ken Caldeira said, "It will make it harder to achieve broad consensus on developing and governing these technologies if there is suspicion that gaining military advantage is an underlying motivation for its development..."[80]



So... A magazine with an agenda says they are fine. That means you believe it?

EDIT: I am living in the new dustbowl (Indiana) and i witness these trails killing clouds on a daily basis. I have timelapsed pictures that show how when clouds reach a particular altitude, they just dessipate and die. The chemicals are kept at a specific altitude, just as oxygen is kept to a particular altitude as governed by our earth's unseen forces. Once clouds reach the elevation of the chemicals, manmade science unfolds.

Originally posted by chadderson
So... A magazine with an agenda says they are fine. That means you believe it?

It's not at all about saying it is fine - in fact the article says these contrails cirrus might be quite a problem. It's about saying that natural jet contrails persist and spread, and always have.

The science in 1969 says they did. Do you claim the science in 1969 was fake, or propaganda? 30 years before anyone noticed "chemtrails", you think they were trying to tell people it was okay by publishing things that anyone could see were untrue?

reply to post by Uncinus


So non chemical trails can create clouds. Ok. The same pattern can be replicated with actual chemicals, and these can also spawn, or kill clouds. The manipulation of the weather is real.

Now i argue neither for nor against the chem-trails, however do not dumb down chemtrail believers to rednecks with to much time, just like the mainstream labels us tin foil hats.

I agree, there are videos on youtube, that make the whole chem trail scenario seam implausible, and in some cases videos where they are blatantly claiming contrails to be "chemtrails", and those who claim every thing is a chemtrail. But lets be honest, i can find videos completely miss representing pretty much any theory on here, making is sound like utter BS.

However, i can tell you, that those who truly believe in chem trails and went done their research believe along these lines :

1. First of, only a few, unmarked and specially fitted airplanes spread the Chemicals
2. Contrails are normal, and can cause cloud cover
3. Will refer to instances, when the unmarked planes, did checker patterns back and forth (with multiple visible U turns, just back and fourth)
4. Incidents, where after checkered sky, local epidemics start (Only very few of these)

So they do NOT believe, that every single aircraft is part of a depopulation conspiracy, nor do they deny contrails, or the lasting effect of them. They are claiming a conspiracy, where the military or private companies, are flying with specially fitted passenger planes which have been fitted with chem tanks instead.

Deny Ignorance

Namaste

reply to post by chadderson

EDIT: I am living in the new dustbowl (Indiana) and i witness these trails killing clouds on a daily basis. I have timelapsed pictures that show how when clouds reach a particular altitude, they just dessipate and die. The chemicals are kept at a specific altitude, just as oxygen is kept to a particular altitude as governed by our earth's unseen forces. Once clouds reach the elevation of the chemicals, manmade science unfolds.

But I thought chemtrails were identified because they persist and spread out, but you're saying they actually kill clouds

reply to post by ZombieJesus


If you can create clouds, you have to understand how the process works, this uncovers not only the creation but the destruction. Everything in reality functions out of polarity in some way shape or form, this is a duality we live in.

Yes, clouds can be created, and clouds can be destroyed.

Originally posted by chadderson
reply to post by Uncinus

 

So non chemical trails can create clouds. Ok.

But the issue here is that most chemtrail believers, especially those who promote the theory with their "documentaries" claim that non-chemical trails cannot, or that it's incredibly rare. This shows they are wrong. And this has been pointed out to them so many times that it's quite difficult to claim they are not lying.

Ask any hardcore chemtrailer - they will tell you "contrails quickly dissipate, chemtrails spread out to cover the sky". They are wrong, they have been lied to.

reply to post by chadderson

Yes, clouds can be created, and clouds can be destroyed

Of course they can,and they call it weather. A naturally occuring process.

reply to post by Uncinus

What happens to threads like this, where fact and logoic prevail over ignorance and supposition, is tht you will get a smattering of acknowledgements from those who say, "Of course;" and a deafening silence from the faithful.

The hardest thing for a believer in myth is to have all of their precepts and presuppositions handed back to them, neatly tied up, in irrefutable evidence.

How dare you?!

If I were you, and motivated enough, I would save this OP and drop it onto every single facetious, specious and ill-begotten "chemtrail" smokescreen (to borrow one of their favorite pejoratives for "facts").

Good job
S&F

jw

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by chadderson
reply to post by Uncinus

 

So non chemical trails can create clouds. Ok.

But the issue here is that most chemtrail believers, especially those who promote the theory with their "documentaries" claim that non-chemical trails cannot, or that it's incredibly rare. This shows they are wrong. And this has been pointed out to them so many times that it's quite difficult to claim they are not lying.

Ask any hardcore chemtrailer - they will tell you "contrails quickly dissipate, chemtrails spread out to cover the sky". They are wrong, they have been lied to.

You realize that your claim that "most believers think X" is a completely relative, and otherwise baseless statement. I do see what your intent here was. It is to prove that "normal" jet trails can create clouds.

reply to post by Uncinus


I smell Cointelpro (well divide and conquer) , The point should be that there could be a conspiracy, that the government and/or other agencies could be spreading chemicals in the atmosphere.

Now be they, heavy metals to reflect the increasing dangerous sun rays, or poisons slowly killing us, i would want to know if they sprayed something.

Yet this conversations keeps getting thrashed by stupid arguments like do Contrails persist or not, when there are videos of unmarked planes, suddenly having a contrail, then not, and then again, at the same altitude.

Unfortunetly it looks like from this thread, that Icke was at least right about one thing, they dont really need Cointelpro anymore, there is so much focus on turning on each other, that we police ourselves from looking to far.

The way i see this, then this thread is like, if we took the ghost plane theory, and made it the main focus of 9/11....

Namaste

Originally posted by chadderson
You realize that your claim that "most believers think X" is a completely relative, and otherwise baseless statement.

I'm basing that on my interactions with the believers. I've talked with a lot of them, in real life and online. I've also conducted an online survey. Based on that, most of them seem to believe in the "contrails always dissipate" hoax.

I do see what your intent here was. It is to prove that "normal" jet trails can create clouds.

And also to demonstrate that the chemtrail promoters are spreading deliberate untruths. There's no way they can study this to the extent that they make their living from it, and not have found out by now that their science is bogus. They deliberately choose to not tell the truth.

Originally posted by WiseThinker
Yet this conversations keeps getting thrashed by stupid arguments like do Contrails persist or not, when there are videos of unmarked planes, suddenly having a contrail, then not, and then again, at the same altitude.

It's hardly a stupid argument if it's the basis of the chemtrail theory, that 90% of the chemtrail believers think it's true, and yet it's wrong.

And on/off contrails are also covered perfectly by the science, another thing the promoters ignore.

reply to post by Uncinus

Ask any hardcore chemtrailer - they will tell you "contrails quickly dissipate, chemtrails spread out to cover the sky". They are wrong, they have been lied to.

Well since they love to post youtube videos I have for them this.



Maybe they will understand it better this way.

Is this what yer talking about OP?

Then it is settled. Jet trails can cause clouds, and jet trails can also dessipate entirely. I guess i began spouting on for no real reason as you never indicated any disagreement.

Yeah...well....today, the planes were out, in force...1 after another. I saw 6 planes within 1/2 hour. Even recorded it on my digital camera. You know the strange part? They haven't been out in 2 months. Even stranger??? They were spraying non-stop on Christmas...and just about every day since....til about 2 months ago...when they stopped. And now, they're back. This, i would looooooove to hear an 'excuse' for.

You know what else is strange? All of a sudden...there have been 2 posts TODAY...regarding chemtrails/geo-engineering. What's up with that??? Why....today? Why the planes....why the discussion regarding these mysterious streaks you call: "lingering con-trails". All just a coincidence, right?

"They" probably caused this drought. Now, they're gonna make it rain. Maybe, that's why music industry artists, call TPTB, "rain-man".

Originally posted by poppycock
Is this what yer talking about OP?

edit on 18-7-2012 by poppycock because: (no reason given)

That's it. Michael J. Murphy there is making claims that directly contradict the Popular Science article from 1969. So either Popular Science (and all the other science from that time) is lies, or he's saying things that are not true.